Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1842-09-15
Frm she ns~ yosk coarisr a Erssisr.
con n r. = y q n ID T. n e u
WITH BRIrIsH SPECIAL MISSION.
Norn Esssrs cad No-fA Wssfsra BseAdary.
Loan A.HsuRros TO Ma. WHssrkR.
WASHINGTON Innefs IA

WAShlNGTON, June Is, 1879.
siai--oa considering the mos, effsctual mod
Ct preceding TO arrive at an amiesbie and saus
factory termination Of the long continued eontrcver
sy respecting tho Northeastern Boundary, between
tue British Colony Of New Brunswick and III,
STATE Of Maine, l believe that ! may confidently
conclude from what has passed in the preliminary
conferences which had the honor OF holding with
you, tina, VIC eoncor in the opinion that no advan
tase would be gained by resorting to the interim
p,bls discussion OF the general ground on which
each party consider their claims respectively to rest
Ia the course of the many years that this discussion
has lasted. every Argument, on either aide, 10 eppa-
rentiy exhausted. and that without any approach TO
on agreement. The present attempt therefore, Of n
settlement must rest, for its success, not the
nowai OF a controversy, but on proceeding n
presumot ion, that all means Of q reciprocal convc-
ZION having failed, a. also the experiment Of calling
in the aid Of a friendly arbiter aud umpire, there
remains only the alternative Of a compromse for
the solution OF this, otherwise, apparently insur
mountabc difficulty, unless, indeed, were deter
mined TO try second nroirauon: attended oy US
delay trouble, and expense, in defiance OF past ex-
perience as to the probability OF any more saus-
factory results.
IL Is undoubtedly true, that, should our present
at,empt unfortunately fail, there nigh; remain no
other alternative but second reference, yet when
consider al. the difficulty and uncertainty attending
it. trust that all parties will come TO the conclu-
son. that the very intricate details connected with
the case must be better known and judged by our
two Governments than any diligence can make
them to he by any third party, and that sincere
and candid disposition to give reciprocally fair
weight the arguments en- either side is likely to
lead US 10 q more satisfactory settlement than an
engagement to abide by the uncertain award OF
less competent tribunal.
The very friendly and cordial reception given by
you, Sir, well rs by all the authorities OF your
Government, to the assurance that my mission here,
by nv Sovereign, has been determined by an un
fegned desire TO settle this end all other questions
between u, on principles Of Cancellation and justice,
forbid anticipate the possibility Of the failure
n R,lta A tu o..
pose.
With this view OF the case, therefore, although
not unprepared to enter into the general argument,
I abstain from doing from the conviction that an
nmcabc settlement OF this vexed question, so ge-
rerally desired. will be thereby best promoted. But,
at the same time, some opinions have been indusir
ously committed throughout this controversy, and
IN some instances by persons IN authority, OF de-
scriptiou so much calculated 10 mslead the public
mind, that think II may be OF service 10 offer
few observations.
do not, of course, complain OF tho earnest ad-
herence Of parties on either side TO the general
suments on which their case is supposed TO rest;
but position has been taken, and facts have been
repeatedly stated, which am sure that the authors
ties OF the Federal Government will be abundantly
able TO contradict, but which have evidently given
rise TO much public Misrepresentation. 1t is main
tanned that the whole of this controversy about the
Boundary began in 1914, that up to that period the
line ns claimed by Maine was undisputed by Great
Britain and that the claim avowedy founded
on motives of interest, to obtain the means Of
venienIly connecting the British provinces. con
fine these remarks 10 the refutug this imputalion,
and should, indeed, not have entered upon the
controversy, on this, if 1t did not appear 10
involve in some degree question OF national sim
certify and good faith.
