The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1842-11-19
ToFFICIAL PuBLlcATIoN.1
CORRESPONDENCE
With British Special Mission.
Asp NoRTHwEsTERa BOUNDARY.
Lord .4,hburton TO Mr.. Webster.

LoTd .fyh6Ut0H 10 VT. W e0ucr-
WAsnscros July IL, 1912.
| Sin lose no time in acknowledging the receipt
| OF the note you did me the honor OF addressing me
on the 9Th instant and beg in the first place 10 say
that duly sensible Of the assurance you give me
that the Pre- dent has been pleased TO appreciate the
motives which induced my present mission, and much
attered by your recognition OF the candor ana frank
| ness which have hitherto marked our intercourse
had hoped that we had escaped by mutual consent
| from return To the endless and irutess argument
on the general question of the rights oil our respec
tive Governments in the matter Of The northeastern
| boundary.
| 1t seemed to have been decided by many high
and competent authorities that the precise geograPh-
cal point long looked for not to be found that
it necessarily followed that any hope OF settlement
must rest upon amicable compromise
| The arrival here Of commissioners from haine
and Massachusetts, and the admitted disposition Of
he two Governments, have given the public very
general expectation that this compromise might at
last be effected and hope you will excuse my OK
pressing my regret that the note now before me, ana
| the paper from the gentlemen from Maine, address
ed to you, which accompanied it, should have con-
tanned SO much Of renewal Of the old controversy,
and should not have been confined TO the simple ques-
ton whether could could not agree to terms OF
settlement. IL the observations contained in my
note OF the 18th utmo, have given rise to these con-
sequences mnch regret it: and would now pass
over all these than useless discussions, and pro-
coed at once to notice the proposals you make, II
were not apprehensye that my doing might be
construed into some want of respect for the parties
| from whom these observations have proceeded.
will, however, endeavor to bring within narrow
| compass what have to say the subject, and the
more so, because, with all Difference to you, sir,
may add that there is little in these arguments that
is new, that has not b,en often advanced and re-
| futed during the many past years Of controversy.
should except from this want of novelty the posi-
| ton, TO me entirely new, advanced by the commits
soners from Maine, that the northwest angle of Nova
Scotia which is, as you express It, " the thing to be
sought for and found - was at the head Of the NADIA
waska river, which river, it is maintained by "a long
argument, supported by authorities and maps, was
always considered the real St. John and this IS
stated to justify the opinion expressed by the old
Congress, in l779 that this northwest angle at
the source of the ST. Johns.
Giving all possible consideration to this apparent
| ly new discovery cannot say that it appears well
founded. Looking at Mitchell's map, the Of
which by the negotatos Of the peace Of 1888 has been
always so much relied upon the part of America,
there is nothing clearly marked than the great
distinct channel of the Upper ST. Johns and it
hardly possible that the negotiators or the Congress
should have made the supposed mistake.
| But, suPposing this hypothesis were well founded,
tbs Temiscouata lake is, then, to be this long
lost angle OF Nova Scotia. What becomes, then, of
the point long contended for by Maine between
| the Mets and of the tributaries nf the Rista-
gouche' These poin must be about fifty miles apart
Both cannot be true; and if it be maintained as |
ratner cocCt IL 10 DC from the oil the Name
commissioners, that the point at the Nett, is the true
boundary, as being the point stricken by the north
lne though the other be the true northwest angle of
| Nova Scotia, there is at least an end Of the whole
argument, resting upon this northwest angie being,
as stated by you, the thing to be sought for and
| found"
If this new discovery leads us to no other inference
hardly fail to derive from il the conviction
that all the ingenuity applied to unravel this mystery
leaves us equally in the dark; and that il is with
out lson that it has been decided by many per-
sons, after careful examination that this boundary is
not susceptible of settlement according to the precise
words of the treaty
This decision has been come to by MIR. Madison, in
1902, by Mr. Jefferson, in 1903, by Judge Sullivan
about the same time, by the arbiter in 1881 and II
has been acted upon by nearly every Secretary of
State of the United States during the controversy
from that time to this for although in a case dis
pue each party during the dispute endeavos to hold
his own, | am not aware that any Secretary Of State
any President Of the United States, has treat
ed this subject otherwise than attended by that
degree OF uncertainty that it could only be solved by
an arbiter, or by compromise. would appeal to
your candor sir, to say whether at this time, and
der these circumstances II is fair 10 speak of this
disputed territory belonging ndisputably to one
party, and TO be yielded by way of concession, and
! for equivalents to the other. Any convention may
| sign must be for division Of that which is in doubt
and dispute With any arrangements between the
| State Of Maine and the General Government have
nothing to do and it, which God forbid, our endea-
vors at an amlcable compromise -hould at last fail,
must hold that Great Britain retains her right, at
least equal to that of the United States to every part
of the territory in dispute, until by renewed reie-
renee, or by the skill OF more fortunate negoti-
ator, this difference may be brought to close.
! have only to add few observations upon the
arguments contained in your own note.
Some stress is laid upon the fact that the joint
mlssoners OF The two Governments in 1877 directed
the surveyors to the north line from the St Croix
until 1t met waters running into the st. Lawrence
The lines to be run were TO ascertain the geographic
cal facts of the No proceeding could be more
proper. The claims OF the two parties varied, and
1t natural that, in the first instance line should
be run north to the extent claimed by either party
where that line would reach, and what highlands or
streams it might strike unknown so much so
that Mr.. Gallatln, in his letter from Client mention.
ed my note of the 9Th ultimo expressed his doubts
on this subject. HIS prediction turned out to be
true The point where the line strikes the Mels was
point not fulfilling the words Of the treaty. Ii did
not divide the waters desired, unless the Bay of
Chaieurs and the Gulf of ST. Lawrence are consider
ed to answer the description of the Atlantic ocean-
Mr.. Gaatn was sensible of this, and intimates that
if this fact createdS doubt, the lands about the Rsta-
gouche might be given up; but he forgets that Civ
ing up this territory he gives up his argument for he
maintains, in opposit to the British line of boun-
Diary, that ii does not continuously and all its pnr
divide the waters required by the treaty The
| American line was in this respect equally deficient
and is useless therefore, here to consider whether
it would have been preferable to the British line if
it had divided the waters of the St Lawrence from
those of the ST. Johns To make a plausible
Tor tie American line, ~both the ST. Johns and
the Rlsagouche must be held to be rivers empty ing
into the Atlantic ocean. The royal arbter says 1t
would be hazardous TO class them believe that
whatever argument might be made in the of the
ST Johns, connected with the distinctions with which
twas mentioned in the treaty TO consider the Rsta-
gouche as flowing into the Atlantic ocean would be
more than hazard US, it would be most absurd.
AT all events would submit TO you that no infer
ence could be drawn from the commissioners in 1917
having ordered north line TO be run the same COM
mssoners after drawing the line having disagreed as
to any conclusions from it.