The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-01-07

States" heretofore reported taken up and con-
| sidered in committee of the whole, when,
| Mr.. PHELPS was understood to object 10 the
immediate action Of the Senate the bill before
| them. He was in favor of its postponement, not
from disposition TO inerpose any obstacles 10 the
Senate, but that the bill might be further scruti-
| nized.
| Mr.. ATHERToN said he had no objection that
the bill should for the present, be disposed of pro-
vided Il were brought before the committee al an
| early day. so that il might be brought up and I'M
dergo the action Of the House. IL had, on a former
occasion, once passed the Senate, after full consid-
Grafton. Mr.. A. concluded with suggestion to
| Mr. PHELPS; who, in reply, pledged himself
not to interpose any obstacle 10 the bill; but he
thought the final action Of the Senate thereon would
be expedited by his proposition. He asked wheth-
| err the gentleman had any objection to name next
| Monday the day for its further consideration
Mr. ATHERToN assented.
| Mr. CRITTENDEN wished the gentleman to
| state the objects Of the bill.
| Mr. ATHERT0N would do so. In the winter
Of 1885, the State Of New Hampshire found il me-
cessary TO send large force TO sustain the author-
~ of that State that portion of her border
| uguous to Canada, near the line Of $50, and known
as the Indian stream territory. This necessity
from the fact of jurisdiction being claimed there by
the Canadian authorities IL arose from conflict be-
| tween the British authorities and those of New
Hampshire; and this conflict arose, in reality, from
| the action of the general government that sub
iect. The facts Of the case are TO be found in the
award of the King Of the Netherlands, arbitrator
between the general government and Great Britain,
and fully set forth in the report made thereon to the
| House by Mr.. Howard, now reporter in the Su-
preme Court-a man, he believed, Of great accura-
cy. In that report it was shown that in the winter
| of 1856, that part Of New Hampshire lying on
/ tho Canadian border became much disturbed;
| so much so that bands Of armed men were found
opposed to each other 10 sustain the authority Of
| the respective governments. That Of New Hamp.
Hid bnIU Of mill an
doing which the expenses Of which she nov sought
a reimbursement incurred. One ground
which is stated in the report in favor Of the claim Of
| New Hampshire was the extraordinary position in
which that part Of New Hampshire was thrown
by the federal government IN Its negotiations with
| that of Great Britain and over which New Hampshire
| could exercise no control During the tendency OF
the award Of the King ofthe Netherlands, which ga We
the disputed territory TO the British, il Of course
| impossible for New Hampshire to interfere, while
during that period there settled government
| in that territory. When the award refused
| New Hampshire was thrown back on her original
| rights and IL became necessary for her to maintain
j her Jurisdiction II portion Of the continent
| over which she had exercised undIsputed jursdie.
ton from the fret settlement Of the State and up "a
that time there had been dispute. 1t had been
duly incorporated into the State Of New Hampshire
formed portion Of one Of its counties, where legal
process had been always served, without any inter.
ference Of the Canadian authorities with the State
Il
award Of the King Of the Netherlands, a different
state of things arose; persons appeared there claim
ing to act under the authority of the governor o
/ Canada. In 1885 Canadian officer undertook to
arrest one of the inhabitants, who rescued The
men who interfered 10 rescue him from the hands
of an officer who had right TO arrest him, were
also arrested for resisting the Canadian authorities
and il became matter of necessity for New Hamp.
shire to interfere in order to sustain her jurisdiction
By the unanimous concurrence Of her legislature,
| armed force was sent and maintained there To
show that the Canadian authorities claimed ursdic-
ton there, he would refer to certain complaints
which were filed in the office Of the Secretary OF
State, made by the attorney general Of Lower Can.
| ada and transmitted to the governor of New
| Hampshire. These charges were made in 1886,
| by direction of Lord Gosford, encouragement
of Canada and upon their being transmitted to the
authorities of New Hampshire commissioners were
appointed investigate the matter and report there
upon. The second charge was, "the continued adj
| vance Of the State Of New Hampshire--of her laws
and iurisdction-into territory which, by the rea-
ty of 1885, was not designated par, Of the Uni
/ ted States, and which should be considered still
undetached from Great Britain, and its inhabitants
still under her government" The third charge was,
"the military occupation by New Hampshire OF
| the territory in question:" That showed the Cana
dian government did interfere TO extend its authori-
1 ty over that territory. The New Hampshire COM
missioners proceeded to it, and did investigate the
subject, and the map they were enabled to make
was of great importance in showing most conclu-
sively that the claim of the British authorities was
entirely without foundation, and that the territory in
dispute belonged unquestionably to New Hamp-
shire. The dispute relative to this portion of terri
tory from that part of the treaty Of 1888 which
refers the north western source of the Connecticut
river By that treaty, the line of boundary to
run along the highlands dividing the waters which
| flow into the st. Lawrence from those which fall
| into the Atlantic Now, it could only be ow-
ing TO a complete ignorance of the country that that
line established by the King of the Netherlands, in
stead Of going the northwest branch of the Con-
nectcut river, left the highlands crossed the (name
not heard) river, and struck the Connecticut That
would be obvious to any senator who examined the
| map accompanying the report. The dispute grew
out of the question, (Which was the northwest
branch of the Connecticut river" Of that there
could be no manner Of doubt So satisfied were
tons being made to Mr.. Webster, when en-
| gagged in negotiation upon the northwest boun-
Diary. by the New Hampshire delegation, the
British surrendered their claims to all the ter,
ritory in dispute which is now within the
limits Of New Hampshire. He conceived there
could be no objection made to the principle upon
which New Hampshire acied in carrying out her
purpose TO sustain her Jurisdiction. The State Of
Maine did the same thing Her claims which rest.
ed on precisely the same ground, were already paid
He believed they had been paid since their recogni-
ton by the treaty; but they were recognised in
the treaty, because they were due, and for nc
other reason. He would, then, remark that the
amount named by New Hampshire trning--
only six or seven hundred dollars; whilst, If he rec
objected right, the claims of Maine for military
vices amounted to seventy thousand dollars. The
claims of Maine were of a similar kind to the pres
emit they were recognised and paid There wat
no difference between them, except ss to the greater
magnitude of those Of Maine, which, by the zeal o
her authorities and those who negotiated the treaty
were paid; whereas those Of New Hampshire, be
ing smaller, not yet discharged.
In accordance with the suggestion Of Mr. PHELPS
and the assent Of Mr.. ATHERroN, the consideration
of the bill was postponed until Monday next
i pRE-EMrrIoN sysTEM.
! The "Bil providing for the establishment of &
| permanent prospective presumption law, in favor o.
actual settlers on the public lands" introduced SIEVE
raj days since by Mr. AsHLEr, was then taken up
but by request OF several members, that its consdera
ton be, postponed, Mr.. A. asserting thereto it was
| passed by informally for the present