Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1846-04-23

lied, when he is full Of noise and impudence; FORE
head prominent, but phrenic developments, in the
bad. A beauty, is he not!
The Dishonesty of the British Govern
ment.
In the course of his speech on the Washington
treaty of 1912, Mr.. Webster said that 'not fifty can
did, intelligent, men in Name could be found who
ever did, or who now, complain of this treaty." On
the 10th instant, Mr.. Fairfield, the Senator from
Maine, and who was the Governor of that State at
the time of the negotiation of the treaty, addressed
the Senate on the subject, demonstrated the incorrect
ness of Mr.. Webster in making the above reckless
assertion, and took a general review of the course of
the British government, not only before but since the
ratification of the treaty, which he showed that that
government had violated in an essential particular,
thereby dePriving the people of Maine of the privi-
leges of the free navigation of the st. John river,
which the treaty protested to secure to them. But
the part of Mr.. Fairfeld's speech to which we wish
now to draw public attention, is that relating to the
acknowledged deception and fraud of which the Brit
ish government was knowingly guilty, and by which
the United States, by the aid and assent of Mr.. Web
ster, as Secretary of State, was spindled out of
THREE MILLION ACRES of territory. These
AdClo v II IL Oues DeeH DelOTe MADE KNOWN 10 Inc
public but they should be kept in fresh remembrance
now, while the British government is trying TO play
the same game again by s~windling US out of the ter
ritory of Oregon.
Mr.. Fairfield said-there was one other occurrence
to which he felt bound to allude, which had done
much to strengthen and confirm the dissatisfaction of
the people of Maine with the treaty of Washington.
He referred to the debate which occurred in the Brit
lsh Parliament, in March, lS43, upon the subject of
this treaty, in which disclosures were made that
stamped the course of the British government with
the deepest colors of fraud. This was strong language,
but no stronger, be believed, than the transaction full
ly justified. The Senate would permit him to read
from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, volume 5,
page LAS, a part OF the speech of Sir Robert Peel
in reply to Lord Palmerston. The latter gentleman
had assailed the treaty of Washington for yielding so
much to the American claim, and insisting that by an
arbitration England would have obtained a much
larger portion of the disputed territory than she did
under the treaty. Lord Palmerston also alluded to
the map, said to have been discovered by Mr.. Sparks,
at Paris, on which the line was laid down agreeably
to the English claim, and alleged to have been done
by DR.. Franklin. Sir Robert replies that this is OF
no force, inasmuch as there is no evidence whatever
connecting 1t with DR.. Franklin, and then goes on to
say:
''But there is still another map. Herein this
country-in the library of the late king, was deposit
ed a map, by Mitchell, of the date of l7S3-that map
was in the possession of the late king, and ii was also
an possession Of the noble lord, but he did not commu-
nicate its contents to Mr.. Webster. 1t is marked by
a broad red line. and on that line is written, bonn
dary as described by our negotiator, Mr.. Osuald,
and that line follows the claim of the United States.
That map was on an extended scale. 1t was in DOS
session of the late king, who was particularly curl
Gus in respect to geographical inquiries. On that
map, | repeat, is placed the boundary line-that
claimed by the United States, and on four different
places on that line, boundary as described by Oswald
Now, | do not say that that was the boundary uli-
mately settled by the ncgotiators but nothing can be
more fallacious than founding a claim upon contem-
porary maps, unless you can also prove that they were
adopted by the negotiators and when the noble lord
takes 1t for granted, that if we had resorted 10 arbi-
tration, We should have been successful in obtaining
our claims, | cannot help thinking the matter would
have been open to much discussion. Indeed, L do not
beliere that that claim Of Great Britain wGs uel
founded that it is a claim which the negotiators in
tended to %ratify."
Now, with these admissions and disclosures before
the world, is there any language too strong in which
to characterize the course of the British government !
They show, that during the whole course of the con-
troversy In regard to the northeastern boundary prior
to the negotiations of the treaty of 1912, there was in
the possession of the king, and in the British archives,
a map-Mitchelrs map-which, it Is well known.
was the map used by the negotiators of the treaty. of
1853, on which the line is traced by Mr.. Oswald,
(the British commissioner who negotiated the provi-
siOnal articles of this treaty, November, 1880 in
exact accordance with the claims of the United Safes.
1t has always been known, therefore, to the British
government that their claim was On unjust one-and
still 1t has been perSeyered Impressed and ~prosecut-
ed even to the very verge of war. If it be regarded
as too strong an inference from the possession of this
map, that the British title was known to be un-
founded, he would add the express declaration of Sir r.
Peel, in the same speech, that he "did not 6ezieue the
claim Of England TO be UeH founded" Now, sir,
transfer this transaction to private life, and how would
| - ho rarordo1 Z What uonl1 he s,iI g - u
would make an effort, through the forms of law or
otherwise, TO obtain the possession and property in
his neighbor's farm, when he had full and ample evil
dence in his pocket that the right and title to the farm
was fully in his n~eighbor, and not in himself! Is
there one code of morals for individuals and another
for nations! On the contrary, does not the same i'm
mutable principle of right, of truth, of Justice. ap-
ply to both end fraud and deception deserve as strong
and emphatic a reprobation in one case as in the
other
But this transaction contracts a deeper dye-Iwhen
we trace it a step farther. 1t appears by the declara-
ton of Sir Robert Peel, that, at the very time Lord
Ashburton was in this country and negotiating the
treaty of Washington. he had in his possession this
identical map. Notwithstanding this, he permits
himself to say, in a letter to the Secretary OF State,
June Is, 1912:
"We believe the position maintained by US on the
subject of this boundary to be founded in justice and
equity and we deny that we have been determined
in our pretensions by policy and expedience."
Again, he says IN his letter on the 21st of June:
al will only here add the most solemn assurance,
which | would not lightly make, that after a long and
careful consideration of all the arguments and infer
ences, direct and circumstantial bearing on the whole
of this truly difficult question, it is my settled con-
viction that it was the intention of the parties TO the
treaty of peace of 1888. however lmperfectly these
intentions may have been executed, to leave to Great
Britain, by their description of boundaries, the whole
of the waters of the St. John"