to interpret strictly the words of the treaty, we should be obliged to search again into cotemporaneous occurrences and opinions for principles of construction which might shed light on the actual intentions of the parties.

Our success must, on the contrary, depend on the reciprocal admission or presumption that the royal arbiter was so far right when he came to the conclusion which others had come to before him, that the treaty of 1783 was not executable according to its strict expression, and that the case was therefore one for agreement by compromise. The only point upon which I thought it my duty to enter upon anything like controversy, is that refe: red to in my letter of the 13th instant; and I did so to rescue my Government and myself from an imputation of unworthy motives, and the charge that they had set up a claim which they knew to be unfounded, from mere considerations of policy or convenience. The assertions of persons in my position, on subjects connected with their diplomatic duties, are naturally received by the world with some caution; but I trust you will believe me when I assure you that I should not be the person to come here on any such errand. I do not pretend, nor have I ever thought, the claim of Great Britain with respect to this boundary, any more than the claim of America, to be unattended with difficulties. Those claims have been considered by impartial men of high authority, and unquestioned ability, to be equally so attended; and therefore it is that this is a question for a compromise, and it is this compromise which it has become our duty to endeavor to accomplish. I will only here add the most solemn assurance, (which I would not lightly make,) that, after a long and careful consideration of all the arguments and inferences, direct and circumstantial, bearing on the whole of this truly difficult question, it is my settled conviction that it was the intention of the parties to the treaty of peace of 1783, however imperfectly those intentions may have been executed; to leave to Great Britain, by their description of boundaries, the whole of the waters of the river St. John.

The length of these preliminary observations requires, perhaps, some apology; but I now proceed to comply with your application to me to state the principles and conditions on which, it appears to me, that this compromise, which it is agreed we should attempt, should be founded.

A new boundary is in fact to be traced between the State of Maine and the province of New Brunswick. In doing this, reference must be had to the extent and value of the territory in dispute; but, as a general principle, we cannot do better than keep in mind the intention of the framers of the first treaty of peace in 1783, as expressed in the preamble to the provisional articles in the following words: "Whereas reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience are found by experience to form the only permanent foundation of peace and friendship between States," &c. I have on a former occasion explained the reasons which have induced the British Government to maintain their rights in this controversy beyond any apparent value in the object in dispute, to be the establishing a good boundary between our two countries, so as to prevent collision and dispute, and an unobstructed communication and connexion of our colonies with each other. Further, it is desired to retain under · the jurisdiction of each Government respectively, such inhabitants as have for a length of time been so living, and to whom a transfer of allegiance might be painful or distressing.

These are shortly the objects we have in view, and which we must now see to reconcile to a practical division of the territory in dispute. Great Britain has no wish of aggrandizement for any general purpose of increased dominion, as you must be satisfied by the liberality with which I have professed myself ready to treat questions of boundaries in other quarters where no considerations of particular convenience or fitness occur. I might further prove this by calling your attention to the fact, that of the land likely to come to us by any practical settlement, nine-tenths parts of it are, from its position and quality, wholly worthless. It can support no population, it grows even little timber of value, and can be of no service but as a boundary, (though, from its desert nature) a useful boundary for two distinct Governments.

In considering on the map a division of the territory in question, this remarkable circumstance must be kept in mird--that a division of acres by their number would be a very unequal division of

their value. The Southern portion of this territory, the valley of the Aroostook, is represented to be one of the most beautiful and most fertile tracts of land in this part of the continent, capable of the highest state of cultivation, and covered with fine timber; while the Northern portion, with the exception of that small part comprised within the Madawaska settlement, is of the miserable description I have stated. It would be no exaggeration to say, that one acre on the Aroostook would be of much more value than ten acres north of the St. John. There would be, therefore, no equality in making a division of acre for acre.

But although I remind you of this circumstance, I do not call on you to act upon it. On the contrary, I am willing that you should have the advantage in this settlement, both in the quantity and the quality of this land. All I wish is to call this fact in proof of my assertion, that the object of Great Britain was simply to claim that which was essential to her, and would form a convenient boundary, and to leave all the more material advantages of this bargain to the State of Maine.

I now come to the more immediate application of these principles to a definite line of boundary; and looking at the map with reference to the sole object of Great Britain as already described, the line of the St. John from where the north line from the St. Croix strikes it, up to some one of its sources, seems evidently to suit both parties, with the exception which I shall presently mention. This line throws the waste and barren tract to Great Britain, and the rich and valuable lands to Maine; but it makes a good boundary, one which avoids collision and probable dispute; and, for the reasons stated, we should be satisfied with it, if it were not for the peculiar circumstances of a settlement formed on both sides of the St. John, from the mouth of the Madawaska up to that of the Fish river.

The history and circumstances of this settlement are well known to you. It was originally formed from the French establishments in Acadia, and has been uninterruptedly under French or British dominion, and never under any other laws. The inhabitants have professed great apprehension of being surrendered by Great Britain, and have lately sent an earnest petition to the Queen, depreca ting that being done. Further, this settlement forms one united community, all connected together, and living some on one, and some on the other side of the river, which forms a sort of high road between them. It seems self-evident that no more inconvenient line of boundary could well be drawn than one which divides in two an existing municipality, inconvenient as well to the inhabitants themselves, as to the authorities under which they are to live. There would be evident hardship (I might say cruelty) in separating this now happy and contented village, to say nothing of the bickerings and probable collisions likely to arise from taking in this spot the precise line of the river, which would under other circumstances satisfy us. Indeed, I should consider that such a separation of these industrious settlers, by placing them under separate laws and governments, a most harsh proceeding; and that we should thereby abandon the great object we should have in view of the happiness and convenience of the people, and the fixing a boundary the least likely to occasion future strife.

I dwell on this circumstance at some length, in justification of the necessity I am under of departing, to this inconsiderable extent, from the marked line of the river St. John. What line should be taken to cover this difficulty, I shall have to consider with you; but I cannot in any case abandon the obvious interests of these people. It will be seen, by an inspection of the map, that it is not possible to meet this difficulty by making over to Maine the northern portion of this settlement, as that would be giving up by Great Britain the immediately adjoining communications with Canada, which it is her principal object to preserve.

