Lincoln telegraph. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1836-1846, 1840-05-21

ministers might have pursued in the matter. If
they keep the question unsettled, they abused
If they propose to compromise it, they abused;
and if they were TO propose to insist on the i'm
mediate surrender of the whole question by the
American government, they would be much more
loudly abused for plunging the country into a
war in order to enforce claim of very doubtful
Justice TO say the least oft. Of course the ground
now taken is, that ministers ought to concede
nothng and the very parties who abused and
still abuse them, for not enforcing the award of
the King of the Netherlands, fall into the ridicu-
lous inconsistency of denouncins that award as
exceedingly unjust towards England and one that
ought not to be submitted to. We think that
before these parties attack ministers they should
make up their minds as to the course which ought
to have been taken, and not prefer charges mani
fcstlv inconsistent with each other.
In the Times of Monday last, there is an article
on this subject, from which we make the following
extracts:
For two or three days past we have observed
some ugly symptoms of the manner in which our
national interests and honor likely to be treat
ed under the name of u settlement of the North
East boundary question, so long at issue with the
United States If the truth and Justice of that
question were generally understood by English
men, it would be recognised one which ought
never to have been tolerated by any British states
man. We repeat, that no such thing as q ques-
ton upon the rights of the British boundary
ought ever to have endured at all and never
would have been SO, if British ministers had
known and firmly discharged their duty. For if
the spirit or indeed, the express provisions, of
the treaty 1893 had been thoroughly insisted on,
they would have been found to disIguate and ac-
knowledge as British territory all the country to
the eastward, not merely of St Croix, but of the
Penobscot also, out of which, by some means or
other, England has permitted herself to be Jug
Il. 4 ,k~a foh thA,~ -.
dairy even to the ST. John's has ever been, on the
part of the people of Maine, most inquitous and
udacious--unsupported by common sense, and
assuredly unsanctioned by any early construction
of the terms of treaty which, in 1888, was sign
ed by ministers personally Ignorant of the terrific
ry which they described but in their references
to which they followed implicitly the received
denominations and landmarks of that period
The writer afterwards alludes to the reports
which we have mentioned above, and adds,-
Thus we are not merely to lose a large amount
of the Territory of which we have always, to this
hour, held possession but, in consideration Of
the credit and advantage derived TO England for
that loss, are further to pay down the fifth of
million sterling On this, of course, shah
have to bolt TRADE of congratulations from
Lord Palmerston.
Now, would it be believed by any but those who
are conversant with the profligacy of the Times,
that the terms of the reported settlement are
nearly identically the same as those of plan
suggested by that journal itself few months ago?
the difference being merely this, that, instead
of giving f200, 900, the Times proposed to sur
render to the State of Maine that part of the pro-
vince of New Brunswick which lies between the
St Croix and the st. John, comprising the town
of Fredericton, and very considerable extent of
improved and cultivated land, very far beyond the
value of 100000, to say nothing of abandoning
number of British subjects to fore ign govern
l~l~ - et nj
and affecting than any mere cesson of territory,
or grant of pecuniary indemnity. But, at the
period when the Times proposed its plan, there
was nothing to be gained by misrepresentation
of the facts or by preference of any one plan Of
settlement to another. Ministers had not then
given any indication of the course which they
were disposed to pursue; but, having now appa-
renlly adopted the basis of the very plan sugges-
ted by the Times, that journal, with its character
istic dishonesty, turns round and abuses its own
schemes, denouncing them as derogatory to the
honor and fatal to the interests, of the country.
And so the Times would abuse any other plan of
settlement that could be suggested, provided only
that ministers were to show an mclInaticn 10 a.
dept it.
As much blame has been attempted to be cast
upon the English ministers of 1881, for not hav-
ing enforced the award of the King of the Meth
erlands, all unjust as that award IS alleged to
have been towards this country,-we may here
observe, that it is perfectly clear that ministers
had neither the right nor the power to enforce it,
The question submitted to the King of the Meth
crlands was, simply, whe Their the English or the
American Interpretation of the treaty OF 1888,
was the correct one he had no authority to de-
eide on any intermediate course ; and, as soon as
his decision was made known, Mr.. Preble, the
American minister at the Hague, demonstrated
against it on the ground that it went beyond the
powers delegated to the arbitrator, which it man.
ifestly did.
But, even supposing the English government
should have been of opinion that the Americans
were bound to accept the award of the arbitrator,
how was the obligation to be enforced: BY 60
ing to war ? That would have been exceedingly
foolish If it was not worth while to continue at
war at 1914 for the sake of obtaining the whole
territory in dispute, it certainly could not be ad
visable TO commence fresh hostlities for the sake
of securing one third part of it, which had been
allotted by the King of the Netherlands; and
any minister that had taken such a course would
not merely have been subjects of Reproduction by
the entire people Of England
With respect TO the real merits of the bounda-
ry question, we minated our opinion some
twelve months ago; and nothing that has since
come under our notice has tended in the slightest
degree to change that opinion. That the Eng
sh negocators of the treaty of 1888 made a
most improvident bargain, we do not doubt that
they were overreached by their more crafty A
merican competitors is exceedingly probable ; but
that they put their hands to treaty giving to the
United States the country now in dispute, IS, we
fear bu. too certain, unless there are some facts
in the case, which have never come under our
notice The article in the Times, to which we
have already alluded, is founded up IN a long let
ter signed "W. J. ID. Waddlove," in which the
claim of the English governments and indeed