Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-04-28

quest. were also made By Great Britain in the west
indies; and the British ministry, oy rfocia'u'o"'
The 7lh of October, in that year. dehnea 'ne 80, 49,
aries of those colonies which she acqu'seu io'
II NAV now be sufficient to say. that III lhe
,;ons NJ l763 defining ard settling tie boundaries u
the newly acquired territory of Canada OF luz
British Government asserted IN ITS this aei,sa,,.5
French claim the right winch Missachuss ~
contested as against France, for thirty or iofty
Thai - the State Of Massachusetts SAID the i'ne
ran along the North bank of The river ST La"lehIe
over The highlands and down to the NOUN u '"e
river. .; i,;,n ne
Massachusetts: but when peace took place ana Eng
land became owner of the province oil Iahaua' ~"
described another ne (Mr. Webster here oeses'"s
the line he alluded TOY and Massachusetts comp
or The proclamation Of 1863 taking into Cahaua
she insisted was her right; and Mr.. Boreland, inc WAS
.chnset,s AGENT told the British Ministry that u was
an invasion Of the rights of Massachuseus' L.h
ba,pened that IN Maine there was territory 70 'e
The right of the crown never exnsu'sheu' an
/, there rev up tacit consent between hasshs"u
and the crown that if the crown forbore TO asse'' any
right 10 this territory within Maine, hassacu e,
wopid not ask to press her boundary to Inc river %
, 7 ,wrence Under these circumstances, alteF ,ne
- ~ 1882 the question TO be ascertained was, What
Vas The boundary between Massachusetts ana Nosa
Scotia being Ike other boundaries IN new countries
not ascertainea .L.,xo
n rln
ao were resorted TO, clear up this question; ana
suppose that The object OF the commissioners IN 100
cas IN ascertain what the existing line, anu ot "
run new line; for England as possessof OF Sanaua
would be bound by the claims OF her colony, ana WINE
r,,nca occuped Canada, the French maps without
execution represent the divisional line between iiassa
chuset,s and Nova Scotia, in exnct accordance WIN
the claim of Massachusetts, 1t was therefore "r pas
sachnsets TO say 10 England you Claim ina
under title derived from France, what then is the
claim of that country and The object OF the commas
sioners of 1888 was 10 ascertain what the line was as 1t
then existed.
Il In regard TO The map presented to u.s. II 1t was
laid before the commissioners, which think u was
NJ il hng memorandum in Mr.. Jays writing, con-
nectr, it with The proposition Of the British minister
IN l1S2 il is evidence that the n. w. angle OF Nova
Scotia and the Of the river ST John, are den
cal according TO this map, and in Mr.. Oswald pro-
posilion How comes it then, that it they were dent
cal in the minds of the commissioners Of that day. that
idea was not followed up' This raises question, in
relation TO which cannot lay down any rule before
hand
The commissioners acted on the assumed accuracy
of the reograp hca deneation Of the papers before
them
The fact Isl stated by you Sir, that this deneaon
OF the Madawaska erroneous. 1t is not North
and South river, the delneaor represented it. 1t
should be Northwest and Southeast
! Among the various questions which may be supposed
to arise one Of them would be- if this mutual
mistake founded on mutual Misrepresentation, if it was
| 4
be corrected OF the parties to be bound by il, let
the true of the hadawaska turn out what way
1t might; This question Is not now important, since
the question has been settled, but it may have lis inu
and be worthy of historical notice. In relation
TO these maps it is doubtless remarkable crcumsta lance
that such Of contemporaneous maps should be
conormable TO the claim ofthe u. 81 and the remarks
which have been made by you, MIR President, on this
subject most cogent.
The treaty made at Paris met with great oppos-
iba hat Al
made a line between the United States aud Great
/ Britain, which line was incoByenent 10 the latter
power or the British Minister SAID made the L.
States mistress Of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Maps of the disputed territory then published,
which accompanied the parliamentary debates, and
under the inspection Of Lord Sheburne and Mr.
Oswald; anal IS very cxraordnary-indeed lncredi-
ble-thlt these maps, making out case Tor the u -,
in point Of fact, and yet that no one IN
the foreign Office, any minister oi the BRUSH TO
made the slightest suggestion, uttered one
word against the accuracy of those maps. On the con-
trary, they defended lie treaty the ground afforded
by the maps and not the ground that the maps were
erroneous.
1t is matter of historical notoriety that from the
time of that treaty to this day it was Impossible to
bring she two Governments TO agree on that question,
in relation 10 The bounds of the treaty, ana the fair I'M
port OF II is, that the always in favor OF The
\ u. s. and | doubt that any intelligent Englishman
wond derry 1t.
1t never was used an argument, that i was 9"sas
BILE % bring the line any where else hu' nat there
AM idea pressed on the k King p Tie meaning of the
treaty, and this LED his Majesty do, what difficulties
oi similar character in private life induce arbitrators
or referees TO do 10 split the difference and make
compromise between the parties.
The English argument IN favor OF the claim has al
ways been based, less the terms Of the treaty Itself,
than other extcrna! considerations and especially
The great Inconvenience Of such line of dema.cation
and the high imProblbiy that England would ever
agree to line unnecessarily separating her own pro-
vlnces and rendering the communication between them
dependant on foreign power
TIE treaty Of Washington rather the neEotiations
which preceded them, entered into principles
Of compromise When the present administration came
power i; felt that arbitration had failed though
conducted by learned liberal and competent indvdu.
as and the Government felt themselves obliged to
ter into another and that it necessary TO refer the
question To some Independent power. But as the set
Element of the question must turn a promise it
thought that the parties themselves, might settle
the difficulty without referring II 10 third power. II
was in that spirit the negotiations of 1912 were COM
menced II was that spirit which aciua!es one neigh
Dor who, in the words Of Scripture says, Le agree
with BcIghbor while yet IN the way with him.
The negotiation entered into in similar spirit to
WHAT would be between two neghborIng farmers be
tween whose lands line, nconvenent to both
OF hcm and the difficulties in which such in
private life must be settled, not principle Of taking
all and yielding nothing, bu, the principle Of mu;u
ally cDuvcnieHcinr both parties alike fair, honorable
and equitable to each.
believe, at least trust that your judgment and
that of the country will ultimately he, that the ar
rangement made in this unobiectonable.-
For, in the first place. will maintain that Maine and
Massachusetts better off this day, than if Lord
Ashburton signed quit claim Of the whole land in
dispute, and went back 10 London without signing
any treaty; for, they have got from the ncvga
ton OF the ST Johns and other parts, than the value
OF all the territory we gave up IN return Tor them,
North Of the ST Johns. And to the United States,
# we may trust 10 The highest parties judgment, and
10 that OF intelligent who understood the ques
ton, and looking at the map, great and desirable
object was attained for the United States, and New
York in PARTICULAR by the settlement of that question.
But though those objects have been gained, IT does not
follow because they highly advantageous to the u
States, thai it must be d;sadvanageous dishonora-
bic TO the other party in the treaty. BY no means 1t
woa'd cvnce mean and narrow spirit 10 think that
nothing can be gained on one side wilhou, much be.