The Portland daily press., 1867-02-02
The Northeastern Frontier.
CLAIMS OF MAINE AGAINST THE GENERAL GOV
ERNNENT.

sentatives on the 25th ult., by Mr.. Patterson
ofNew Hampshire from the committee on For
eign Affairs, on the subject of the CLAIMS OF tie
State Of Maine against the United States, I'D
connection with the settlement OF the NORTH
eastern boundary which claims the state mas
assigned to the European and North American
Railway Company to aid in constructing
railroad between Bangor and ST. John, n. b.
We give below the substance of this report, in
which II will he seen that Professor Patterson
tal,es strong oround in favor Of the allowance
Of the claims, Their history is infinitely re-
viewed and a mass of documentary evidence
adduoed to prove their validity The report
assumes that the European and North Ameri
can Railway, to which the claims have been
assigned, is obviously work of national i'm
portance, both in a commercial and military
point OF view. In case of war with Great Brit
ain it would be military necessity. In times
of peace it would be source of constantly in
creasing wealth, and would bind the Provinces
and States together in bonds of mutual inter-
est and sympathy. He also thinks it would
tend to hasten the political annexation of the
maritime provinces to the United States, a con-
sideration the business and Importance OF
NhiCn VIII Dt Ndf1ouSiy cotlhiao-u' AfAS S>.-
which have been thus transferred are:
First-A claim for lands assigned to settlers
under the fourth article OF the treaty Oh " ASH
ipgton. ...,.,..l o,,
Second-A claim for the loss OF timber upon
their territory during the suspension OF State
Jurisdiction between 1888 and 1883. lf'
Tbird-A claim for the correction of an err
ror made at the Treasury in computing the in
terast an the expenditures made by the State
in defending her territory. 44 Aaa -4i
FoIrth--A claim for interest upon advances
made by Massachusetts, in the war of 1925.
The validity of the first and second of these
claims, for the loss of land and timber has late
ly been denied, on the ground that neither
Massachusetts, nor Maine had any legal title to
the territory, so long as 1T was in dispute. To
this it may be replied, that unless the State OF
Name had title to this land and jurisdiction
over it, the nited States could have had none
There is double jurisdiction in this country
that of the State aud that of the general govern
ment,-but the State holds the fee-simple of all
unappropriated territory within its bounds This
rule apples TO all the States of the Union. Ii
the claim of Great Britain invalidated the title
OF Maine, it must have removed the authority
of the general government therefrom. The ex-
istence oftbis double jurisdiction was not only
assumed during all that controversy of more
than a quarter of century, but explicitly
stated in State and national legislation; in the
speeches of statesmen whose reputation is not
only national, but universal, and in the di plo-
United States.
The first claim above quoted, is founded up
on the fourth article of the treaty of Washing
ton, revising the northeastern boundary, which
is as follows: s -s2aa 1880 ,IH9EE
"All grants of land made by either party
within the limits of the territory which by this
treaty falls within the dominions of the other
party, shall be held valid, ratified, and confirm
ed, to the persons in possession under such
grants, TO the same extent as if such territory
haI nv b.r,tI In,,
of the party by whom such grants were made
and all equitable possessory claims arising
from possession and improvement of any lol
or parcel OF land by the person actually in pos
session, or by those under whom such person
claims, for more than six years before the date
of this treaty, shall, in like manner, be deemed
valid, and DE confirmed and quieted by a re-
lease to the person entitled thereto, of the title
to such lot or parcel of land so described as
best to include the improvements made there
on; and in all other respects the two cont ract-
ing parties agree to deal upon the most liberal
principles of equity with the settlers actually
dwelling upon the territory falling to them, re-
spectively, which has heretofore been in dispute
between them" d. il 3d.. r..,st, .--s. .-s h..
