« FöregåendeFortsätt »
assumed that the British government had that information in advance. Let that pass. We suppose that, if they possessed the part of the work of which they availed themselves, they also had the portion from which we have quoted; and if so, we are very sure that they never would have described the line now contended for in a way which would palpably contradict their intentions. Governor Pownall's work of 1776 also, with Mr. Featherstonhaugh, it may be observed, accounts satisfactorily for making the western boundary of Nova Scotia in Governor Wilmot's commission of 1763 a straight line. One word, however, as to the map called Evans', and annexed to Pownall's work. That map was published, it is said, in 1755, and must have been not only before the framers of the proclamation of 1763, but must have been known generally in America before the “revolt,” as our late geologist terms it, “ of the British colonies.” It was published, we are told, by the assistance of the legislature of Pennsylvania, and a preface, dated August 9, 1755, is adduced to substantiate that fact.
Will our readers credit it that all which has been said as to that map is absolute fiction ? No map of the character referred to, in which any part of New England is included, ever was published till 1776, and it is with reference to the map of that
that the remarks of Governor Pownall, already quoted, are applicable. Of this, fortunately, we have the most irrefutable evidence in the works themselves. The fact is, that Evans did publish, in 1755, a map of the middle colonies; and the preface to it, which acknowledges his obligations to the legislature of Pennsylvania, is reprinted in Governor Pownall's book, where we perused it, and where, we presume, it alone can be found, at least in connection with any matter referring to New England.* In 1776, to Evans' map was added the information obtained as to the eastern colonies by Governor Pownall, and it was printed under the following title, “A Map of the middle British Colonies in North America, first published by Mr. Lewis Evans, of Philadelphia, in 1755, and since corrected and improved, as also extended, with the addition of New England and bordering parts of Canada; from actual surveys now lying at the board of trade, by T. Pownall
, M. P., with a topographical description of such parts of North America as are contained in this map. Printed and published March the twenty-fifth, 1776."
* In a note to the 35th page of the Report, the commissioners quote Evans' map of 1755 for the boundary of Nova Scotia. We repeat that such a map of that year, on which Nova Scotia was delineated, never existed.
We will only add that this map, conformably with Pownall's declaration to confine himself to information which he had tested, did not extend even as far north as the forty-sixth degree, and consequently did not embrace the highlands near the St. Lawrence.
The most objectionable part of this report is still to be noticed; and looking to the official character given to it in a very different and far more formal manner than was afforded by us to the translation from Sir William Alexander's grant, which the commissioners have descanted on, we must express our surprise, not so much at their suggestion, as at the sanction apparently granted to it by the high-minded English minister who presides over the department of foreign affairs. We refer to no less a matter than a proposition to repudiate the decision of the commissioners under the treaty of 1794, as to the source of the St. Croix, with a view of fixing it at the point contended for by Great Britain, a due north line from whence would better comport with the mountain theory than the one established by the award.
That we were the sufferers by that decision, no one can well doubt who examines Mitchell's map and gives to it the authority to which, by the testimony of the plenipotentiaries, it was entitled; but to disturb that question is now too late. Were it permitted to do so, no treaty stipulation could be deemed of any effect. The quibble, however, by which the report sustains the suggestion, is worthy of notice. The late commissioners say that, by the treaty of Ghent, we are to draw the line according to the treaty of 1783. The source of the St. Croix was not, according to the commissioners, fixed in 1798 according to that treaty, and therefore they maintain that we may go back and open the question. It is not that we fear the result of a new inquiry, but that we deprecate the principle which finds no apology in the proceeding cited in reference to the king of the Netherlands, whose award was admitted by all parties not to have been within the submission, and which was never carried into effect.
As to the scientific part of the work, though exhibiting the
* A copy of such portion of this map as was added by Pownall, will be found annexed to Mr. Gallatin's work; and the original edition of the enlarged map, as well as a copy of Evans' map of the middle colonies, as reprinted (imperfectly, Pownall says) in Jeffrey's atlas, in 1775, may be seen at the library of the New York Historical Society.
results of the expressed object of the establishment of the commission, we do not deem it necessary to do more than refer to our oft-expressed opinion that, if all the facts alleged were true, they would not affect the issue. The elevations are given, in general, by Colonel Mudge with as much accuracy probably as his means of ascertaining them permitted ; but they are the elevations, not of any dividing ridge, but of isolated hills, which we learn from those conversant with its topography are to be found in every portion of the state, and between whose gaps the rivers pass. Of this nature is Mars Hill, as to the height of which, by the bye, a considerable mistake has been made. Katahdin, which is even south of the present British line and not indicated on their map, though it is shown on map A, and much exceeds any elevation on the newly-discovered mountains, is from five to six thousand feet high, and being surrounded by swamps and lakes, may almost be deemed an island. Indeed, the commissioners themselves admit, with regard to their axis of maximum elevation, that at sixty-nine degrees forty minutes west longitude, “ the peaks become separated occasionally by wide gaps.
