The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-02

IS43 In which he presented the Louisiana treaty Of
1903 together with this same supposed arrangement
under the Utrecht treaty, the principal, u not the
only ground Of the rights Of the United States Ia the
possession Of Oregon; affirming at the same ume the
continued subsistence Of the Nootka convention OF
1890, between Great Britain and Spain. Do these
three points, have maintained views dlamsTIeally
opposIte and they have been all without exception,
taken by our executive Ia the hate negotiation,
have been, fear, thus unfortunately subjected 10
his enmiy.
One thing in conclusion. The honorable gentle
man is pleased TO represent my History of Oregon
as the cause Of great deal of mischief, playing
the part Of the Duchess of Marlborough htlle dog
which overturned water on Mrs. Masham's
dress and thereby led the dismissal of the Ouch
ess the recall Of her husband and the peace of
Utrecht. | thank the honorable gentleman for his
kindness IN thus cOmplImenting my book, while
dscaim for it any such great virtue. Mr.. Benton
has not shown who were regarded by him IN this
play representing Mrs. Masham and the Ouch
ess of Marlborough and am totally unable 10 sup
ply the want Of the information by conjecture.
The accident occasone by the dog in I'LL was,
however certainly productive Of great and good eff
fects even if they had been confined to freeing the
queen and the nation from the influence Of Old Sa-
rah who had long before become unbearable TO all
by her vciousness in5olence, and egoism, and her
obstinate adherence TO antiqlAted notions.
ROBERT GREENHOW.
Statement extracted from the fourth edition OF the
History of Oregon aud California, by Robert Green
how, in proof, thai the tortHih parallel Of latitude
ntper adopted by eoHtmlssdrttS under Dh treaty Of
Uirse the sspaTaion btpesH the Hudson bay terri
tories, and The French dos,inions further south.
"Mr. Monroe, minister plenpo.sntisry OF the
United States, in London, in his letter Of Septem-
Der S, 1904, to Lord Hsrrowby, the British secre-
tary for foreign affairs makes the following state
ment with regard the adoption Of the 49th para-
lei of latitude, as the northern boundary Of Loulsl-
ana:
'By the tenth article Of the treaty Of Utrecht, it is
agreed that France shall restore to Great Britain
the bay and straits Of Hudson, together with all
the lands seas, seacoasts rivers, and places situate
on the said bay and straits, which belong thereto;
and il is also agreed, on both sides, 10 determine
within year, by commlssaries TO be forthwith
named by each party, the limits which TO be
fixed between the said bay OF Hudson, and the
places appertsning TO the French, which limits
both the British and French subjects shall be Who'll
| ly forbid TO pass over, or thereby TO 90 to each
other by or by land. The same commlssa-
res shall also have orders TO describe and set
tie in like manner the boundaries between the
other British and French colonies in those parts.
Commssaries were accordingly appointed by each
power, who executed the stpuatlons Of the treaty
in establishing the boundaries proposed by It, They
! fixed the northern boundary Of Canada and Lousi-
by line beginning on the Atlantic, at a cape or
promOntory in So degrees 80 minutes north latitude,
! thence southwestwardly TO the Lake Mistissin,
thence farther southwest TO the latitude Of 40 degrees
north from the equator, and along that line lndeh-
nitelY." This statement was made agreeably TO the
instructions Of Mr.. Madison, the Secretary Of State
contained in his letter Of February l4th, 1904, in
which he refers 10 an accompanying paper show
ing the authority on which the decision Of the
missioners under the treaty Of Utrecht rests" This
paper was not printed with the other documents,
and no copy Of it now be found, so that the
! thorty for the statement is not known.
"Mr. Madison, however, seems To have derived his
opinion chiefly from the Summary, historical and
| political Of the British Settlements in North Amer
ca" by William Douglas, published at Boston In
l74g which contains the assertion in the wordS used
! by Mr.. Monroe; and Douglas probably derived il
! from the 3lst volume Of the Modern Universal His
tory by Salmon, 1873. Salmon, however, in his
Geographical and Historical Grammar, published in
l75S says expressly with regard to these provisions
OF the treaty Of Utrecht these limits not settled to
this day" The map Of Amenca attached to the
| first volume of Postlethwayts Dictionary Of Com
mcrce, published in 1851, was also probably con-
suited, Mr. Monroe refers to that work in another
part of his letter to Lord narrowly; this map pre-
sents the line nearly though not exactly, as descri-
bed by Douglas, with note near II, stating that IT
Utrecht" but in the dictionary itself, the line is
where mentioned, and the boundary Is expressly
declared mot to be ascertaned.r The typographical
description of Louisiana by Hutchins published in
| 1874; the map of North America by Paalret and
Dearoche, 1865; that of Bowen and Gibson, IT'S,
and some other maps and books OF that period, also
present the forty-ninth parallel the dividing line
between the French and the British possessions,
west of point north of Lake Superior with varia-
tons from each other, and from those previously
| cited as to the remainder of the boundary.
"On the other hand Mtches large map Of Amer
lea, published in 1855, under the patronage of the
colonial department Of Great Britain, which was
consulted and adopted authority by the British
and American plenipotentarics in regulating the linn
its Of the United States in the treaty of 1888, pre-
sents line drawn along the highlands separating
| the waters flowing to Hudson's bay from those OF
the st. Lawrence and the lakes, as the "boundary
of Hudson's bay by the treaty of Utrecht and the
same line appears, on the map OF America, in Smol-
eu's History of England, published in l76O, on that
Of Bennett in ITO, that of Faden, in TIT, and
| on some other maps of that time.
ain contradiction of all these opinions, line Of
separation whatsoever, between the Hudson's bay
territories and the French possessions is to be found
on the large and beautiful map of America, by Pop
pie, published in 1893, also under the patronage
Of the colonial department, and bearing the certif-
cate of DR.. HALEY to its correctness; on any map
in the Atlas of Maxwell and Senex, published in
172l in Boyer's Political State, 172l in the History
Of Hudson's Bay, by Dobbs, the governor of that
territory, l744 in the Historic de la Nouvele
France, by Charevoix, l744; in the System OF
Geography, by Bowen, 1747; in the American Ira
weller, 1863; in the American Atlas, by Jeffries,
l779 in the History of the French Dominions in
America, by Jetries, l76O; in the map of Amer
lea, from the materials by Governor Pownal, in 1894;
nor is there any alluson to such line in the works
to which these maps attached, or in any other
work or map of reputation published during the
| last century save those above mentioned.
"None of the works above mentioned are authori-
ties the subject, proceeding as they all do from
persons unconnec,ed with the transactions Of the
| Utrecht treaty, and possessing better means 80
far as known, of information respecting them than
other people; they, indeed only show that the bound
airy was supposed by some persons to have been so
settled at the time when they were written.
"Of the works which may be considered as u.
thorties, the following, comprising, it is be.
| lieved, all in which record notice Of
such transaction, if it had taken place should
be found, entirely silent with regard to
any decision other act Of commissaries ap-
pointed under the treaty of Utrecht to settle the line
of separation between the Hudson bay territories
and the French possessons-viz the collections of
treaties by Dumont Boyer, Martens, Jenknson
Herstle, and others; Actes, Memories, &c, concern
ant la Paix d'Utrecht, l7l6, and Actes, Negotia