The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-03-22

sense 10 proclaim that this afforded the highest cyl
dence which the nature OF the admitted OF INA
the United States never had any shadow OF right le
any part OF the territory The absurdiy OF THIS con
eusion IN MIR, Featherstonhaughs logical process Is
the more striking, since, in the same supplement- he
says that shortly after Lord Asbburtons departure
ior America an ancient map was discovered IN one OF
the public Offices IN England, with rsa ip'e drawn
upon H. exactly conforming TO the Prtish claim
Now, this ancient map" with "a red hns drawn
upon II, exactly conforming 10 The British claim,
found in the public Offices Ia England had not, never
theless, so far appears, any Influence whatever IN
strengthening the British Government in their conf
dence Of the justice Of their own claim. An an
cent map" found in France, with red line on H.
not proved 10 be connected ,c d. Ffsakns letter, u.s.
in Mr., Featherstnnhaugh's Judgment, perfectly CON
elusive against the United States; While announcer
ancient map" with similar :" red i'ne, iouha IN
the Foreign Office in England, was mol regarded oil
so much importance as TO be at all mentioned IN te
negotiation nor had IT, so far can be known, the
slightest weight with the British negotator, or the
British Government a.
IL does not clear up this absurdity TO say mat TINS
man found in the English Office, could not DC auheni-
,afed for neither could the French map be authenti
Gated The direct proof was wanting to connect II
with DR. Frankin's letter. Both maps were ancient
hotb were found in public archives and, of the two
The British map decidedly the best authenticated,
AT least il MIR. Featherstonhaugh's judgment in the
matter be of any value because, while the French
map is not proved to be connected with Dr. Frank
Inns letter and is therefore, not authenticated at all
Mr. Featherstonhaugh assures us that, "upon care
fl consideration Of all the circumstances connected
with the British map doubt oas entertained that that
map ,cas Of The maps used by the ngotiators Of the
f,aiu of 1882 According TO Mr. Featherstonhaugh
therefore the British Government had in its possess
sion n map proved BY circumstances, TO be, beyond
doubt one OF the maps used by the negotators in
1888, which il never showed to the American Go
yernment and yet the American Government Is
~. l. a. III IL .A,.
map not pretended to have been before the Commits
sioners and not connected with any direct evidence
to give il any authenticity at all
ii one is not surprised at these conclusions of Mr.
Featherstonhaugh II can only be because he has
been in some prepared for such logical de-
auctions from that source, by having found the same
gentleman s,ouily maintaining, heretofore that the
northwest angle of Nova Scotia is TO be sought for
south of the ST. John, and Of all the waters flowing
into that river
The true and fair view Of the is this On the
terms Of the treaty. the American claim to the whole
territory is ear. This is the unanimous opinion Of
this country. II is an opinion, also, which is under
stood 10 have been expressed some years ago, by
Lord Brougham, in Parliament; and what is more to
the point, at the present moment, II is an opinion
which is well known now to be entertained by per-
of eminent station aud Of high authority in the
British Government But there was external evil
dence there were extraneous considerations, on
which the British Government had principally relied
10 control the terms Of the treaty, show that they
originally adopted and used through some mis-
take. The principal Of these eXlraneous considera-
lions, perhaps, the great Inconvenience L, Eng
land OF such undary as the United States set up;
boundary by which corner Of Maine was pushed
in between the British provinces Of Canada and New
Brunswick, almost TO the very banks Of the St Law
renee the asonableness Of supposing that Eng
land would ever Intentionally have agreed TO such
line the great proprlety therefore, of giving To the
terms Of the treaty qualified interpretations il
they could be made 10 bear it, else of supposng
as the Dutch King appears TO have supposed, that
they were used originally through Misrepresentation
aud mistake. Much other exraneous matter has
been produced, by the one party and the other, in
course OF fifty years discussion, to sustain their re-
spectlye CLAIMS; and Of this matter maps made at
various times and in various countries have formed
a considerable part.
10 the negotiation Of the late treaty the American
negotlator placed himself on the plain language and
sense OF the treaty is manifest by his note TO Lord
Ashburton Of July Sth, 1912 An agreement of
boundary was made without saying how much or
how little weight was given by the United States to
the evidence and the circumstances relied by the
other side TO explain away that plain sense and pla
language.
But II may safely be said that the boundary agreed
on, rih It's considerations and equiraieis is such as
would be decidedly advantageous, both 10 the United
States and TO Maine and Massachusetts, IL the whole
American claim had been admitted 10 its fues, ex-
NN"N - 'i' 'N'iiNOil ItllDqlisutu 10 bTtat
be regarded as clear and cesson, the equiva-
lent IS entirely ample. The cession of Rouse's Point,
clearly British possession TO the United States is
full consideration for the money paid by the United
States TO Maine and Massachusetts while this mo-
ney, with the privilege of navigating the St John
cannot be denied to be of more Importance TO those
states than the almost worthless territory lying north
Of that river.
But, while clearly honorable and advantageous to
one SIDE does not follow that the treaty boundary
Ital. l.l.
Is narrow spirit, spirit accustomed to low and
crafty traffic, II not spirit tainted with the morals
OF The gaming table, which considers that gain or
an advantage acquired TO one side, must always be
attended with exactly an equivalent loss or disadyan-
tage on the other. In all large and fair national az
raugemenis, and especially IN arranging and defining
boundaries, the advantages sought are mutual In
the Treaty OF Washington such is cminently the case
Mutual concessions and ACCOMPLISHMENTS mutual con-
slderatous and equivalents have resulted in an agree
meni for boundary which, with the rights connect
ed with II and derived snder it, satisfies the reason
able objects and purposes OF all parties.
The wisdom and policy Of the United States IN
agreeing with England upon boundary line on these
principles, must be obvious TO all who instructed by
The result in the case Of the Dutch award are natu.
rally not without apprehensions Of what might have
been the ELECT OF maps, historical circumstances
and especially the great argument of Inconvenience
aud unreasonabeness, on the mind Of another arbi.
traitor.
But the principal object Of this communication re-
mains TO be performed That object is TO prove tina,
the "Parisan map" IL known to the British Gov.
ernmeni could have suggested TO that Governmen,
no new idea. We have already seen Nv Mr. Fe,
herstonhaugh's own statement, that England had
Just such map in her own archives and by his ac
count of the matter, Ear more authentic map cir
oumslances showing, he says, without doubt, that
That identical map was before the Commissioners in
1883 when they negotiated the treaty.
But there is evidence from another source
There IS now in existence Of MitchelI's origin
81 large maps, such as is proved by Mr. John Adams
and admitted on all sides, to have been before The
Commissioners in 1888
On this map IS traced " strong red line j" extend
ing from the Saint Crox through the whole length Of
the boundary to the Lake Of the Woods and conform.
ing to the British claim Thi. map with this strong