No continuous ranges of highlands exist where they are pretended to be, nor can it do so in the nature of things. To suppose that there was a continuous ridge traversing the country, more elevated than the heads of the streams flowing from the north of it into the Atlantic, would be to contradict all physical phenomena, and to maintain that water could run up
hill. It may not, however, be irrelevant here to state that the explorations of the very able commission which the United States have had in their service during the last summer, have even deprived England of the argument which she had deduced from her mountain theory. Not only have they been able to show that there are no highlands, fulfilling any of the requisite conditions of the treaty, where Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh have placed them, but they have ascertained that the highlands of our line really approximate to the character of mountains, and have traced a range, the lowest gaps of which exceed the average height of the British commissioners' highlands, from the north coast of the Bay of Chaleurs, where our boundary protracted would terminate, around the head waters of the Restigouche and St. John's, to the Temiscouta portage. They have also discovered that, except at the termination of the exploring line from the monu
NO. XV.VOL. VIII.
ment, and at the sources of the Green and Toladi rivers, which were explored under the direction of the Ghent commission, the dividing ridge is ten or twelve miles north of where we had supposed it to be. And thus, by the application of the principle, for which we have ever contended to the actual surveying and marking out of the boundary according to the treaty of peace, we shall possess considerably more territory than we had at any time anticipated.
As to the late British report, and which has strictly an official character, one inference we are at least authorized to deduce from it, namely, that Her Majesty's ministers have formally abandoned the case heretofore made for England, and gone in quest of a new defence to the suit ; nor can we see the slightest ground by which the British can longer refuse us possession of Mars Hill, or the territory lying between their old line and the one now assumed by them.*
Beside the question as to the ultimate boundary, the discussions relating to the possession and jurisdiction of the country pending the determination of the title, have of late years given rise to a correspondence not less voluminous than that called forth by the principal subject.
* Mr. Gallatin, in his work, notices a new suggestion, which apeared in the Westminster Review for June, 1840. In the article in question, most of the former errors of the British are abandoned, and the reviewer sees no less clearly than we do the absurdity of selecting a point for the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which must be either an exterior angle of that province or no angle at all, but a point in the middle of the boundary. He agrees with us that the British line has not the semblance of fulfilling the treaty, and admits that the American has more plausibility in its favor; but he rejects it in consequence of his adhering to the distinction bet ween the "sea" and the " Atlantic Ocean," and by which he excludes the rivers falling into the Bay of Fundy and Bay of Chaleurs from the class of Atlantic rivers. Considering the line of the treaty impossible, a theory is broached giving, in opposition to the universally received opinion of both parties, to the highlands, not the sense in which they are understood in this country, but the term is applied to the whole disputed territory, embracing seven millions of acres in extent.
In pursuance of these views, and disregarding its essential requirement, namely, that the boundary should runs along the highlands which divide,” etc., it is proposed that the disputed territory should be divided by a straight line drawn either from the point where the lines of the two parties diverge, or from the Connecticut River to the head of the Bay des Chaleurs. The point where the line would intersect the due north line from the St. Croix would be the north west angle of Nova Scotia. This would be on no dividing ridge, but at the River Restigouche, which, the reviewer remarks, has long been regarded as the northern boundary of Nova Scotia. It would appear, however, that the Canadian country of Bonaventure, which lies between the Restigouche and the continuation of the highlands for which we contend, is of modern formation; and as it did not exist in 1824, must have been established long since the commencement of our dispute. With'the alterations made in the boundary lines of the provinces since 1783, the United States have nothing to do. It is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia of that period to which the treaty refers, and the proposition of the reviewer is inadmissible, as throwing open the whole disputed territory for the selection of an arbitrary boundary in any portion of it, in lieu of the one which we believe to have been sufficiently defined by the treaty; and it certainly could lead to an arrangement in no event more desirable than that proposed by the king of the Netherlands, which was declined by us.
To the period of the revolutionary war, the territory in dispute seems to have been wholly uninhabited. Shortly after that event, a small settlement was formed at or near the Madawaska, by a remnant of that unfortunate race of French Acadians to whose expulsion from their homes we have referred. They had ever, even while in Nova Scotia, resisted the authority of the English; and for the management of their own affairs, they had recourse either to their spiritual guide or to a domestic tribunal established among themselves. On the other hand, grants of land in the neighborhood of Mars Hill were in 1801 made by the legislature of Massachusetts, which were followed by other public acts of a similar nature, though it would scem that the country was not to any extent settled under them, and in 1814 it was stated by the British plenipotentiaries at Ghent " that the greater part of the territory was actually unoccupied.”
The first diplomatic notice which we find in reference to conflicting jurisdiction, was a verbal complaint in 1818, by Mr. Bagot, the British minister at Washington, of irregular settlements formed on the lands in controversy; and on that occasion, so far from admitting the right of the provincial government to expel American citizens by force, the secretary of state, Mr. Adams, requested to be furnished with the requisite information, that he might ask the interposition of our local authorities to preserve the condition of the territory unchanged.
Shortly after the accession of Mr. Adams to the presidency, complaints on both sides of trespass on the disputed territory, and of the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities of the contiguous province and state, became not unfrequent; but the discussions to which they gave rise, while they manifested a disposition to exhibit mutual forbearance, did not define with any distinctness the respective rights of the parties. The arrest, however, in 1827, in his own house, under aggravating circumstances, (which was followed by his conviction and sentence,) of an American for raising the flag of his country on land near the junction of the Meriumpticook and St. John's, which had been granted him by Massachusetts and Maine, led to the adoption of public measures by the latter state, as well as to reclamations of a more serious character by our government. Mr. Clay, in a note to the British minister, declared that, if this individual was guilty at all, he