Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1842-09-16

II DOMESTIC.
: CORRESPONDENCE WITH BRITISH SPECIAL MISSION
n NoRTHEAsTERH AND NoRTHwEsTERh BOUNDARY
Lord .4shdurt0n to mfr. Wf6ster
WAsHiNGToN, June Is, l6i2.
Sir:-On considering the most effectual mode OF pro
ceeding TO arrive at amicabe and satisfactory term
nation OF The controversy respecting IN
Northeastern Boundary, between the British colony o
New Brunswick and the State of Maine, believe tina
l may confidently conclude from what Inns passed II
he preliminary conference which have had the homo
OF holding w'hyon that we concur in the opinion tina
advantage would be gained By resortng to the inter
minanle discussion on the general ground on who
euc party consider their claims respectively 10 rest
In the course OF the many years that this discussion
has lasted every argument, either side, apparent
ly exhausted and that without any approach to al
agreement The present attempt, therefore, OF set
Element, must res for it's success, not on the rcnewa
of consroversy, but on proceeding presumption
that all means of reciprocal conviction having failed
also the experiment Of calling in the aid Of friend
" arbiter and umpire, there remains only the allena
live of compromise for the solution OF thu, other
wise, apparently nsurmountable difficulty, uniess in
deed it determined to try second arbitration, at
tended by lis delay, trouble and expense, in defiance
of past experience the probability Of any
| tisfactory results.
1t is undoubtedly true that, should present atemp
unfortunately fall there might remain other alterna
/
difficulty and uncertainty attending it, trust that al
parties will to the conclusion that the very intr
cate details connected with the case must be better
known and judged by our two Governments than any
diligence can make them TO be by any third party, and
that sincere, candid disposition 10 give reciprncuy
fair weight to the arguments either side is likely 10
lead tn satisfactory settlement than
gagcrient 10 abide by the uncertain award of less
competent tribunal.
The very friendly and cordial p,ion given by you
= Inn tbprIii nT
to the assurance that my mission here, by my
has been determined by an unfegned desire TO settle
this and all other questions between us on principles OF
Cancellation snd justice, forbds me TO antic pate the
possibility of the failure Of endeavors applied with
sincerity for this purpose
With this view OF the case, therefore, although not
unprepared TO enter into the general argument, abstain
from so doing, from The conviction that amcable
settlement OF this vexed question, generally desired,
vii! be thereby best promoted. But at the time,
some opinions have been indus,riously circulated
,hrou tins controversy, and in instances by
persons in authority, of description so mnch cacula
led to misead the public mind that think it may be
of service to offer few observations.
do not Of course, complain of the earnest adherence
Of parizans either side TO the general arguments on
Which their case supposed to rest; but position has
been taken, and facts have been repeatedly stated,
wh ch am sure the authorities Of the Federal Govern
mrut will be nbundany able 10 contradict, but which
have evidently given rise 10 much public misapprehen
sion II is maintained that the whole of this con,ro
versy about The boundary began in 1914; that up TO
That period the line clalmed by Maine und;s.
puted by Great Britain aud that the claim avowedy
founded on motives of interest," to obtain the of
conveniently connecting the British provinces. con-
fine these remarks to the refuting this mpuaton, and
should indeed not have entered upon the controver
sv even on this if did not appear to vove in some
degree question Of national sincerity and good faith
The assertion is founded on the discussions which
preceded the treaty of peace signed ct Ghen in 1874
1t is perfectly true thai proposal was submitted by
the British PlenipoeDlaries for the revision OF the
boundary line on the Northeastern frontier and that
il was founded on the position that it was desired to
secure the communication between the provinces, the
precise denea,on of which was at that time mper.
hfa,r ,8,pf5iGf q
Of State admit that The British ministers disclamed any
intention of qu.ng an increase oil territory, and that
they proposed the revision for the purpose OF prevent
inn uncertainty and dspute-a purpose sufficiently
;ns,Gad nv subsequent events. Again, in their note
If Tie 4th of September 1914, the British ministers re-
mind those from America, that the boundary line has
never been ascertaned and that The line claimed w
9nerira which interrupted the communication between
Halifax and Quebec, nese could have been IN The con-
termination of the parties the treaty of peace in 1888
The same view Of the will be found TO pervade
ali Tho communications between the Penipoenturies of
the two countries Client There was no attempt 10
oress ooy ccsson of territory the ground Of policy
or ,pelency hut though the precise geography OIL
hP
rous at tile tme that different opinions existed as TO
the boundary, likely to result, from continuing the
North line from the head OF the river ST. Croix. This
appears TO have been clearly known, and admitted ny
the American Plenpotentaries that they, IN submitting
IN the Conference the project of Treaty, offer Pre-
anil. to their Fourth Article 10 these words: "Where
a. neither that part of HE highlands lying due North
from the source of the river ST. Crox, and designated
in the former Treaty of peace between the two powers
as the Northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor the North
l..,
head oil Connecticut river, mas yet oeeh
ascertalned, &c
II should here he observed that these tile words
proposed not BY the British but by the American ne
sot,ulors and that they were finally adopted by both
IN the Fifth Article of the Treaty.
To cloce my observations upon what passed on tins
subject at Client, would draw your attention 70 the
letter Of Mr.. Gallatn, one of the American Plenpo.
tcntiares TO Mr.. Secretary Monroe on the 23th De-
He offers the following conjecture to what might
probably be the arguments Of Great Britain against
line set 10 by America :-"They hope that the river
a hch emp,ies into the Bay de Chaeurs in the Gulf
of St Lawrence has its source SO far West as 10 IN
tervene between the head waters of the river St Johns
nd those Of the streams emp'yng into the river 81
Lawrence-so tina, the line North from the river 81
Crox will frat strike the heights OF land which DIVIDE
the waters emptying into the Atlantic ocean, triver st
Johns) from those empyng into the Gulf OF St Law
renee. river de ChneursD and aterward the heights
Of land which divide the waters emptying into the
Gulf of ST. Lawrence, (rver de Chaleurs from those
emptying into the river ST. Lawrence but that the
said line ne yer can the words Of the Treaty strike
SCOT of land actually dividing the waters emptying
into the Atlantic ocean, from those which empty into
the river ST. Lawrence. =
So obvious an argument in opposition TO the line
claimed by America could not escape the known saga
c;,y Of Mi Galatin state it not for the purpose of
discussing its merits, but to show that, at Ghen not
only the fact was we'll known that this boundary vas
matter in dispute, but that the argument respecting
il had been weighed by the gentlemen SO eminent IN
its subsequent discussion
Indeed, the fact that The American ministers made
the disputed question matter for reference by trea-
t. ate, ard ratified by the President and Senate must
to every candid mind be sufficient proof that it was &C.
neally considered TO be involved in sufficient doubt 10
cntle il to such mode Of solution 1t cannot posst
bly,, be supposed that the President and Senate would
have admitted by treaty. doubts respecting this boun-
dairy, if they had been heard of for the Ms. .,s
through the preensons Of the British pen'p0'en''a'es