The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-11-18

speak on this question OF the eastern boundary. IL
is already agreed that We abstain from a continued
discussion OF the arguments by which the lines Of the
two countries recip ocaly maintained and |
have well observed this rule that have not even
communicated TO you a volume Of additional coniro-
yersal matter which | brought with me, and much
of which would, If controversy were our object, be
Of no nconsderabe weight aud importance. IL
would be IN the event only of the failure of this ne
COLLATION., which will not anticipate, that we should
be again driven into the labyrinth from which II Is
our purpose TO escape, and that failing 10 interpret
strictly the words Of the treaty should be obliged
to search again into cotemporaneous occurrences
and opinions for principles Of construction which
might shed light on the actual intentions of the par
ties.
Our success must, on the contrary, depend on the
reciprocal admission or presumption that the royal
arbiter was far right when he to the conclu-
sion which others had come to before him. that the
treaty Of 1888 was not executabe according to its
strict expression and that the therefore one
for agreement by compromise. The only point upon
which thought il my duty to enter upon anything
like controversy, is that referred To in my letter of
the 18th instant, and did so TO my Govern
ment and myself from an impuation of unworthy
motives, and the charge that they had set up claim
which they knew to be unfounded, from con-
sderations of policy or convenience. The assertions
of persons in my position, on subjects connected
with their diplomatic duties, are naturally received
10y the world with some cautions but trust you will
believe me when assure you that | should not be
the person to come here on any such errand l 10
not pretend, nor have j ever thought the claim of
Great Britain, with respect to this boundary, any
more than the claim Of America, TO be unattended
with difficulties Those claims have been consider
cd by impartial men, of high authority and unques-
toned ability, TO be equally attended, and there
fore it is that this is question for compromise,
and it is this compromise which it has become our
duty to endeavor to accomplish. will only here
add the most solemn assurance, which would not
lightly make, that after long and careful consdera-
a. ,af, ., ...F,
crcumstantial, bearing the whole Of this truly
difficult question, it is my settled conviction that it
was the intention OF the parties TO the treaty Of peace
Of 1888, however mperiectiy those intentions may
have been executed, to leave TO Great Britain, BY
their description of boundaries, the whole Of the
waters of the river St John
The length OF these preliminary observations
quires, perhaps, some apology, but | now proceed to
comply with your application to me to state tho
principles and conditions on which, it appears to me,
lat this compromise, which il is agreed should
attempt, should be founded.
A new boundary is in fact to be traced between
the State of Maine and the province Of New Bruins
wick. In doing this, reference must be had to the
extent and value OF the territory in dispute, but
general principle we cannot do better than keep in
mind the intention Of the trainers Of the first treaty
Of peace in 1888 expressed in the preamble to the
provisional articles in the following words: -" Where
reel rocal advantages and mutual convenience
found by experience to form the only permanent
foundation of peace and friendship between states"
sc. have on a former occasion explained the rea-
sons which have induced the British Government to
maintain their rights in this controversy beyond any
apparent value in the object in dispute be the
"a good boundary between our two
tries, as to prevent collision and dispute, and
unobstructed communication and conncxon of our
colonies with each Other. Further, it is desired to
retain under the jurisdiction of each Government
such Inhabitants as have for length of
time been living, and to whom a transfer Of allie
glance might be painful or distrsSsing.
These shortly the obj we have in view,
and which we must now see 10 reconcile TO p actl-
cal division of the territory in dispute Great Bri-
tain has no wish OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT for any general
purpose of increased dominion, YOU must be salts
fed by the liberay with which | have proiessed
myself ready TO treat questions of boundaries other
quarters where no considerations Of particular
venience or fitness occur might further prove this
by calling your attention to the fact, that of the
land likely TO come TO us by any practicable settle
ment, nineteenth parts of il are, from its position aud
quality, wholly worthless. 1t support no popu-
la,on, il grows even little timber Of value, and can
be of no service but boundary, though from its
desert nature an useful boundary, for two distinct
Governments.
Ia considering the map division of the terrific
ry in question, this remarkable circumstance must
be kept in mind, that division of acres by their
number would he very unequal division of their
value. The sout ern portion of this territory, the
valley Of the Aroosook, is represented to be of
the most beautiful and most fertile tracts of land in
state of cultivation, and covered with fine timber;
while the northern portion with the exception of that
small part comprised within the Madawaska settle
ment, is of the miserable description have stated.
II would be no cxaggeratioD to say that one
The Aroostook would be Of much more value than ten
acres north of the St. John There would be- there
fore, no equality in making division of acre for
acre.
But although remind you of this circumstance
do not call you TO act upon it. On the contrary,
will tlay hon how tba aIy
this settlement boh in the quantity and the quality
Of this land All wish is to call this fact in proof
Of my assertion that the object Of Great Britain was
simply TO claim that which essential to her, and
would form convenient boundary, and TO leave all
the more material advantages Of this bargain to the
State Of Maine.
now come to the more immediate application of
these principles to definite line of boundary and
okIng at the map with reference TO the sole object
Of Great Britain already described, the line o! the
ST. Johns, from where the north line from the ST.
CrolX strikes it, up to of its sources seems
evidently to SUIT both parties, with the exception
which shall presently mention. This line throws
the waste and barren tract Great Britain and the
rich and variable lands 10 Maine but it makes
good boundary, one which avoids collision and pro-
bable dispute and for the stated we should
DC satisfied with IT. if not for the peculiar cir
cumstaDces OF a settlement formed on both sides Of
The ST. Johns, from the mouth Of the Madawas-
ka up 10 that Of the Fish river.
The history and circumstances Of q is settlement
are well known 10 you. II was originally formed
from the French establishments IN Acadia, and has
been unnterruptedly under French or British domn-
on, and never under any other laws The nhab.-
ants have proiessed great apprehension Of being
rendered by Great Britain and have lately sent an
earnest petition to the Queen deprecating that being
lone. Further, this settlement forms one united
community all connected together, and living some
IN one aud some the other side Of the river which
orms sort of high road between them. 1t seems
eii-evldent that no more inconyenient line OF boun-
larry could well be drawn than one which divides in
wo an existing mum clpallty, uconvenent wei to
ne inhabitants themselves as to the authorities
Ter which they are to live. There would be CIV dent
lardshlp mlnht cruellN IN iLls