In this article the general government agree
to quiet the individuals who hold lands in
their possession within the boundary, either by
grants from New Brunswick or by equitable
possessory claims. There is no direct infer.
ence here either to the State or the holders OF
the Eaton and Plymouth grants. 1t relates
solely to interlopers. These persons were to be
quoted through the intervention of Maine
else the United States would have given titles
as to other settlers upon the public domain
and the territory would have remained hers un
til formally surrendered to Maine, which hal
never been done. This article was introduced
IN the treaty at the suggestion Of the Commits
sloners of Maine, to secure remuneration 70
losses, and they were the first to bring thes
claims against thegovernment under this ar
ticle of the treaty. 70 slJgs5-a5Edi aas Fl
1t has been said, however, these claims hav
already been bald to the disputed t. rritor
fund.-" and the 100000 stipulated for in the fift
article of the treaty which reads as follows:
Nv hereas, in the course of the controyers
respecting the disputed territory on the north
eastern boundary, some moneys have been re
celved by the authorities of her Britannia Ma
]estys province OF New Brunswick with 1h
intention of preventing depredations on tn
forests of the said territory, which moneys wer
to be carried to fund called the Dispute
Territory tund, the proceeds whereof it wa
agreed, should be hereafter paid over to tn
parties Interested, in the proportions to be de
termined by fnaI sertIoa,oat Boundaries
1T is hereby agreed, that correct account o
all receipts and payments on the said fund
shall be delivered to the Government of the
United States within six months after the rat
lfication OF the treaty; and the proportion O.
the amount due thereon to the States of Maine
and Massachusetts,, and any bonds OF securities
apperJaining thereto, shall be paid and deliver
ed over to the Government of the United
States; and the Government of the United
States agrees to receive for the use Of ant
pa. over TO the States of Maine and Massa
chusetts, their respective portions of said fund
and, further, TO pay and satisfy said States; re-
spectively, for all claims or expenses incurred
by tn I'm in protecting the said heretofore dis
puted territory, and making survey thereo
IN 1883; the Government of the United State.
agreeing 10 with the States of Maine ant
Massachusetts to pay them the further sum o
S500,OOo, IN equal notifies. on account of thei
assent TO the llne of boundary described in thi
treaty, and IN consideration of the conditions
and equivalents received therefor from tn,
government of her Britannia Majesty" y
TINS article of the treaty has been fully and
fairly ex9cuted by both parties to it, and the
government was promptly discharged from
the obligations imposed by it, But this does
not discharge the government from its Obliga-
tons under the fourth article of the treaty..
She has not yet confirmed and quoted by a
release to the persons entitled thereto their
possessions, nor can she do it except through
the intervention of Maiue, the validity OF
whose title the treaty of Washington itself af-
frmed. But the State refuses to intervene
and ratify the grants and possessions of lands
which were stolen from her, while disrobed OF
power, by the national government, withou,
compensation. llf9- .- ilf '
The claimants further urge that the govern
ment has Already acknowledged, in an explc-
1t manner the right ofproperty on the part Of
the States of Maine and Massachusetts In the
lands to be confirmed to the settlers. and rec
ognlzed the propriety of the States quoting
them IN their possessions by paying the expen-
SEES OF the commissioners appoi~ ted by Maine
and Massachusetts, for this purpose in iS43 and
1854. ..-. = 10Y - :
The second claim is for the loss of timber
upon their territory while in dispute between
1882 and 1889. For the sake of maintaining
peace the United States, in 1882, entered into
an arrangement with Great Britain by which
the jurisdiction of Maine over that part of her
territory in dispute was suspended until the
final settlement of the controversy The State
did not admit the right of the general govern
ment to bind her in a matter of this kind. but
from considerations of public welfare welded
to its solicitation and forbore to exercise her
authority, even against trespassers, till 1885,
during the seven years that the property of
the State was so removed from the protection
OF her laws by au act of the national govern
ment, for the purpose of avoiding war, her ter
ritory along both banks of the Aroostook and
the upper St. John was stripped of its valuable
Simter by the lumbermen of New Brunswick
linus, 10 avert threatened public evil the
state was despoiled of much valuable proper-
ty, Tor which she is entitled to indemnitv IF
the claim does not come within the clause of
the constitution, which declares that "priyate
property shall not be taken for public use with
OUT Just compensation, 1t is sufficiently near
to be recognized and allowed by Co1oress
The only plausible argument ever 1rged
against paying this claim is one founded unon
discharge received by the government on the
payment of the disputed territory fund. -
But that argument rests upon the erroneous
assumption that it was a discharged from all IL
ability for the loss of lumber, whereas it was
only "a full discharge of the liability of the
United States to the States of Massa-
chusetts and Maine by reason of the
aforesaid 5th article of the treaty" The fact
Is that the disputed territory fund" does not