These observations dispose of those parts of this question which immediately concern the State of Maine; but it may be well at the same time to state my views respecting the adjoining boundary of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York; because they make part of the reference to the King of the Netherlands, and were, indeed, the only part of the subject in dispute upon which a distinct decision was given.

The question here at issue between the two coun tries was as to the correct determination of the parallel of latitude, and the true source of the Connecticut river. Upon both these points decisions were

pronounced in favor of Great Britain; and I might add, that the case of America, as matter of right, was but feebly and doubtingly supported by her own authorities. I am, nevertheless, disposed to surrender the whole of this case, if we should succeed in settling, as proposed, the boundary of Maine. There is a point or two in this line of boundary where I may have to consider, with the assistance of the surveyors acquainted with the localities, the convenience of the resident settlers; as, also, what line may best suit the immediate country at the head of the Connecticut river; but, substantially, the Government of America shall be satisfied, and this point be yielded to them.

This concession, considered with reference to the value of the land ceded, which is generally reported to be fertile, and contains a position at Rouse's Point much coveted in the course of the controversy, would, under ordinary circumstances, be considered of considerable importance. The concession will, however, be made by Great Britain without reluctance, not only to mark the liberal and conciliatory spirit by which it is desired to distinguish these negotiations, but because the case is, in some respects, analogous to that of the Madawaska settlement, before considered. It is believed that the settlers on the narrow strip, which would be transferred to Great Britain by rectifying the 45th parallel of latitude, which was formerly incorrectly laid down, are principally from the United States; and that their opinions and habits incline them to give a preference to that form of government under which, before the discovery of the error in question, they supposed themselves to be living. It cannot be desired by her Majesty to acquire any addition of territory under such circumstances, whatever may be the weight of her rights; but it will be observed that the same argument applies almost exactly to the Madawaska settlement, and justifies the reservation I am there obliged to make. In these days, the convenience and happiness of the people to be governed will ever be the chief guide in transactions of this description between such Governments as those of Great Britain and the United States.

Before quitting this subject, I would observe that it is rumored that Major Graham, in his late survey in Maine, reports some deviation from the true north of the line from the head of the St. Croix toward the St. John. I would here also propose to abide by the old line long established, and from which the deviation by Major Graham is, I am told, inconsiderable, without at all doubting the accuracy and good faith of that very distinguished officer.

In stating the important concessions I am prepared to make on a final settlement of these boundaries, I am sensible that concessions to one State of this Union are not always to be made available for the satisfaction of any other; but you are aware that I am treating with the United States, and that for a long line of important boundaries; and that I could not presume to enter on the question how this settlement might operate on, or be in any way compensated to the different States of the Confederacy. I should, however, add my unfeigned belief that what I have proposed will appear reasonable with reference to the interests of the State of Maine, considered singly. That the proposition, taken as a whole, will be satisfactory to the country at large, I can entertain no doubt.

I abstain from noticing here the boundaries further west, which I am prepared to consider and to settle, because they seem to form part of a case which it will be more convenient to treat separately.

In the course of these discussions, much anxiety has been expressed that Maine should be assured of some means of communication by the St. John, more especially for the conveyance of her lumber. This subject I am very willing to consider, being sensible of the great importance of it to that State, and that the friendly and peaceful relations between neighboring countries cannot be better secured than by reciprocally providing for all their wants and interests. Lumber must for many years be the principal produce of the extensive valley of the Aroostook and of the southern bor ders of the St. John; and it is evident that this article of trade, being worth anything, must mainly depend upon its having access to the sea through that river. It is further evident, that there can be no such access under any arrangement otherwise than by the consent of the province of New Brunswick. It is my wish to seek an early opportunity of considering, with some person well acquainted

with the commerce of that country, what can be done to give it the greatest possible freedom and extent, without trenching too much on the fiscal regulations of the two countries. But, in the mean ume, in order to meet at once the urgent wants and wishes of Maine in this respect, I would engage that, on the final settlement of these differences, all lumber and produce of the forest of the tribulary waters of the St. John shall be received freely without duty, and dealt with in every re spect like the same articles of New Brunswick. I cannot now say positively whether I may be able to go farther; but this seems to me what is principally required. Suggestions have at times been thrown out, of making the port and river of St. John free to the two countries; but I think you will be sensible that this could not be done without some reciprocity for the trade of St. John in ports of the United States; and that, in endeavoring to regulate this, we should be embarking in an intricate question, much and often discussed between the two countries. It cannot also fail to occur to you, that joint rights in the same harbors and waters must be a fruitful source of dissension, and that it behooves us to be careful not to sow the seeds of fu ture differences in the settlement of those of our cwn day.

I have now stated, as I was desired to do, my views of the terms on which it appears to me that this settlement may be made. It must be sufficiently evident that I have not treated the subject in the ordinary form of a bargain, where the party making the proposal leaves himself something to give up. The case would not admit of this, even if I could bring myself so to act. It would have been useless for me to ask what I know could not be yielded; and I can unfeignedly say that, even if your vigilance did not forbid me to expect to gain any undue advantage over you, I should have no wish to do so. The treaty we have to make will be subjected to the scrutiny of a jealous and criticising public; and it would ill answer its main purpose of producing and perpetuating harmony and good will, if its provisions were not considered by good and reasonable men to make a just and equitable settlement of this long-continued controversy. Permit me, sir, to conclude with the assurance of my distinguished consideration,

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,

&c., &c., &c.,

ASHBURTON.

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 8, 1842. MY LORD: Your notes of the 13th and 21st of June were duly received.

