The Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1837-1845, 1840-12-31


farther east A line therefore drawn directly
north from the monument will cross that river
before il reaches the northwest angle OF Nova
Scotia, which is upon the highlands that DIVIDE
the rivers that fall into the Atlantic from thoss
that fall into the ST Lawrence. Inc me "h'sh
stretches along southwestward from The angie
is to pass along these highlands so dividing inc
waters, aud as il would run along the d,ViuihS
line between the sources OF the ~. johns ahu
those of The ST. Lawrence, most oil inc uis.ance
10 the Chaudiere river they contend that the
HIGHLAND does not answer 10 the treaty as the
waters of the ST. Johns on the south side DO ho'
| fall into the Atlantic ocean.
| This conclusion does not follow II The pre-
misses are well taken, because a line drawn ai
rectly north from the monument does not IAN
upon that part of the highlands which furnishes
sources to the ST. Johns, but 10 the Restiguoche
which is a river east of the ST Johns, ana ais
charges itself into Chaleures bay-they mus'
therefore prove not only that the 81. Johns does
not fall into the Atlantic ocean, but that me
Restigouche does not; and we are free 70 say
there is as good reason for maintaining me one
as the other.
The whole argument stands on the fact thai
these rivers find their way 10 the ocean through
bays; the first is for that reason sand 10 tau INTO
Fundy, and the latter with equal justice may De
said to fall into Chalcures
The ground assumed is that river running
into bay or sound, does not fall INTO the sea,
but into the bay or sound 1 this be true bays
and sounds are no part of the ocean. But we
believe this to be quite TOO limited a meaning 10
The words Atlantic ocean, when employed IN
the comprehensive sense designed by the COM
missioners who made the treaty of 1883. Bays.
sounds, inlcts, and even harbors are as much
narts Of the ocean as the open space OF water be-
tween us and Europe. They all belong 10 the
great Atlantic, and 20 10 make up the great
ocean, for they are all one common UNDIVIDED
mas, of water Their having names IN no Ie-
spect changes the fact bur leaves Chaeures and
Fundy as much parts Of the ocean as they were
before the names were assigned. All that can
be said is that they are places in the ocean bear
ing names-Liverpool and London are not the
less parts of England because they have names,
nor are the United States the less part OF
North America because they are known under
this designation.
But whether this be deemed conclusive ornot
a river which runs through bay does III fact tall
into the ocean, and all great rivers are usually
spoken OF as falling into the ocean, and yet per
haps there is not an instance in which one would
reach the ocean upon the British view of this
question; for we doubt whether one of any con
siderable magnitude can be found which does not
first enter a water by some other name. Tan
il be said that the English Channel or st
Georges Channel, or the North Sea, or the CULTS
of St Lawrence or Mexico, are not parts OF the
ocean or that IA river running into or through
them, does not fall into the ocean2 The ocean
is every where considered the common recepta-
Gle of rivers, and the waters of rivers, by the
universal understanding OF mankind, are consi-
dered as discharging themselves into it, though
il may be reached through bay or water by ano-
Their name.
If the makers Of the treaty did not mean this
it is impossible to comprehend them for all the
rivers from the Connecticut to the Restlguoche,
inclusive Of both, which have their sources IN
the highlands in question, find their way TO the
ocean through waters of some other name. The
Connecticut, through Long Island Sound the
Andrescoggin and kennebec, through the bay
of Sagadahoc; the Penobscot, through bay Of
the same name; the St. Johns, through the bay
of Funda and the Restlguoche, through the
bay of Chaleurs. They could refer 10 no other
rivers but these, because there are none; and it
the objection is well taken as to one, II is alike
applicable to all and the description which was
made to prevent all future disputes is without
meaning, because wholly inapplicabte TO the end
in view.
What is still more striking and conclusive is
the fact, that Mr. Mitchels map, published in
1855. is agreed to have been before the makers
Of the treaty as an authority for the topography
Of this portion of the country. This map con
tanned on its face all these rivers, and bays, and
their names inscribed upon them; and yet
yet we are told the commissioners did not mean
a river that falls into bay! What did they
mean2 What could they mean by rivers fall
ing into the Atlantic ocean! They had some
rivers in view, and yet there were none in eX-
istence but these They saw the bays on the
map, with their names Inscribed upon them, and
the rivers discharging into them, and vet il ne
~, ia
fall into the ocean. But this line along the
highlands was established by Great Britain her
self in 1868, between the Provinces of Quebec
and New Hampshire, Maine and Nova Scotia,
now New Brunswick all then under her Jurls-
diction; and She employed language TO describe
il which she deemed suitable and pertinent, =
We find it in the Kings reclamation establish
ing and fixing limits to the government OF Que
bee w e also find il in an act OF Parliament IN
l774-in the commissions OF the Governors OF
the Provinces, as well as in all official papers
where il was necessary to assign limits 10 the
jurisdiction and II is uniformly described, with
out any substantial variation, as "A line drawn
along The hight0lis Which diride The rtrfrs
that emptY themselves into The 81. Ld1r-
renee from those that fdH into the sea-
This, when we consider that Mitchell's map is
an English authority, and had then long been
pabshed, and that Great Britain was familiar
ly acquainted with all these bays, and the
mouths Of all these rivers, and well knew there
were none other would seem to be conclusive
as TO her opinion on this point W hen She spoke
of the divided waters, She meant 10y those fall
ing into the sea-these rivers are none other
Can we, with this evidence before US, believe
her serious IN setting up this distinction never
thought OF before, or at the time of making III,
treaty Remarkable as the fact may seem, il l.
nevertheless true that this idea originated after
the making Of the treaty of Client in 1874. IL
1874, as has already been stated, there was q
/ loint commission TO ascertain the source OF the
river st. Croix, and there was great examine
ton and much discussion IN regard 10 the wa
tiers intended by the treaty. In that DIS usslot
the British agent claimed, rs the commission
Il Nod