The assertion is founded on the discussions which
preceded the treaty of peace signed at Client, in
1914 Ii is perfectly true that q proposal waU sub
mited by the British plenrotent;ares for the revi
zion Of the boundary line on the northeastern from
tier and that founded the position that il
was desired to secure the communication between
the provinces, the precise deliBeation OF which was
AZ that ,me impeffectly known. The American
penipotennries in their first communication from
Client TO the Secretary OF State, admit that the
British ministers diseaimed any intention OF acquir-
ing increase OF territory, and that they proposed
the revision for the purpose OF preventing uncertain
~ and dispute--a purpose sufficiently justified by
subsequent events. Again, in their note OF the 4,h
September, 1914 the British ministers remind those
from America that the boundary had never been as
certaineJ, and that the line claimed By america,
which interrupted the communication between Hall
Tax and Quebec, never could have been in the con-
temptation OF Tue parties to the treaty Of peace in
1893. The same view OF the case will be found 10
peryade ali the communications between the pleni.
potentiaries of the two countries al Client. There
attempt 10 press any cession of territory on
The ground Of policy or experiences but though
The precise geography of the country then i'm =
perfectly Known. il was notorious at the time that
different opinions existed as to the boundary likely
10 result, from continuing the north line from the
head Of the river St Croix. This appears TO have
been so clearly known and admitted by the Amer.
can plenipoteniiariss. that they, in submitting 10
the conference the project OF n telty offer pre-
emble their fourth article, in these words, "where
as neither that pant Of The Highlands lying due moth
from the source of the river ST. CToix and dess na.
ted in the former treaty OF pence between the two
powers, as the northwest angle OF Nova Scotia,
nor the north westernmost head OF Connecticut
riser, has yet been ascertained, !" sc.
IL should here be observed that these the
rds ~ he
American negociators, and that they were finally
adopted by both in the 9Th article OF the treaty.
To close my observations upon what passed on
the subject OF Client. would draw your attention
TO the letter OF Mr.. Galla,in, one OF the American
plenipoteniiaties, to MIR. Secretary Munroe on the
25th December 1914.
lie offers tie following conjecture as to what
MIGHT probably be the arguments Of Great Britain
against the line set up by Ameca: "They hope
that the river which empties into the Bay de Cha
lcurs in the Guph OF ST. Lawrence, has its source
80 far west 10 intervene between the head
of the river ST. Johns, and those Of the streams
ompiying into the river ST. Lawrence; so that the
line north from the river ST.. Croix will first strike
the height OF land which divide the water, emptying
into the Atlantic ocean, (rver St Johns from those
emptying into the Gulf OF ST. Lawrence, (ryer De
Chsleurs and afterwards the heights Of land which
divide the waters emptying into the Gulf OF ST.
Lawrence (river De Chaeurs) from those emptying
into the river St. Lawrence; but that the said line
never can, in the words of the treaty, strike any
spot 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
sagacily Of Mr. Gallatn. state il not for the pur.
pose Of discussing its merit, but 10 siow that at
Client, rot only the fact was we'll known that this
boundary matter in dispute, bat that the nI>
gument respecting It had been weighed by the gen
temen so eminent in is subsequent discussion.
Indeed, the fact that the American ministers made
the disputed question matter for reference, by
treaty afterwards ratified by the President and Sc
nate must, 10 every candid mind, he suicen, proof
that 1t was generally considered TO he involved in
sufficient doubt TO ent;le it TO such mode of sou
lion. IL cannot, possibly, be supposed that the Pre-
sident and Senate would have admitted, by treaty.
doubts respecting this boundary, II they had been
heard Of for the first time, through the pre.ension
Of the British plenipotenliaries of Client.
If the argument or assertions which am now no
tieing, and TO which | studiously confnc myself.
had not como from authority, should owe some
apology for these observations. The history Of this
important controversy is too we'll known 10 you.
sir, and stands but too voumineusly recorded in
your department, 10 make thom necessary for your
own information.
The repeated discussions between the Two coun-
tries, and the repeated projects for settlement which
have occupied every succeeding administration ol
the United States, sufficiently prove how unfounded
is the assertion that the doubts and diff :uliies res
pec,ing this boundary had their first origin in the
wear 1914. II is true that down TO that time, and
Ia. f,I - -.