In the first of these you correctly say that, in our conferences on the boundary question, we have both been of opinion that no advantage would be gained by resorting at this time to the discussion at length of the grounds on which each party considers its claim of right to rest. At the same time, you deem it expedient, nevertheless, to offer some observations calculated, in your judgment, to repel a supposed allegation, or suggestion, that this controversy only began in 1814; that, up to that period, the American claim was undisputed; and that the English claim, as now set forth, is founded merely in motives of interest. Nothing is more natural than that your Lordship should desire to repel an imputation which would impeach the sincerity and good faith of your Government, and all the weight which justice and candor require is given to your Lordship's observations in this respect. It is not my purpose, nor do I conceive it pertinent to the occasion, to go into any consideration of the facts and reasonings presented by you, to show the good faith and sincerity of England in the claim asserted by her. Any such discussion would be a departure from the question of right now subsisting between the two Governments, and would be more especially unfit for an occasion in which the parties are ap proaching each other in a friendly spirit, with the hope of terminating the controversy by agreement. Following your Lordship's example, however, I must be permitted to say that few questions have ever arisen under this Government in regard to which a stronger or more general conviction was felt that the country was in the right, than this question of the Northeastern boundary. To say nothing of the sentiments of the Governments and people of the States more directly interested, whose opinions may be supposed capable of bias, both Houses of Congress, after full and repeated consideration,

have affirmed the validity of the American claim, by a unanimity experienced on very few other subjects; and the general judgment of the whole people seems to be the same way. Abstaining from all historical facts, all contemporaneous expositions, and all external arguments and circumstances, Í will venture to present to your Lordship a very condensed view of the reasons which produce in this country the conviction that a boundary line may be ascertained, run, and celineated with precision, under and according to the words of the stipulation in the treaty of 1783; that no doubt can be raised by any part of that stipulation, which other parts of it do not remove or explain; and that a line so run would include all that the United States claim. This view is presented by a series of short propositions.

1. The northwest angle of Nova Scotia is the thing to be sought for and found.

2. That angle is to be ascertained by running a line due north from the source of the St. Croix river till that line reaches the highlands; and where such north line intersects the highlands, there is the angle; and thence the line is to run along the said highlands; which said highlands divide those rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic ocean. The angle required, therefore, is an angle made by the intersection of a due-north line with highlands, from one slope of which the rivers empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, and from the other into the Atlantic ocean.

3. Supposing it to be matter of doubt whether the St. John and the Ristigouch are livers falling into the Atlantic ocean, in the sense of the treaty, then the rule of just interpretation is, that if one element or one part in the description be uncertain, it is to be explained by others which are certain, if there be such others. Now, there is no doubt as to the rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence. They are certain; and to their sources the north line is to run, since at their sources the highlands required by the treaty do certainly exist. And departing, for a moment, from the rule just prescribed to myself, I will remind your Lordship that the joint commissioners and agents of the two Governments in 1817, in giving the surveyors instructions for finding these highlands, directed them, in terms, to proceed upon a due-north line "till they should arrive at some one of the streams connected with the river St. Lawrence;" and then to explore the highlands from that point to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river. It is indisputable that a line run according to these instructions, thus given by the commissioners and agents of both Governments, would give to the United States all that they have at any time claimed.

4. It is certain that, by the treaty, the eastern boundary of the United States, from the head of the St. Croix, is to be a due-north and south line. And it is equally certain that this line is to run north til it reaches highlands, from whose northern watershed the rivers flow into the river St. Law

rence.

5. These two things being-one mathematically, and the other physically-certain in themselves, and capable of being precisely marked and delineated, explain or control the uncertainty, if there be uncertainty, in the other part or element of the descrip

tion.

6. The British argument, assuming that the Bay of Fundy, and more especially the Bay of Chaleurs, are not the Atlantic ocean, within the meaning of the treaty, insists that the rivers flowing into these bays are not, therefore, in the sense of the treaty, rivers falling into the Atlantic; and therefore the highlands to which the United States claim have not that southern or eastern watershed which the treaty calls for; and as it is agreed, nevertheless, that we must somewhere find highlands, and go to them, whose northern waters run into the St. Lawrence, the conclusion is, that the different parts of the description in the treaty do not cohere, and that, therefore, the treaty cannot be executed.

7. Our answer to this, as is obvious from what has already been said, is twofold.

First. What may be doubtful in itself, may be made certain by other things which are certain; and inasmuch as the treaty does certainly demand a due-north line, and does certainly demand the extension of that line to highlands from whose northern sides the rivers flow into the river St. Lawrence, thence two clear requirements make it plain that the parties to the treaty considered, in fact, the rivers flowing from the south or east of

the said highlands to be rivers falling into the Atlantic ocean; because they have placed the St. Lawrence rivers and the Atlantic rivers in contradistinction to each other, as rivers running in oppoposite directions, but with their sources in the same highlands. Rivers fed from these highland fountains, running north or northwest, are rivers emptying themselves into the St. Lawrence; and rivers arising from the same fountains, and running in an opposite direction, seem to be as clearly meant to be designated by the character of Atlantic rivers. And, as strongly corroborating this view of the subject, allow me to call your Lordship's attention to two facts.

1. The coast of the Atlantic ocean, from Penobscot river northeasterly, and the western shore of the Bay of Fundy, (which is but a continuation of the coast, and is in a line with it,) is very nearly parallel to the course of the river St. Lawrence through the same latitudes. This is obvious from the map.

2. The rivers which, from their sources in the same ridge, flow respectively into the St. Lawrence and into the Bay of Fundy, and even into the Bay of Chaleurs, run with remarkable unformity in directions almost exactly opposite, as if hastening away from a common origin to their different destinations by the shortest course. The only considerable exception to this, is the northern sweep of the upper part of the St. John; but the smaller streams flowing into this part of that river from the west still strictly obey the general rule.

Now if, from a certain general line on the face of the country, or as delineated on the map, rivers are found flowing away in opposite directions, however strongly it may be asserted that the mountains or eminences are but isolated elevations, it is nevertheless absolutely certain that such a line does in fact define a ridge of highlands which turns the waters both ways.

And, as the commissioners in 1783 had the map before them; as they saw the parallelism of the seacoast and the course of the St. Lawrence; as they saw rivers rising from a common line, and running some north or northwest, the others south or southeast; and as they speak of some of these rivers as emptying themselves into the river St. Lawrence, and of the others falling into the Atlantic ocean; and as they make no third class,-is there a reasona ble doubt in which class they intended to compre. hend all the rivers running in a direction from the St. Lawrence, whether falling immediately, or only ultimately, into the Atlantic ocean?

If there be nothing incoherent or inconsequential in this chain of remarks, it will satisfy your Lordship, I trust, that it is not without reason that American opinion has settled firmly in the con. viction of the rights of the American side of the question; and I forbear from going into the consideration of the mass of other arguments and proofs, for the same reasons which restrain your Lordship from entering into an extended discussion of the question, as well as because your Lordship will have an opportunity of perusing a paper addressed to me by the commissioners of Maine, which strongly presents the subject on other grounds and in other lights.

