The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-04-10
THE DAILY UNION

OF twenty cents per thousand superficial feet
But this is not all. Even if there had been no
such discrimination between American and British
timber, in the form alluded to- there is diserim-
nation IN another form, equally IN violation Of the
treaty, and far odous, because II seems to be
the offspring Of trick and continuance. IL consists
IN an efecual refundng the tax Or duty 10 the pro-
vlneial lumberman, by charging him nothing for
'stumpsge," or the privilege OF cutting timber upon
the crown lands. The timber In the forest is given
TO him upon his paying tax or toll when the tim
Der arrives at the mouth OF the nVer thereby ena-
bling the provincial government 10 preserve the
forms Of equality in the imposition Of taxes, while
IN fact, the grossest Partially and injustice Is prac
used. There is, 10 be sure, no express provision
IN this act for reundng the duty, except as before
stated but il is done under other though less
public authority. Lord Aberdeen, in replying to
Mr.. EveretI's complaints for this cause, not only
does not deny II, but admits and Justhes II. More
over II is evident enough IN the preamble TO the re-
port, which runs thus
WHEREAS in consequence Of the alteration OF protective
duties upon colonial timber and other circumstances affect
ing its value 1t thought reasonable aud just 10 reduce
the rates oftonnage duty Tor stumpage) in timber and um
Der cut upon the lands and TO adopt less difficult
and expensive mode ior.s collection" NC, sc.
Here the purpose is directly avowed TO collect the
''stumPage" in the form Of duty on expectation;
and whatever pretence may be set up relating TO
alteration OF the protective duties the design is too
plain and palpable to be mistaken by any one it
is to eyade plain treaty obligation, and replensh
the provincial treasury by illegal and unjust exac-
lions from the lumbermsn Of Maine. fine, (Mr.
F. y had taken correct view Of this subject it pre-
sents, case calling loudly for redress and he hoped
that the powerful talents and influence Of the senator
from Massachusetts, would be exerted to obtain il.
Especially, as the treaty negotiated by him, and
as II seems TO have been by the British
government, has not only been of no advantage or
benefit to Maine, but, on the contrary, positive in
iuTV For this no toll mr. lutV
whatever was exacted. Since the treaty, du-
ty is imposed which goes far to swallow up
the hard earned profits Of the poor lumbermen.
But there was one other occurrence TO which he
felt bound 10 oalude, 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
British Parliament, in March, lS43, upon the sub
lect OF this treaty, in which disclosures were made
that stamped the course Of the British government
with the deepest colos Of fraud. This is strong
language, but no stronger, he believed than the
fully justified The Senate would per-
NIT him to read from Hansard's Parliamentary De
bates, volume 5, page l24s, part Of the speech Of
Sir Robert Peel in reply To Lord Palmerston. The
latter gentleman had assalled the treaty Of Wash
ington for yielding SO much to the American claim,
and insisting that by an arbitration England would
have obtained much larger portion Of the disputed
territory than she did under the treaty. Lord Pal
merston also alluded to the map, said TO have been
discovered by MIR. 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 nasmuch
as there is no evidence whatever connecting it with
DR.. Franklin, and then goes on to say:
But there Is sti another map Herein this country
IN the library Of the late king deposited map by
Mitchell OF the date Of l753-that map in the
sion Of the late king and Wai also in POi's'on Of h.
noble lord but he did not communicate its contents to Mr.
Webster 1t Is marked by broad red line and that line
: written, boundary as aIeribcd BY n,sotiatOy, NJ
Oswald and that line follows the claim Of the United
That map extended scale 1t was in possession
Of the late king who particularly curious in respect
TO geographical inquiries. On that map repeat Is placed
the boundary lne-that claimed by the United states and
On four different places that line boundary described
by Oswald Now do net say that that was III. boundary
ultimately settled by the negouators but nothing can be
more falacous than founding claim upon
unes, you can also prove that thew were sdond nv
the ne and when the nobe lord takss n,
ed that had resored TO arbitration should have
been successful in obtaining our claims, cannot help
thinking the matter would have been open much discus
sion Indeed do no. believe that that CLAIM Of Great Brit
ain ra w, found,d that it is claim which the negota
tors intended to ratify"
Now, with these admissions and disclosures be-
fore the world, is there any language too strong in
which to characterize the course of the British gov
ernmcnf They show, that during the whole course
OF the controversy in regard to the northeastern
boundary prior to the negotiations Of the treaty Of
1872 three was in the possession of the king and in
the British archives, a map-Mitchell's map
which, it is we'll known, was the map used by the
negotiators of the treaty Of 1888, on which the line
is traced by Mr.. Oswald tthe British commission
err who negotiated the provisional articles of this
treaty, November, 1884, in exact accordance with
the claims Of the United States. Ii has always been
known, therefore, to the British government that
their claim was an unjust one-and still it has been
persevered Impressed and prosecuted even to the
very verge Of war. IL it be regarded too strong
an inference from the possession Of this map, that
the British title was known TO be unfounded, he
would add the express declaration of Sir Robert
Peel, in the speech, that he odd not be-
lieue the claim Of England 10 be toeli.foundsd.n
Now sir transfer this transaction to private life
and how would it be regarded What would be
said Of who should make an effort, through the
forms of law or otherwise to obtain the possession
and property in his neig hbor's farm, when he had
full and ample evidence in his pocket that the right
and title to the farm was fully in his neighbor, and
not in himself? Is there one code Of morals for in
iividuas and another for nations. On the contrary
Toes not the same immutabe principles of right of
ruth, of justice, apply to both; and fraud and decep-
ion deserve as strong and emphatic reprobation in
lne case as IN the other?
But this transaction contracts deeper dye when
we trace it step farther ltappears by the decara-
ion of Sir Robert Peel that, at the very time Lord
Ashburton was in this country and negotiating the
realty of Washington, he had in his possession this
IDENTICAL map. Notwithstanding this he permits
himself to say, in letter to the Secretary of State
Iune ID, 1912:
I'VE believe the position maintained by on the subject
If this boundary to be founded Justice eqty and
eny that have been determined in preensions by
,ohcy and expedience."
Again, he says in his letter of the 2lst Of June:
81 will only here add the solemn assurance which
would not lightly make, that after long and careful con
liberation of all the arguments and nfeTences direct
bearing the whole of this truly diicu
question: is my settled conviction that it was the nten
ion of the parties to the treaty of peace of 7a however
mperecy these intentions may have been executed
TO Great Britain by their description boundaries
he whole OF the waters Of the st. Johnn !
How such declarations could be made by one
having in his possession the evidence that the line
rossed the main branch of the st. John, and ex-
ended some sixty or seventy miles beyond it to the
highlands dividing the waters emptying themselves,
m the one hand into the St. Lawrence, and on the
'ther, into the Atlantic ocean, agreeably to the
american claim, is not for him to explain. In.
Iced, it seemed to him nexplicable and astounding |
Under all these circumstances he might well appeal
o probabilities in regard to the correctness of the
opinion expressed that the people of Maine were
ully satisfied with this treatya treaty which gave
o England over three million acres of territory as
ncontestably the property Of that State any one
VI the many millions Of acres which now constitute
Ter broad domain. He had intended to have alluded |