The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-11-18
ToFFIcIAL PUBLICATIONS.
CORRESPONDENCE
With British Special Mission.
Lord .lsiburton to Mr.. Webster.

proceeding TO arrive at amicable and satisfactory
termination of the long-con'inued controversy re
specng the northeastern boundary, between The Bri-
| fish colony of New Brunswick and the Stale oil
Maine believe that may confidently conclude, from
what has passed in the preliminary conferences WHICH
| | have had the honor Of holding with you, mat we
concur in the opinion, that no advantage wouiu 20
gained by revertng to the inerminabe discussion on
the general grounds on which each party CONSIDERS
their claims respectively 10 rest. In The course Oh
the many years that this discussion has lasted every
argument, on either side Is apparently exhausted,
and that, without any approach TO an agreement
The present attempt, therefore, OF settlement must
rest for its success, not the renewal oil conuo-
versy, but proceeding on the presumption, that,
all means of reciprocal conviction having iaed as
also the experiment of calling in the aid Of friend
" arbiter and umpire there remains only the aterna-
tive Of compromise for the solution of this, other
wise, apparently nsurmountabe difficulty, unless, IN
deed, il determined TO try second arbitraton
attended by its delay, trouble, and expense, In de
Of past experience TO the probability OF any
more satisfactory results
1t is undoubtedly true, that, should present at
tempt unfortunately fail, there might remain other
alternative but second reference yet when con-
slider all the difficulty and uncertainty attending it,
trust that all parties interested will come 10 the
cusion that the very intricate details connected with
the must be better known and judged by two
Governments than any diligence make them TO
be by any third party and that sincere candid
disposition to give reciprocay fair weight 10 the
a
satisfactory settlement than engagement to abide
by the uncertain award of a less competent tribunal
The very friendly and cordial reception given by you
sir, well by all the authorities Of your Govern
ment, to the assurance that my mission here, by my
sovereign, has been determined by an unieigned de-
sire 10 settle this and all other questions Of difference
between Us, principles of Cancellation and Justice
forbid me to anticipate the possibility of the failure
OF our endeavors applied with sincerity to this pur
pose.
vic of he here fore alt oh NOT
unprepared to enter into the general argument, alb
stain from doing from the conviction that an ami
cable settlement OF this veXed question: generally
desired will be thereby best promoted. But, at the
same time, some opinions have been ndustriousy
emitted throughout this controversy, and in in
stances by persons IN authority, OF a description
much calculated TO misiead the public mind, that
think it may be Of service 10 offer few observations.
do not, OF course, complain of The earnest adj
herence OF partsans either side to the general
guments on which their case is supposed to rest but
position has been taken, and facts have been re.
peatedly stated, which am the authorities of
the Federal Government Will be abundanily able to
contradict, but which have evidently given rise 10
much public misrepresentation. Ii is maintained that
the whole of this controversy about the boundary be-
gan in 1914 that up to that period the line claim
ed by Maine undlsputed by Great Britain, and
that the claim avowedly founded on motives of
interest to obtain the means of conveniently connect
ing the British provinces. | confne these remarks
TO the refuting this imputation, and should indeed,
not have entered upon roversy, on this, ii
it did not appear to me TO involve in some degree a
question of national sincerity and good faith.
The assertion is founded on the discussions which
preceded the treaty of peace signed at Client in 1914.
1t is perfectly true that proposal was submitted by
the Britt plenipotentares for the revision Of the
boundary line the northeastern frontier, and that
it founded on the position that it desired TO
secure the communication between the provinces, the
precise delmltation of which was at that time i'm
perfectly known. The American penipoentiaries
in their first communication from Client to the Sec
rotary Of State, admit that the British ministers
pressly discaimcd any intention of acquiring an in
crease of territory, and that they proposed the
vision for the purpose Of preventing uncertainty and
dsputea purpose sufficiently justified by subsequent
events Again. in their note OF the 4th OF September,
1914 the British ministers remind those from Anne
RIGA that the boundary had never been ascertarned,
and that the line claimed by 4merica, which interrupt
ed the communication between Halifax and Quebec,
never could have been in the contemplation OF The
parties to the treaty Of peace of 1888 The same
view Of the will be found to pervade all the COM
municatons between the penipoentiaries of the two
countries at Client There was no attempt TO press
any cesslon Of territory on the ground Of policy or
expedency but although the precise geography of
the country was then mperiecty known, it was no.
torious at the time that different opinions existed
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
by the American penipotcntlaries, that they, IN sub
hitting to the conference the project Of treaty,
offer preamble to their 4th article, in these words
"Whereas neither that part Of The highlands lying due
north from the of the river St CroiX, and de-
signated in the former treaty of peace between the
two Powers, the northwest angle OF Nova Scotia,
nor the northwemost head of the Connecticut river
has yet been ascerained,n &c. Ii should here be OBJ
served that the words proposed, not by the
British, but by the American Degotators. ard that
they were finally adopted by both in the fifth article
of the treaty.
To close my observations upon what passed on this
subject at Client, would draw your attention TO the
letter of MIR. Gaatin, one of the American plen-
potentiaries Mr.. Secretary Monroe of the 25th of
December 1914. He offers the following conjecture
to what might probably be the arguments of Great
Britain against the line set up by America "They
hope that the river which empues into the Bay DIES
Chaleuls in the Gulf of St Lawrence, has its source
far west to intervene between the head waters
Of the river ST. Johns and those of the streams emp
tying into the river St Lawrence; so that the line
north from the of the river ST. Crox will first
strike the heights OF land which divide the waters
emptyng into the Atlantic ocean (rlyer st. JohR's)
from those emptying into the Gulf of st. Lawrence
(rver des Chaeurs), and aiterward the heights of
land which divide the waters emptying into the GuU
of St Lawrence (river des Chaeurs) ON those emp
tying into the river ST. Lawrence; but that the said
line in the words of the treaty, strike any
spot of land actually diving the waters emptyng into
the Atlantic ocean, from those which fall into the
river st Lawrence"
So obvious argument in opposition to the line
claimed by America, could not escape the known sa
gdcty of Mr. Gaatin. ! state it not for the purpose
OF discussing its meri but to show that, at Client
not only the fact was well known that this boundary
was matter in dispute, but that the arguments re-
specting it had then been weighed by the gentleman
eminent in its subsequent DISCUSSION Indeed, the
fact that the American ministers made this disputed
question matter for reference by treaty aiterward
ratified BY the President and Senate, must in eve
candid mind be sufficient proof that it was generally
considered be involved IL sufficient doubt to enttic
it 10 such mode OF solution. 1t cannot possibly
be supposed that the President and Senate would have
admitted by treaty, doubts respecting this boundary,
if they had been heard Of for the first time through
the pretensIons Of the British penipotentiarles at