I am now to consider your Lordship's note of the 21st June. Before entering upon this, I have the President's instructions to say that he fully appreciates the motives which induced your Lordship, personally, to undertake your present mission; that he is quite aware that your public life has been distinguished by efforts to maintain peace and harmony between the two countries; that he quite well recollects that your exertions were employed to prevent the late war, and that he doubts not the sincerity of your declaration that nothing could have drawn you from your retirement, and induced you to engage in your present undertaking, but the hope of being of service to your country, and to our common race. And I have the utmost pleasure, my Lord, in acknowledging the frankness, candor, and plain dealing, which have characterized your official intercourse with this Government; nor am I permitted or inclined to entertain any doubt of your Lordship's entire conviction, as expressed by yourself, as to the merits of this controversy and the difficulties of the case. The question before us is, whether these confident opinions, on both sides, of the rightful nature and just strength of our respective claims, will permit us, while a desire to preserve harmony, and a disposition to yield liberally to mutual convenience, so strongly incite

us, to come together and to unite on a line by agreement.

It appears to be your Lordship's opinion that the line of the St. John, from the point where the north line from the St. Croix strikes that river, up to some one of its sources, evidently suits both parties-with an exception, however, of that part of the Madawaska settlement which is on the south side of the St. John, which you propose should be included within the British territory. That, as a line by agreement, the St. John for some distance upwards from its intersection by the line running north from the St. Croix, would be a very convenient boundary for the two parties, is readily admitted; but it is a very important question how far up, and to which of the sources of this river, this line should extend. Above Madawaska the course of the river turns to the south, and, stretching away towards the sources of the Penobscot, leaves far to the north the line of communication between New Brunswick and Canada. That line departs from the St. John altogether near Madawaska, and, keepIng principally upon the left or north bank of the Madawaska, and proceeding by way of the Temiscouata lake, reaches the St. Lawrence at the mouth of the river du Loup.

There are, then, two important subjects for consideration.

First. Whether the United States can agree to cede, relinquish, or cease to claim, any part of the territory west of the north line from the St. Croix and south of the St. John. And I think it but candid to say, at once, that we see insurmountable objections to admitting the line to come south of the river. Your Lordship's observations upon the propriety of preserving the unity of the Madawaska settlement are, in a great measure, just, and altogether founded, I doubt not, in entirely good motives. They savor of humanity and a kind regard to the interests and feelings of individuals. But the difficulties seem insuperable. The river, as your Lordship remarks, seems a natural bounda ry, and, in this part of it, to run in a convenient direction. It is a line always clear and indisputable. If we depart from it, where shall we find another boundary equally natural, equally clear, and conforming to the same general course? departure from the line of the river, moreover, would open new questions about equivalents, which it would probably be found impracticable to settle. If your Lordship were at liberty, (as I understand you not to be,) to cede the whole or a part of the territory, commonly called the strip, lying east of the north line, and west of the St. John, considerations might be found in such a cession, possibly for some new demarcation west of the north line and south of the river; but, in the present posture of things, I cannot hold out the expectation to your Lordship that anything south of the river can be yielded.

Α

And, perhaps, the inconvenience to the settlers on the southern bark, of making the river the boundary, are less considerable than your Lordship supposes. These settlers are scattered along a considerable extent, very likely soon to connect themselves with whomsoever may come to live near them; and though of different origin, and some difference of religion, not likely, on the whole, to be greatly dissimilar from other borderers occupying the neighboring territory, their rights of property would, of course, be all preserved, both of inheri tance and alienation; and if some of them should choose to retain the social and political relations under which they now are, their removal, for that purpose, to the north bank, drawing after it no loss of property, or of means of subsistence, would not be a great hardship. Your Lordship suggests the inconvenience of dividing a municipality by a line of national boundary; and certainly there is force in the observation; but if, departing from the river, we were to establish, to the south of it, an artificial line upon the land, there might be points on such line at which people would live in numbers on both sides; and a more mathematical line might thus divide villages, while it divided nations. The experience of the world, and our own experience, show the propriety of making rivers boundaries whenever their courses suit the general object; for the same reason that, in other cases to which they are applicable, mountain ranges, or ridges of highlands, are adopted for the same purpose; these last being, perhaps, still more convenient lines of division than rivers, being equally elear and prominent objects, and the population of neighboring countries bordering on a mountain

line of separation being usually thin and inconsiderable on either side. Rivers and inland waters constitute the boundary between the United States and the territories of her Majesty for some thousands of miles westward from the place where the 45th degree of north latitude intersects the St. Lawrence; and along this line, though occasional irregu larities and outbreaks have taken place, (always by the agency and instigation of agitators and lawless men, friends of neither country,) yet it is clear that no better demarcation of limits could be made. And at the northeast, along the space through which the St. Croix constitutes the line of separation, controversies and conflicts are not heard of; but similarity of language, character, and pursuits, and mutual respect for the rights of each other, preserve the general peace.

Upon the whole, my Lord, feeling that there may be inconvenience, and perhaps a small degree of hardship, I yet cannot admit that there is any cruelty in separating the Madawaska settlers south of the St. John, so far as political relations are concerned, from their neighbors on the north of that river. In the present state of society and of peace which exists between the two countries, the severance of political relations needs not to disturb social and family intercourse; while high considerations, affecting both the present and the future, seem to me to require that, following natural indications, we adhere to the St. John, in this part of its course, as the line of division.

The next question is, how far upward this boundary ought to be observed, and along which of its branches. This question would be easily settled, if what may be called the main branch of the river, in this part of it, differing from the general character of rivers in this region of country, did not make a sudden turn. But if we consider the main branch of the St. John-that which has been recently usually so denominated-your Lordship observes that, near the mouth of the Madawaska, it turns almost at right angles, and pushes its sources toward those of the Penobscot. Contiguity and compactness of territory can hardly be preserved by following a stream which makes not occasional windings, but at once so great a deflection from its previous course. The Madawaska is one of its branches, or principal sources, and, as the map shows, is very much a continuance of the line of the principal river from the Great Falls upward. The natural course would, therefore, seem to be to continue along this branch.

