The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-12-28

pcsce that the stpulations OF the treaty were toe
vague and lndeterminate TO admit Of satisfactory ex.
ecution, when applied 10 the actual topography OF
the country and that, therefore, il will be suitable
"a coauendra) 10 adopt the boundary Of the two
States" line which, drawn from the source of the
81 Crox I'LL IT intcrst CT the river St John shall con-
tlnue alorg that river to the mouth of the ST Fran
cisi thence along the ST. Francis 10 lis souhwes-
ternmost head and thence, by due-west course, TO
the line claimed by the United States.
ms award OF the King Of the Netherlands, in pro-
posing The adoption Of new boundary, was consid-
cred as departure from the question submitted for
his decision by the terms of the reference and was
held, therefore, not To be obligatory the parties
The Senate of the United States before whom the
award was laid by the President for their advice on
the subject, EXPIRE scd opinion uniayorable to It's
acceptance, and from that time down to the special
mission oil Lord Ashburton, series of halting and
aborl,e negotiations has been going on between the
two Governments, terminating in nothing, and leav
ing this d turbing controversy far as ever from
settlement; the peace of the two countries in the
mean time exposed to perpetual danger of Interrupt
ton, by collisions on the debateable frontier.
MIR. r. said he had thus briefly retraced the histo-
ry OF this controversy, and exhibited the mutual pro-
ceedngs Of the two Governments in regard to itnot
with any purpose Of weakening or impugning the Just
title of the United States the territory claimed by
them as being within the limits established by the
treaty oil peace on the contrary he felt in his own
mind clear conviction Of the Justice and validity of
the American claim resting on the terms of the
treaty. He believed that the boundary claimed by
the United States fulfilled the literal description
tanned in the treaty, and that it the only bounda-
ny which did fulfil that description. He had there
fore, heartily concurred in the resolution unanimous
y passed IN this body, four years ago, affirming cur
conviction OF tie right of the United States under
the treaty OF peace and such he was authorized 10
say, was still the o. inon entertained by every mem
Der OF tie committee But, bile this was the OPT
Mon OF the committee and ofthe Senate and without
doubt OF large majority Of the citizens Of the Uni
ted States who have Investigated the subject il is inn
possible for u.s. locking at the public and solemn acts
OF The nation through its recognised organs now 10
stand uncompromsingly on the ground of right We
have admitted, over and over again. that the question
is one open to doubt aud orersy and as such we
have agreed TO make 1t subject Of arbitration and
the opinion of the arbiter however wanting in legal
obligation, has yet been pronounced before the world
against our claim.
The Senate has seen, from the review lust present.
ed that not only the treaty of Client and the sub
seQuent convention of 1927, hid we abandoned the
ground OF clear d inconestabe right but that at
long antecedent period, by the convention of 1903
between MIR. King and Lord Hawkesbury Gan ar
rangement unanimously confirmed by the Senate, so
far as the Northeastern boundary was concerned
we had agreed TO bring claims into litigation be-
fore mixed tribunal Of arbtramcnt to be specially
constituted for the purpose. The President of Z e
United States, MIR. Jefferson in communicating the
conclusion Of that arrangement to Congress- accom-
"a further knowledge of the ground in the North
eastern and Northwestern angles of the United States
has evinced that the boundaries established by the
treaty Of Paris, between the British territories and
ours IN those parts, were too pe ty described 10 be
susceptible i erec,tiion. 1t has, therefore, been
thought worthy OF attention, for preserving and che
rishng he harmony and useful intercourse subssting
between tue two nations to remove, by timely arr
engagements, what unfayorable incidents might other
wise render ground of future misunderstanding.
convention has therefore, been entered into hich
provides for pract cable demarcaton of those limits
TO the Satisfaction Of both parties"
Mr.. Madison, in the instructions given by him to
Mr. King for the negotiation of the convention used
language OF similar, and not less significant import :
" In fixing" said he. " the point at which the line
is to terminate and which referred to as the north
west angle of Nova Scotia, the difficulty arises from
reference OF the treaty Of 1883 to the highlands
which Il IS nor found hare de finite existence To
move this difficulty, better expedient occurs than
to provide Tor the appointment OF third commission
err as in article five OF the treaty Of 1874 and to
horZe the three to determine point be substi-
tted for the description in the second article OF the
treaty of 1888, having due regard 10 the general idea
that the line ought to terminate the elevated
ground dividing the rivers falling into the Atlantic,
from those emPtying themselves into the st. Law
renee. The commissioners may also be authorized
to substitute for the description of the boundary between
the point SO fixed and the northwesternmos head of
the Connecticut river-namely, line along the said
hghlands'-such reference 10 intermediate sources
Of rivers, other ascerained ascertanable points,
TO be connected by straight lines will admit Of easy
and accurate execution hereafter and will best
comport with the apparent intention of the treaty Of
1888 ="
Here we have an instruction from one Of the most
cautious, well as able and enlightened statesmen,
tina presided over the department of our foreign
relations expressly authorizing the minister Of the
United States, on the ground of the impractcabty
r E.,.l .IN.I.. a.. .
to enter into an arrangement TO su6siiiutenot, has
been said, point only, but-a continuous and long
line Of boundary between that point and another, for
the lines and angles described in the treaty.
After these various and repeated acts Of the a
tOnal authorities acknowledging in form
another the doubts and difficulties which stood in the
way of the actual demarcation of the boundary in
question: according to the provisions Of the treaty of
1888, il seems to the committee too late in the day,
consistently with proper regard for the peace Of
nations and the opinion of the world, to plant tur
selves now sternly and inhexbly on the ground Of a
clear manifest and incOniropetibe ght to the preci
line of boundary we claim. If the honor of the
country, as is now asserted demanded that the
mum jus of our claims, IN regard to the disputed
boundary, should have been vigorously insisted in
the late negotiation, then that honor has been long
since irre,rievably Frustrated in the dust. 1t was
sacrificed by the treaty of 1894, by tn convention of
1903 by the Client negotiations in 1914 by the ar
bration arrangement of 1927; it betrayed by
Washington Jefferson, and Madison and trdmpied
under foot by every successive administration that has
been charged with the foreign relations Of the
try from the peace of 1888 to the present day. How
would our hero President the venerable Jack
sonat whose lofty tone in the foreign intercourse OF
the nation the world stood surprised--how would
even he stand, if tried by this standard Of dpo
matte chivalryi During the period of his admins
tration, repeated entries made the disputed
territory by agents of the neghboring British provin-
cal authorities, who arrested citizens, seized
their property, and transported both and the
other into foreign Jurisdiction Did he summon
the nation TO for this hostile inpasion Of terri
tory?-as it assuredly was, if the principle now SC
cheapIy put forward, of the iacontroretibe justice
and validity of our title TO the boundary claimed
be correct. No, sir; lie knew that, however strong
might be our conviction of the justice of claim
there were tco sides to the questionable adversary
| @ aim resting grounds which we had by the mos