the St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy are called the Seathereby further marking the distinction between them as particular portions of the sea and that wider portion of the sea distinguished in the treaty as the Atlantic Ocean. In fine, by the repeated terms of the treaty it is as clear as any words can be that the BAY OF FUNDY was contra-distinguished throughout, and repeatedly, and advisedly, from the ATLANTIC OCEAN. This decides the largest and most important branch of the discussion against the American claim; for their objection to the English line-we beg our readers to turn back to the sketch-is this: that it divides the Atlantic waters from the St. Lawrence waters only during part of its course-that is, towards its western extremity-but that to the eastward, it divides the Atlantic waters from those of the Bay of Fundy. But it turns out that exactly the same objection lies to the American line; for it also only divides the St. Lawrence waters from the Atlantic waters for part of its course—that is, at its western end-but at its eastern end only divides the St. Lawrence waters from those of the Bay of Fundy-and the Bay of Fundy being, in this very boundary clause, carefully and repeatedly contradistinguished from the Atlantic Ocean, the American line labours under exactly the very same objection which the Americans have advanced against the British line. This is undeniable; and this portion of the American argument, if admitted to its fullest possible extent, could only show that neither line was right. But we think we can carry the British argument an important, a conclusive step further. The difficulty, be it remembered, is this-that the treaty, in talking of the rivers which run off on opposite sides, mentions only those of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic; why is it silent as to those which flow into the Bay of Fundy? For this, as the negotiators may have thought, sufficient reason-that the business was to trace a line of boundary between the two nations, and that the St. John's being altogether within the British territory, the national boundary could have no concern with it :and the exact site and courses of its various branches being very imperfectly or in fact wholly unknown, it would have been imprudent to employ them in the description of such a boundary. Knowing what we now know of the course of the St. John, and the difficulties which have since arisen in tracing the Highlands, it is obvious that it would have been better if the treaty had specified that the line should have divided the waters flowing into the Atlantic Ocean from those falling into the St. Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy.' Yes,' the American advocates will answer; 'the the addition of those latter words would certainly have clearly established the British claim-but their omission as clearly confirms ours.' Not so!-for to establish their claim the self-same words should have been equally added, and the treaty should have said, dividing the waters flowing into the Atlantic Ocean and the bay of Fundy from those falling into the river St. Lawrence.' So that, in this respect, the two lines are just in the same condition; and if, as the King of the Netherlands most justly observes, the two lines have equal claims, the decision, of course, must be in favour of that one of the two, otherwise equal, lines, which the line proceeding due north would first meet-that is, the British line. Upon the whole, therefore, of the considerations arising out of the strict words of the treaty-to which we have hitherto confined ourselves-we are decidedly of opinion that the nearest approach to its exact terms would be, that the direct line drawn north from the St. Croix should terminate at the rise of the Highlands in the neighbourhood of Mars Hill, south of the Restook, a main tributary of the river St. John's-and thence the boundary should run westward along those Highlands towards the head of the Connecticut :-in short-the British line; but which is the British line only because the various British officers and statesmen, who have examined the question, have, like ourselves (if we may venture to allude to ourselves on such an occasion), arrived honestly and sincerely at the conclusion, that it is the line least inconsistent with the specific terms of the treaty. Even at the expense of what may seem a tedious repetition, we think it both fair and convenient to restate the three chief and, as they think, conclusive objections which the Americans make to the assumption of this point near Mars Hill as their northeast angle; to which we shall annex a summary of the answers to which we conceive those objections are liable. Objection I. There are no such Highlands at that spot. Answer. The exact character of the country at this point is a question of fact which must be determined by survey and evidence. The recent report of the British commissioners, indeed, gives that survey and evidence, but it is ex parte, and we therefore shall not, in this place, rely upon it; nor is it essential to this point, because there is, on the admitted evidence, a conclusive answer to the American objection: namely, that they argue that Highlands mean only such a height of land as throws off water, and that in this sense the British point is confessedly as much Highlands as the American point on the shores of the St. Law rence. Objection Objection II. It does not correspond with the north-west angle of Nova Scotia prescribed in the treaty. Answer. It certainly does not; but we have already shown that there is a physical impossibility that the north-west angle of NOVA SCOTIA can ever be found or formed by the terms of the treaty-that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia has never yet been defined-and that, as the Umpire has truly said, Nova Scotia might have, for aught we know, several north-west angles-but the angle adopted by England does give, what it is admitted was intended to be defined by the treaty, a north-east angle of the United States, and thus affords a perfect meaning and the nearest approach to the strict terms of the clause. Objection III. That even if there be Highlands at this point, they are not Highlands which divide the waters falling into the St. Lawrence from those falling into the Atlantic Ocean, because the waters which fall into the Bay of Fundy intervene, which Bay of Fundy is the Atlantic Ocean. Answer. As this objection comprises two heads, so must the answer. First, the very boundary clause of the treaty carefully distinguishes the Atlantic Ocean from the Bay of Fundy as different and distinct portions of the sea; and things which the clause distinguishes as different cannot, in interpreting the same clause, be confounded as the same. Secondly, the American point is liable to exactly the same objection; namely, that it divides the waters of the St. Lawrence-not from the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, but-from