We understand, and, indeed, collect from your Lordship's note, that, with whatever opinion of her right to the disputed territory, England, in asserting it, has principally in view to maintain, on her own soil, her accustomed line of communication between Canada and New Brunswick. We acknowledge the general justice and propriety of this object; and agree at once that, with suitable equivalents, a conventional line ought to be such as to secure it to England. The question, therefore, simp'y is, what line will secure it?

The common communication between the prov. inces follows the course of the St. John from the Great Falls to the mouth of the Madawaska, and then, not turning away to the south with the course of the main stream, identifies itself with that of the Madawaska, going along with it to the Temiscouata lakes, thence along those lakes, and so across the highlands, to streams running into the St. Lawrence. And this line of communication we are willing to agree shall hereafter be within acknowledged British territory, upon such conditions and considerations as may be assented to. The Madawaska and the forementioned lakes might conveniently constitute the boundary. But I believe it is true that, in some part of the distance, above the mouth of the Madawaska, it has been found convenient to establish the course of communication on the south bank of that river. This consideration may be important enough to justify a departure from what would otherwise be desirable, and the running of the line at some distance south of the Madawaska, observing natural monuments where it may be practicable, and thus leaving the whole valley of the Madawaska on the British side.

The United States, therefore, upon the adjustment of proper equivalents, would not object to a line of boundary which should begin at the middle of the main channel of the river St. John, where that river is intersected by a due-north line extended from the source of the St. Croix; thence proceeding westerly, by the middle of the main chan

nel of that river, to a point three miles westerly of the mouth of the Madawaska; thence by a straight line to the outlet of Long Lake; thence westerly by a direct line, to the point where the river St. Francis empties itself into the lake called Pohenagomook; thence continuing in the same direct line to the highlands which divide the waters falling into the river du Loup from those which fall into the river St. Francis. Having thus arrived at the highlands, I shall be ready to confer on the correct manner of following them to the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut river.

Such a line as has been now described would secure to England a free intercourse between Canada and New Brunswick; and, with the navigation of the St. John yielded to the United States, would appear to meet the wants of all parties. Your Lordship's proposition in regard to the navigation is received as just, and as constituting, so far as it may go, a natural equivalent. Probably the use of the river for the transportation of the products of the forest, grown on the American side of the line, wouldbe equally advantageous to both parties; and, therefore, in granting it, no sacrifice of British in. terest would be incurred. A conviction of this, together with their confidence in the validity of their own claim, is very likely to lead the two States immediately concerned to consider their relinquishment of the lands north of the line much in the light of a mere cession. It need not be denied that, to secure this privilege, and to have a right to enjoy it, free from tax, toll, or other liability or inability, is an object of considerable importance to the people of Maine.

Your Lordship intimates that, as a part of the general arrangement of boundaries, England would be willing to surrender to the United States Rouse's Point, and all the territory heretofore supposed to be within the boundaries of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but which a correct ascertainment of the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude shows to be included within the British line. This concession is, no doubt, of some value. If made, its benefits would enure partly to these three States, and partly to the United States, and none of it to the particular interests of Maine and Massachusetts. If regarded, therefore, as a part of the equivalent for the manner of adjusting the Northeastern boundary, these two last-mentioned States would, perhaps, expect that the value, if it could be ascertained, should be paid to them. On this point further consideration may be necessary.

If, in other respects, we should be able to agree on a boundary, the points which you refer to, connected with the ascertainment of the head of the Connecticut, will be attended to; and Captain Talcott, who made the exploration in that quarter, will be ready to communicate the result of his observations.

I have the honor to be, with distinguished consideration, your obedient servant, DANL. WEBSTER.

LORD ASHBURTON, &c., &c., &c.

Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster. WASHINGTON, July 11, 1842. SIR: I lose no time in acknowledging the receipt of the note you did me the honor of addressing me on the 8th inst.; and I beg, in the first place, to say that I am duly sensible of the assurance you give me that the President has been pleased to appreci ate the motives which induced my present mission, and am much flattered by your recognition of the candor and frankness which have hitherto marked our intercourse.

I had hoped that we had escaped, by mutual consent, from a return to the endless and fruitless argument on the general question of the rights of our respective Governments in the matter of the Northeastern boundary.

It seemed to have been decided by so many high and competent authorities that the precise geograph ical point, so long looked for, was not to be found, that it necessarily followed that any hope of settle. ment must rest upon an amicable compromise.

The arrival here of commissioners from Maine and Massachusetts, and the admitted disposition of the two Governments, have given the public a very general expectation that this compromise might at last be effected; and I hope you will excuse my expressing my regret that the note now before me, and the paper from the gentlemen from Maine, addressed to you, which accompanied it, should have contained so much of a renewal of the old controversy, and should not have been confined to the

simple question whether we could or could not agree to terms of settlement. If the observations contained in my note of the 13th ultimo have given rise to these consequences, 1 much regret it; and I would now pass over all these more than useless discussions, and proceed at once to notice the proposals you make, if I were not apprehensive that my so doing might be construed into some want of respect for the parties from whom these observations have proceeded.

I will, however, endeavor to bring within a narTow compass what I have to say on the subject; and the more so, because, with all deference to you, sir, I may add, that there is little in these arguments that is new, or that has not been often advanced and refuted during the many past years of controversy.

I should except from this want of novelty the position, to me entirely new, advanced by the commissioners from Maine-that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, (which is, as you express it, "the thing to be sought for and found,") was at the head of the Madawaska river; which river, it is maintained by a long argument, supported by authorities and maps, was always considered as the real St. John; and this is stated to justify the opinion expressed by the old Congress, in 1779, that this northwest angle was at the source of the St. John.

Giving all possible_consideration to this apparently new discovery, I cannot say that it appears well founded. Looking at Mitchell's map, (the use of which by the negotiators of the peace of 1783 has been always so much relied upon on the part of America,) there is nothing more clearly marked than the great distinct channel of the upper St. John; and it seems hardly possible that the negotiators or the Congress should have made the supposed mistake.

