The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-12-28
CONGRESSIONAL.
BRITISH TREATY.
SECRET SESSION.
SPEECH OF MR.. RIVES
or virginia.

Relations 10 which the treaty had heen referred not
having been able from the shortness of the time al
lowed by the advanced stage of the session, and
the necessity of early action the subject
10 make formal and written report, il devoyed on
him. as the organ Of the committee TO state the views
and considerations by which the committee had be en-
Influenced, in recommending 10 the Senate To give
the constitutional sanction of their adyice and con-
sent" to its ratidca ion. He begged leave to say in
the outset, that IN forming their Judgment the
grave question submit ted to them the committee had
felt themselves bound by the most solemn Of all OBJ
legations TO discard from their minds every conside-
ration hut such appertaincd TO tbs true interest
and honor Of their country They had felt that it
would be to betray the trust reposed them by the
Senate and to show them elves unworthy OF the con-
fdence Of the country, if they could for moment,
permit themselves, in pursuit of party Objects
der the influence Of personal political pre)udces to
turn aside from the national question, TO inquire by
whom the treaty Lad been negotiated, or whose name
stood subscribed to it. They have looked TO the trea
" in ITSELF isolated from every nvdicus reference 10
persons parties; and have pronounced upon its
ceptance rejection as in their best judgment, the
interes and honor Of the nation demand.
The stipulations of the treaty embrace three dis
tinct objects; exact and permanent definition OF
the boundaries, where they had been the subject Of
doubt or dispute between the territories Of the Uni
led States and the adjacent provinces of Great Bril-
tain; plan of cooperation for the efectua
suppression of the African slaye-trade and agree
ment for the mutual surrender, in certain cases Of
criminals fugitive from justice. The first of these
Objects from its intimate conneXion with the tran
guilty OF the frontier and the peace OF The two
tries-on several recent occasions exposed 10 immi
nent hazard of Interruption from intrusions the
disputed territory, AID the conflicting Jurisdictions
exercised t-naturally occupies the foreground
of tie treaty
The merits of the controversy respecting our
Northeastern boundary, and the respective claims
and arguments of The two parties in regard to it, are
oil kpn,x m In he Spp matt (Sad IN ca-
auire any recapitulation of them at my hands. A
brief retrospect Of the history of the controversy,
however, may be necessary enable the Senate to
comprehend the position of the question at the
ment when the negotiations which terminated in this
treaty were entered upon.
The second article OF the defnive treaty of peace
of 1888, describ the Northeastern boundary Of he
United States as follows "Beginning at the north
west angle of Nova Scotia, to wit ''that angle
which is formed by line drawn due north from the
Of the ST. CroiX river to the highlands along
the said highlands, which divide those rivers tina
empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from
those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to the north
westernmost head of Connecticut rivers and then,
pursuing the description OF the boundaries of the Uni
ted States around their hole territory on the north
boundary of Maine in the following words EAST BY
a line TO be drawn along the middle of the river st
Crox, from its mouth, in the Bay of Fundy, to its
source and from its source, directly north to the
into the Atlantic from those which fall into the
ri, er St Lawrence
Nothing could afford more striking evidence of
the extremely defective knowledge Of the geography
Of the country in question, which existed the time
of the signature Of the treaty of peace than the fact
that the very first year succeeding the conclusion
of the treaty, serious controversy arose between
the high contracting parties TO which was this
rirer ST. Croir, here called for cultural boundary
between their adjacent possessionl. There were
three rivers emptying themselves into Passamaquod
dy bay, part Of the Bay # Fndy (as it was subse-
quenty formally declared to be, each one Of which,
ii emed had, some tune other, passed under the
of the ST. Croix. This territorial com. du of
s. like all other questions of disputed boundary
was on several occasions, near producing tragical
results by embroiling the authorities and population
adjacent to the controverted limits. 1 he most east
ern river was claimed by the United States as tie
true St. Croix-the western by Great Britain. FL
nay, after lowering the peace OF the frontiers
for ten years this controversy was put in a train of
amicabe adjustment by the treaty OF 1884, (com-
monty called jays treaty. which provided for the
appointment of JOINT commissioners 10 determine
which was the river truly intended under the
of the St CroX, in the treaty Of peace. The
missoners met, and in 1898 closed their debera-
tons, by declyring intermediate river, called the
Scoodiac, to be the true st. Croir of the treaty
which has been accordingly, ever since recognised
and observed us the actual boundary of the United
States in that quarter and to that extent
eastern boundary Was ascertained and established
new difficulties and uncertainties arose in following
it out according TO the terms Of the treaty of peace
The decision of the commissioners, under the treaty
Of 1874, in identifying the true river st. Crox and
in fixing its source, had established the tern mus a
quo, from which the boundary in question to be
run But the terminus ad 9uem to which it was to be
continued-to wit the highlands dividing the tribu-
tary waters Of the st. Lawrence and the Atlantic,
which lay due north from the source of Che ST Croix
remained to be ascerianed; and when they were
ascertained, the northwesternmOst head of the Con
nectcut river (another terminus TO which the boun-
dairy along TIE said highlands TO be continued J
was also to be identified and established. Both of
these ternini were supposed to be involved in doubt
by the actual Geography and physical conformation
of the country: The highlands described in the treaty
were said 10 have definite existence in nature
and the various sources Of the Conneccu river and
their relative position produced confusion in deter
mining which was the true norlhwesernmost source
referred to by the treaty of peace For the ad just
ment of these uncertainties by the agency of Joint
commission formed on the model of that of jays
treaty in regard to the st. Croix river, convention
was concluded by Mr. Rufus King with Lord
Hawkesbury, in May, 1903, under the instructions
OF Mr.. Madison, then Secretary Of State. This con-
yenton received the unanimous advice and consent
of the Senate TO its ratification, with the exception
Of its fifth article, relating t. the thwestern boun-
dairy between the Lake Of the Woods and the Missis-
sppi river, which, il was apprehended might con-
lct with the territorial claims OF the United States
under the treaty for the purchase OF Louisiana from
France which had been concluded twelve days pre-
yious TO the convention with Lord Hawkesbury but
which fact was not known to either of the negoa-
tors at the signature of the latter. The change thus
made by the Senats not being acceded TO by the
British Government the convention failed to take eff
feet.
Thus stood the question in regard to the Northeas-
tern boundary, without any new arrangement TO OBJ
waite or adjust the uncertainties which had arisen
until the treaty of Client By the fifth article OF
that treaty, it was agreed that two commissioner,
should he aPpointcd-one by each party--to ascer-
tain and determine where is the po Mt of intersec-
ton, or angle called the northwest angle of Nova
Scotia, formed by line drawn due north from the
source of the ST Croix to the highlands described
IN the treaty OF peace; and also the northwesern-
most head OF Connection river; and 10 the
from fbo A.