the waters of that separate portion of the sea distinguished in the treaty as the Bay of Fundy. Here we conclude our observations founded on the terms of the treaty. Three other points remain to be disposed of. I. The natural facts of the case, as proved by surveys. II. The evidence as to the general intentions of the parties when they made the original treaty; and, III. The right of the individual State of Maine to control the decision of the Federal Government in this matter. As to the natural features of the country, it is obvious that it would be quite impossible for us to bring into any manageable shape the vast and complex details of territorial surveys, and scientific, and often unscientific, observations which have been made; we shall, however, endeavour to give a summary of the main points, and of the general result. We must begin by stating that it was not till the publication of the Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, so lately as last July, that we, or anybody else, possessed anything like an accurate view of the case. We shall see presently that Mr. Gallatin is forced to admit that the best and latest American surveys 2 M VOL. LXVII. NO. CXXXIV. were were only conjectural;' and it is clear that all that has hitherto taken place on conjectural, and, as we shall also show, on fictitious evidence, is good for nothing, and that the authentication of the facts of the case must be the foundation of a new discussion. The survey by Mr. Featherstonhaugh and Colonel Mudge is the first that ever has been made by actual observation and scientific professors. It is, we admit, ex parte-and it would be certainly most desirable, and indeed is absolutely necessary, that the American government should either accept its conclusions, or should consent to a conjoint scientifical survey, which should now do what ought to have been done in the beginning, and what Mr. Livingston proposed in 1833-ascertain the natural facts as the basis of the political discussion. But in the mean time we must be permitted to put our trust in the good faith and skill of the British commissioners: to the precision of their observations, the accuracy of their results, and the truth and clearness of their statements of facts, Mr. Gallatin bears full and honourable testimony (p. 150); though he adds, that to those facts the United States attach no importance'a singular admission-the true interpretation of which is that the facts are all against the pretensions of the United States, as we shall soon see. We are sorry to be obliged to say that this very able Report too clearly proves that the extreme negligence or ignorance which characterised the British negociators in the earlier stages of the transaction were even, if possible, surpassed by those of British agents employed in the subsequent examination of the features of the country. The proceedings and reports of the American agents have been indeed equally erroneous; but it is very remarkable that all the mistakes of the British were made against themselves, and all the misstatements of the Americans were made in their own favour. Mr. Featherstonhaugh and Col. Mudge do not hesitate to attribute the former to inadvertence,' indiscretion,' or delusion; while the latter are characterised as 'management' and manœuvre. Our readers will see presently some of these instances, and will form their own judgment. We have already observed how, under the treaty of 1785, the line was to be drawn due north instead of north-westward, and how, under the Convention of 1798, the Monument was erected at the eastern, instead, as it ought to have been, at the western source of the St. Croix. Under the treaty of Ghent, another joint commission was employed to trace the due north line from this Monument to the Highlands : It appears that the surveyors of the two governments were directed by the joint commissioners to "proceed upon an exploring survey, upon upon a line due north from the lake at the source of the river St. Croix, -until they should arrive at some one of the streams or waters which are connected with the River St. Lawrence." "It is alleged in the British Commissioner's Report that this (latter) direction" was framed and inserted in the draft of the original instructions to the surveyors by the agent of the United States; and this fact is not denied by him." The sanctioning of this instruction was no doubt indiscreet on the part of the British commissioner. The terms of the treaty were not ambiguous; they enjoined the parties to run the due north line to the Highlands, and not to STREAMS RUNNING INTO THE ST. LAWRENCE. But the joint instruction to the surveyors to carry the due north line to the waters of the St. Lawrence was virtually a direction to extend the line to the Metis; and hence the inadvertent concurrence of the British commissioner in this instruction was made to carry along with it an implied sanction, on his part, of the gratuitous assumption that the Metis flowed from the Highlands of the treaty. 'The American agent was not slow to avail himself of the success of his manœuvre, and at the close of that survey of the due north line, he produced a map, exhibiting a chain of "Highlands "running uninterrupted by any gap or depression whatever, from the source of the Metis, in west longitude 67° 55', to the sources of the Ouelle, in west longitude 70°;-[this is the northern edge of the shaded part of our sketch]-writing in conspicuous characters over them these words:"The Highlands which divide the rivers emptying into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean." At the meeting of the commissioners in 1819, the American agent had the address to procure that fictitious map to be filed in the joint proceedings; so that when the misrepresentation in this map had attracted the attention of the British party in the joint commission, and a motion was made to take the map off the files, the American commissioner refused his consent to the proposition, and it thus became a part of the records of the joint commission.'-Report, pp. 42, 43. At this time it was supposed that the country in the neighbourhood of Mars Hill afforded no Highlands, and the American Commissioner, under the treaty of Ghent, concluded that the British Commissioner would therefore be compelled to contend that the Highlands of the treaty did not mean any visible elevation, but only such a height of land as would throw off waters. The American therefore assumed that great visible elevation was indispensably necessary, and accordingly a range of mountains (entirely fictitious,' as it has turned out) were inserted on the map of the American surveyor, who solemnly stated that he had himself seen them. (ib.) This surveyor, Mr. Johnson, was soon after withdrawn from the survey, and a Mr. Burnham appointed to pursue the inquiry for America, with Dr. Tiarks on the part of England. These gentlemen proceeded together satisfactorily, and concurred in re 2 M 2 porting |