But, supposing this hypothesis were well founded, the Temiscouata lake is, then, now to be this long lost angle of Nova Scotia. What becomes, then, of the point so long contended for by Maine, between the Metis and one of the tributaries of the Ristagouche? These points must be about fifty miles apart. Both cannot be true; and if it be maintained (as I rather collect it to be, from the paper of the Maine commissioners) that the point at the Metis is the true boundary, as being the point stricken by the north line, though the other be the true northwest angle of Nova Scotia, there is at least an end of the whole argument, resting upon this northwest angle being, as stated by you, "the thing to be sought for and found."

If this new discovery leads us to no other inference, we can hardly fail to derive from it the conviction that all the ingenuity applied to unravel this mystery leaves us equally in the dark; and that it is not without reason that it has been decided by so many persons, after careful examination, that this boundary is not susceptible of settlement according to the precise words of the treaty.

This decision has been come to by Mr. Madison, in 1802; by Mr. Jefferson, in 1803; by Judge Sullivan, about the same time; by the arbiter, in 1831; and it has been acted upon by nearly every Secretary of State of the United States during the controversy, from that time to this; for although, in a case in dispute, each party, during the dispute, endeavors to hold his own, I am not aware that any Secretary of State, or any President of the United States, has ever treated this subject otherwise than as one attended by that degree of uncertainty that it could only be solved by an arbiter, or by a compromise. I would appeal to your candor, sir, to say whether, at this time, and under these circumstances, it is fair to speak of this disputed territory as belonging indisputably to one party, and to be yielded by way of concession, and for equivalents, to the other. Any convention I may sign must be for a division of that which is in doubt and dispute. With any arrangements between the State of Maine and the General Government, I have nothing to do; and if (which God forbid!) our endeavors at an amicable compromise should at last fail, I must hold that Great Britain retains her right, at least equal to that of the United States, to every part of the territory in dispute, until, by a renewed reference, or by the skill of some more fortunate negotiator, this difference may be brought to a close.

I have now only to add a few observations upon the arguments contained in your own note.

Some stress is laid upon the fact that the joint commissioners of the two Governments in 1817 directed the surveyors to run the north line from the St. Croix until it met waters running into the

St. Lawrence. The lines to be run were to ascertain the geographical facts of the case. No proceeding could be more proper. The claims of the two parties varied; and it was natural that, in the first instance, a line should be run north to the extent claimed by either party; where that line would reach, and what highlands or streams it might strike, was unknown; so much so, that Mr. Gallatin, in his letter from Ghent, mentioned in my note of the 13th ultimo, expressed his doubts on this subject. His prediction turned out to be true. The point where the line strikes the Metis was a point not fulfilling the words of the treaty. It did not divide the waters as desired, unless the bay of Chaleurs and the gulf of St. Lawrence are considered to answer the description of the Atlantic ocean. Mr. Gallatin was sensible of this, and intimates that, if this fact created doubt, the lands about the Ristagouche might be given up. But he forgets that, in giving up this territory, he gives up his argument; for he maintains, in opposition to the British line of boundary, that it does not continuously and in all its parts divide the waters as required by the treaty. The American line was in this respect equally deficient; and it is useless, therefore, here to consider whether it would have been preferable to the British line, if it had divided the waters of the St. Lawrence from those of the St. John. To make even a plausible case for the American line, both the St. John and the Ristagouche must be held to be rivers emptying into the Atlantic ocean. The royal arbiter says it would be hazardous so to class them. I believe that, whatever argument might be made in the case of the St. John, connected with the distinctions with which it was mentioned in the treaty, to consider the Ristagouche as flowing into the Atlantic ocean would be more than hazardous-it would be most absurd.

At all events, I would submit to you that no inference could be drawn from the commissioners in 1817 having ordered a north line to be run; the same commissioners, after drawing the line, having disagreed as to any conclusions from it.

I am rather surprised that an inspection of the map should lead us to such different views of the course of the rivers and of the coast, as stated by you. I find that the upper St. John and the Ristagouche, so far from cutting at right angles the parallel lines of the coast and the St. Lawrence, as you say, run in their main course nearly parallel with them. I am not aware that the fact is important, although it seems connected with your argu

ment.

My inspection of these maps, and my examination of the documents, lead me to a very strong conviction that the highlands contemplated by the negotiators of the treaty were the only highlands then known to them at the head of the Penobscot, Kennebec, and the rivers west of the St. Croix; and that they did not precisely know how the north line from the St. Croix would strike them; and if it were not my wish to shorten this discussion, I believe a very good argument might be drawn from the words of the treaty in proof of this. In the negotiations with Mr. Livingston, and afterwards with Mr. McLane, this view seemed to prevail; and, as you are aware, there were proposals to search for these highlands to the west, where, alone, I believe they will be found to answer perfectly the description of the treaty. If this question should unfortu nately go to a further reference, I should by no means despair of finding some confirmation of this view of the case.

I shall now, sir, close what I have to say on the controversial part of this question. I should not have treated of it at all, but from respect to the gentlemen from Maine, whose arguments you conveyed to me; and I shall certainly not renew it, unless called upon by you to do so. Our immediate business is with the compromise of what is not otherwise to be settled; and argument and controversy, far from assisting to that end, have more generally a tendency to irritate and excite.

Referring, then, to our more immediate subject of a line by agreement, I deeply regret, on reading your observations and proposals, that we are yet so far asunder. I always thought this part of our duty better performed by conference than by correspondence; unless, indeed, we had the misfortune not to be able ultimately to agree; in which case, it would certainly be necessary that our two countries should see clearly on paper how nearly we had approached to each other, and on whom the blame at last rested of leaving unsettled a question involving such serious consequences. I would still recom

mend this course of personal discussion and conference; but, in the meantime, I proceed to notice the proposals and observations contained in your

note.

