The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-29
partment that part of the award relating to Rouse's
Point, which will now read. Il is as follows;

Il 49,
ol ,ssiI .sST ~, %Rsislon sse a su,ho
tudsi
"Ws Of opinion That VIII be suitable "a esns.n
da to proceed fresh operations to measure the obser
we'd latitude In ordsrto mark out the boundary from the
latitude to the ssr St IsaTsnss named sp lie es
ties lrouquoise catarsguy, in such manaer however
toy the United states Of America shall extend 10 In.
fort crested al that place and shall said fort and It's
SIGNED fsSs Y's'" h"'''''s1S9 "wu,,.vn
So much, MIR, President, for the denial of the sen.
ator from Massachusetts and for the BILE SER
| Point. M
But the senator points, with much triumph. to n
narrow strip Of soil on the borders Of New York
and Vermont, which, as Secretary, he claims to
have secured to those States upon the principle of
equivalents, IN the closing Of this negotiation Now,
SIR, YET US examine the true history Of this boastful
acquisition. BY the treaty Of peace of 1888, be-
tween this government and Great Britain, the Ash
parallel OF north latitude, ascertained by Great
Britain herself, before the revolution, was liked as
the boundary line between the United States and
Canada; and the fertilization at Rouse's Point was
| eree,ed just within the line on the American side.
Subsequent examinations proved that this line had
been enormously located by Great Britain and by the
treaty Of Ghent this error was recnfed and the line
made 10 correspond with the true parallel This gave
or, perhaps would or may have gwen, though it is
quesu enable, TO Great Britain strip Of land
| from the northern boundaries of the States before
enumerated, Of half mile az one end and running
to point AT the other; most of in wild state and
the rest sparsely settled. The same remarks are
applicable To portion Of territory on the eastern
boundary OF New Hampshire, lying between two
creeks; and IL being doubtful which one was in
| tended by the treaty. But the whole territory in
| all these cases had remained in our possession and
| the Inhabitants subject TO our jurisdiction. The
value of this land for the mere purpose Of territory
was trAing, and Great Britain had no wish to in
| cude American freemen within her boundaries She
readily consented TO FIX the line where IL was orig
naly located; 10 give up what she scarcely claimed
that TO which her right doubtful; that Of which
she had never been possessed, and did not want
And although il we'll to correct and fix dehn
| ltey this line, 1t Of itself the subject of no
embarrassment controversy, and should rank
as small affair, whether psraded as a British equiv
alent, or diplomatic exploit Of our secretary nego-
tator.
But last though not least in value, in this treaty
of equivalents as urged by the senator, is the free
navigation Of the ST. Johns river; a limited and
partial right, at best; and, was shown by the
honorable senator from Maine, Mr.. FAIRFIELD a
few days since, has been so embarrassed by British
constructions, taxes, duties, and other exactons as
10 curta materially the benefits il even pretended
to secure. Besides, receive no more in naviga-
ton than we bestow upon this river, and give a
right Of way over our soil which is not reciprocated
by a right over theirs.
But sir, this coded territory valuable either
government for any purpose had never sup
posed it would compare in fertility with the valley
Of the Mississippi and yet | had supposed IL
valuable, for remembered that the same Secretary
negotistor, who stands high upon this and de-
servedly higher upon the other side Of the water,
in public speech in the Senate a few years
since, proposed to take forcibe possession of it
on the 4th day Of some July. had until now, be
ieved that this day was selected, a day devoted
to patriotic deeds; but since its description by the
senator from Massachusetts, conclude it must
have been to avoid the vast beds Of snow which
vest upon 1t at most other seasons Of the year.
And now, sir, permit me TO inquire, Why was
it that Great Britain desired this territory for
she never acts without motive. Upon the Ore
gon discussion, my honorable colleague lMr. DIxl
alluded collaerally to the settlement Of this bound
airy, and spoke Of the military communication
which, by this treaty, the British government had
secured between New Brunswick and Quebec, and
of the country she had thus gained. For thus
turing to question the wisdom Of the treaty, and
its negotiator in making it, my colleague, whose
distinguished courtesy is proyerbial, although he
triumphanty sustained his position by reference to
debates in the British Parliament in for share
Of the ungenerous harshness of the senator from
Massachusetts, though he escaped his violence and
denunciation. But, sir | propose to pursue the
matter single step further, and to inquire whether
Great Britain had not long and unsuccessfuly
sought to obtain this very territory which was 30
ingIoriously yielded to her by the American Secre-
tary; shall be deferred from my purpose by
personal abuse or angry menace. BY reference TO
history of our foreign relations, contained in
American State Papers, vol. 3, page 709, it will be
seen that in negotiating the treaty at Client, the
British commissioners stated by a communca.
ton from ours of August 18th, 1914, demanded
"A direct communication from Halifax and the province
Of New Brunswick to Quebec to be secured Brit
TO be effected we were told that It must be done by
to Great Britain of that portion of the district Of Maine
in the State Of Massachusetts, which inervenes between
New Brunswick aud Quebec and prevents that direct
munioation"
And in note of the British commissioners, bear
ing the same date to be found on the next page of
the same volume, they demand "such variation OF
the line of partition as may direct line of
communication between Quebec and Halifax"
And now, sir let turn to the noble response of
the American commissioners-men who were gov
erned in their actions by the interests and honor OF
their country, and not by equivalents. Their an.
to this arrogant demand may be found at page
/. 7l2, of the volume before mentioned, and is that
ey hape no authority to cede any part Of the territory
The United States and to no stipulation TO that effect
,oiH they subscribe"
Now sir, let us contrast this truly American and
patriotic sentiment with the slavish tone and Ian
guage of the secretary who negotiated upon the
principle Of equivalents. Lord Ashburton an
nounces himself to our government on the 18th of
interview ia appointed for the 18th The first writ
ten communication from Mr. Webster the secrea-
, ry, to Lord Ashburon, of any importance, is un.
der date Of July 9th, lS42, and furnishes, besides
0ther interesting ueve0pmentS, the fol-
lowing, which Is worthy Of especial attention:
"Wt understand and indeed, collect from your iordship
note that Nth ,phaispe opinion Of The disputed
territory England asserting has principally in risp Z,
her souher accustomed line Of
ton btt,ceen Canoda and Nsw Brunsock We acknopds
the general justice and proPrsy Of this object, and agree
once Nth suitable equivalents conventional line ong
Be such to England. The question therefore
simply u.s. what line iciH secure III"
This Mr.. President, establishes, beyond dispute
or cavil, that negotiations held upon this sub
iect which do not rest in writing; for the secretary
'',tndersfands"---ay, understands" and, besides,
COLLECTS it from his lordship's note" that the great
object OF Great Britain that which she had vain
ly endeavored to obtain for thirty years--her line
, Of communication between Canada and New Bruins
wick. Although this proposition had been by all
who had preceded him, Indignantly rejected, he was
ready to acknowledge its general justice and pro-
prietyn and "agree at oncs'-not with doubt or
hesitation but al onceto yield it for Suitable sgup.
| II