It is sufficiently explained, in my plan for a settlement, why I was anxious not to divide in two parts, by any new line of boundary, the Mada waska settlements; and I am sorry to say that the information I have since received, both as to local circumstances and the anxiety of the people themselves, tends strongly to confirm my impressions. At the same time, you will have seen that I was sensible that some good reason should be assigned why we should not be satisfied with what you justly term the otherwise perfect boundary of the St. John. In your reply, you recognise the difficulties of the case, and do justice to our motives; but you state distinctly, on the part of your Government, that you can consent to no line which should bring us over the St. John, without some equivalent of territory to be found out of the limits of that part which is in dispute; and you refer more particularly to a certain narrow strip lying between the north line and the river. This strip I have no power to give up; and I beg to add, that the refusal of my Government is founded simply on their objection to dispose arbitrarily of the persons and property of her Majesty's subjects living by preference under her authority-an objection which, you are sensible, applies with peculiar force to the inhabitants of this part of New Brunswick.

I had hoped that the other equivalents which I had offered, combined with the sense entertained by the Government of the United States of the pressing importance of the case on the ground of humanity, would have been sufficient for the purpose I so anxiously desired; but, perceiving from your note, as well as from personal conversation, that concession on this point is insisted upon, I might be disposed to consider whether my anxious desire to arrive at a friendly settlement would not justify me in yielding, however reluctantly, if the latter part of your proposal did not, if finally persevered in, forbid all hope of any settlement whatever.

The boundary you propose, supposing the British territory not to come over the St. John, is to run from the north side of that river, three miles above its junction with the Madawaska, over an arbitrary line, which my map does not exactly permit me to follow, until it reaches somewhere the St. Francis. I need not examine this line in its precise details, because I am obliged frankly to state that it is inadmissible. I think I might, sir, fairly appeal to your candid judgment to say whether this is a proposition of conciliation-whether, after all antecedent discussions on this subject, it could be reasonably expected that, whatever might be the anxiety of my Government for a friendly settlement, I could be found with power to accede to such terms. I need not observe to you that this would give to Great Britain less than the award of the arbiter, while at the same time she would be called upon to give up what the arbiter awarded to her; and, if I do not mistake you, the floatage of the lumber of Maine down the St. John is also expected to be surrendered.

I must beg to say that I am quite at a loss to account for such a proposal. Your own principle of maintaining the great river as the best boundary is abandoned; an arbitrary line is drawn which nobody ever suggested before; and I can only suppose this course to be dictated by that general assumption that, notwithstanding all former admissions and decisions to the contrary, this territory, said to be in dispute, in truth, belongs to one party, to be doled out as a favor to the other-an assumption which cannot for a moment be admitted, and which yon, sir, with the records of your office before you, will hardly maintain.

The position in which this negotiation now stands, seems to prove what I have before ventured to advance--that it would have a better chance of success by conference than by correspondence; at all events, that we should sooner arrive at ascertaining what we can or cannot do. Slow, unnecessarily slow, our progress has hitherto been; and the public seem, somehow or other, to have become informed that there are differences. I hope, when we come to discuss them, that they will prove less serious than they are supposed to be; but it is very desirable that doubts and distrusts should be set at rest, and that public credit and the transactions of commerce should suffer the least possible disturb. ance. For although, should this negotiation unfortunately fail, it will be our duty immediately to

place it in some new course of further reference, it is not to be disguised that such a result must be productive of considerable public anxiety and disappointment.

What I have said with respect to the case of the Madawaska settlements, will, I trust, sufficiently prove my disposition to approach such a discussion with the true spirit of conciliation; and I trust you will permit me to express a hope that it will be met with a corresponding feeling.

Before concluding, I wish to add a few words respecting the line of the St. John to one of its sources, and the navigation for certain purposes of that river. It may be true that the district between the St. John and the highlands west of the St. Franeis may be of some extent; but your own surveyors will confirm to you that it is of very little value either for cultivation or timber. Is it reasonable that, in the division of an object in dispute, its intrinsic value should be wholly disregarded, and its size or extent be alone considered?

I would further suggest for your consideration, whether, supposing the division by the King of the Netherlands to be admitted to satisfy fairly the equity of the case between the parties, what is proposed to be added by Great Britain, viz. the strip on the 45th parallel of latitude, and the use of the navigation of the St. John, be not an ample compensation for what we ask in return, viz. that barren strip above the upper St. John, which is wanted for no other purpose than as a boundary; for which purpose it is admitted on all sides to be most

convenient.

The right to use the St. John for floating down the lumber of Maine on the same terms as the river is used by the Queen's subjects, is now treated as a matter of light importance. This is not uncommon when a concession of any kind is about to be yielded; but I beg to remind you that this was not formerly so considered. It has been repeatedly solicited, and invariably refused; and no minister of Great Britain has before been permitted to connect this concession with the settlement of the boundary. It is considered by my Government as a very important concession. I am sure that it must be considered by all persons in Maine connected with the lumber trade, as not only valuable, but indispensable; and I am compelled to add, that I am empowered to allow this privilege only in the event of a settlement of the boundary on satisfactory terms. It is said, in the memorandum of the Maine commissioners, that this conceded navigation will be as useful to the town of St. John as to the lumberers of Maine; but it will not escape you that, even if this be so, it is a concession necessary to give any value whatever to so bulky an article as lumber, which, being not otherwise disposable, would bear any reasonable toll which the provincial authori ties of New Brunswick might think it expedient to levy upon it. Further, it should not be forgotten that the timber, once at the mouth of the St. John, will have the privilege of reaching the British as well as other markets; and, lastly, that it is a very different thing to hold a privilege of this important description by right, or by mere sufferance, to be granted or withheld at pleasure.

I have to apologize for entering into these details in treating of the great question with which we are occupied, but they seemed called for by observations contained in the paper you sent me.

I beg, sir, you will be assured of my unfeigned and distinguished consideration.

ASHBURTON,

Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER, &C., &c., &c.

Lord Ashhurlon to Mr. Webster. WASHINGTON, July 16, 1842. SIR: There is a further question of disputed boundary between Great Britain and the United States, called the Northwest boundary, about which we have had some conferences; and I now proceed to state the terms which I am ready to agree to for the settlement of this difference. As the principal object in dispute is to be given up by Great Britain, I trust, sir, that you will here again recognise the spirit of friendly conciliation which has guided my Government in disposing of these questions.

I have already sufficiently discussed with you the boundaries between her Majesty's provinces and the United States, from the monument at the head of the river St. Croix to the monument on the river St. Lawrence, near the village of St. Regis. The commissioners under the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent succeeded in continuing this Doundary from St. Regis, through the St. Lawrence

and the great Northern lakes, up to a point in the channel between Lake Huron and Lake Superior.

A further continuation of this boundary, from this point, through Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods, was confided to the same commissioners, under the seventh article of the treaty of Ghent; but they were, unfortunately, unable to agree, and have consequently left this portion of the boundary undetermined. Its final settlement has been much desired by both Governments, and urgently pressed by communications from Mr. Secretary Forsyth to Mr. Fox, in 1839 and 1840. What I have now to propose cannot, I feel assured, be otherwise than satisfactory for this purpose.

The commissioners who failed in their endeavors to make this settlement differed on two points: First, as to the appropriation of an island called St. George's island, lying in the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior; and,

Secondly, as to the boundary through the water communications from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods.

The first point I am ready to give up to you, and you are, no doubt, aware that it is the only object of any real value in this controversy. The island of St. George's is reported to contain 25,920 acres of very fertile land; but, the other things connected with these boundaries being satisfactorily arranged, a line shall be drawn so as to throw this island within the limits of the United States.

In considering the second point, it really appears of little importance to either party how the line be determined through the wild country between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods, but it is important that some line should be fixed and known.

The American commissioner asked for the line from Lake Superior, up the river Kamanastiguia, to the lake called Dog lake, which he supposed to be the same as that called Long lake in the treaties; thence through Sturgeon lake to the Lac la Pluie, to that point where the two lines assumed by the commissioners again meet.

The British commissioner, on the other hand, contended for a line from the southwestern extremity, at a point called le Fond du Lac, to the middle of the mouth of the estuary or lake of St. Louis river; thence up that river, through Vermilion river, to Lac la Pluie.

Attempts were made to compromise these differences; but they failed, apparently more from neither party being willing to give up the island of St. George's, than from much importance being at tached to any other part of the case.

Upon the line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods, both commissioners agreed to abandon their respective claims, and to adopt a middle course, for which the American commissioner admitted that there was some ground of preference. This was from Pigeon river, a point between Kamanastiguia and the Fond du Lac; and although there were differences as to the precise point near the mouth of Pigeon river, where the line should begin, neither party seemed to have attached much importance to this part of the subject.

I would propose that the line be taken from a point about six miles south of Pigeon river, where the grand portage commences on the lake, and continued along the line of said portage, alternately by land and water, to Lac la Pluie-the existing route by land and by water remaining common to both parties. This line has the advantage of being known, and attended with no doubt or uncertainty in running it.

In making the important concession, on this boundary, of the Isle of St. George, I must attach a condition to it of accommodation, which experience has proved to be necessary in the navigation of the great waters which bound the two countriesan accommodation which can, I apprehend, be no possible inconvenience to either. This was asked by the British commissioner, in the course of the attempts of compromise above alluded to; but nothing was done, because he was not then prepared, as I am now, to yield the property and sovereignty of St. George's island.

The first of these two cases is at the head of Lake St. Clair, where the river of that name empties into it from Lake Huron. It is represented, that the channel bordering the United States coast in this part is not only the best for navigation, but, with some winds, is the only serviceable passage.

I do not know that, under such circumstances, the passage of a British vessel would be refused; but, on a final settlement of boundaries, it is desirable to stipulate for what the commissioners would probably have settled, had the facts been known to them.

The other case, of nearly the same description, occurs on the St. Lawrence, some miles above the boundary at St. Regis. In distributing the islands of the river by the commissioners, Barnhart's island and the Long Sault islands were assigned to America. This part of the river has very formidable rapids; and the only safe passage is on the southern or American side, between those islands and the main land. We want a clause in our present treaty to say that for a short distance, viz: from the upper end of upper Long Sault island to the lower end of Barnhart's island, the several channels of the river shall be used in common by the boatmen of the two countries.

I am not aware that these very reasonable demands are likely to meet with any objection; especially where the United States will have surrendered to them all that is essential in the boundary I have now to propose to you.

I beg you will be assured, sir, of my unfeigned and distinguished consideration. Hon. DANIEL WEBSTER,

&c., &c., &c.

ASHBURTON.

Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, July 27, 1842. My LORD: I have now to propose to your Lordship a line of division, embracing the disputed portions of the boundary between the United States and the British provinces of New Brunswick and the Canadas, with its considerations and equivalents, such as conforms, I believe, in substance, to the result of the many conferences and discussions which have taken place between us.

The acknowledged territories of the United States and England join upon each other from the Atlantic ocean to the eastern foot of the Rocky mountains-a distance of more than three thousand miles. From the ocean to the source of the St. Croix, the line of division has been ascertained and fixed by agreement; from the source of the St. Croix to a point near St. Regis, on the river St. Lawrence, it may be considered as unsettled, or controverted; from this last-mentioned point, along the St. Lawrence, and through the lakes, it is settled, until it reaches the water communication be tween Lake Huron and Lake Superior. At this point. the commissioners under the 7th article of the treaty of Ghent found a subject of disagreement which they could not overcome, in deciding up which branch or channel the line should proceed, till it should reach a point in the middle of St. Mary's river, about one mile above St. George's, or Sugar island.

From the middle ofthe water communication between the two lakes, at the point last mentioned, the commissioners extended the line through the remaining part of that water communication,_and across Lake Superior, to a point north of Ille Royale; but they could not agree in what direction the line should run from this last-mentioned point, nor where it should leave Lake Superior, nor how it should be extended to the Rainy Lake, or Lac la Pluie. From this last-mentioned lake, they agreed on the line to the northwesternmost point of the Lake of the Woods, which they found to be in latitude 49 deg. 23 min. 55 sec. The line extends, according to existing treaties, due south from this point to the 49th parallel of north latitude, and by that parallel to the Rocky mountains.

Not being able to agree upon the whole line, the commissioners under the 7th article did not make any joint report to their respective Governments. So far as they agreed on any part of the line, that part has been considered settled; but it may be well to give validity to these portions of the line by a treaty.

To complete the boundary line, therefore, and to remove all doubts and disputes, it is necessary for the two Governments to come to an agreement on three points:

1st. What shall be the line on the northeastern and northern limits of the United States, from the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence. This is by far the most important and difficult of the subjects, and involves the principal questions of equivalents and compensations.