Part 18

[Footnote 25: Relating to high duties and restrictions on tobacco imported into foreign countries from the United States, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1838_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit to the Senate of the United States a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a copy of the correspondence requested by their resolution of the 5th ultimo.

M. VAN BUREN.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, March 7, 1838_.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolution of the Senate of the 5th of February, requesting the President of the United States to communicate to that body, in such manner as he shall deem proper, all the correspondence recently received and had between this and the Governments of Great Britain and the State of Maine on the subject of the northeastern boundary, has the honor to report to the President the accompanying copy of letters, which comprise all the correspondence in the Department asked for by the resolution.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN FORSYTH.

_Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth_.

WASHINGTON, _January 10, 1838_.

Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, etc.:

The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, is directed by his Government to make the following observations to Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State of the United States, with reference to certain points connected with the question of the northeastern boundary, which question forms the subject of the accompanying note, which the undersigned has the honor this day to address to Mr. Forsyth:

The British Government, with a view to prevail upon that of the United States to come to an understanding with Great Britain upon the river question, had stated that the King of the Netherlands in his award had decided that question according to the British interpretation of it and had expressed his opinion that the rivers which fall into the Bay of Fundy are not to be considered as Atlantic rivers for the purposes of the treaty.

Mr. Forsyth, however, in his note to Sir Charles Vaughan of the 28th of April, 1835, controverts this assertion and maintains that the King of the Netherlands did not in his award express such an opinion, and Mr. Forsyth quotes a passage from the award in support of this proposition.

But it appears to Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Forsyth has not correctly perceived the meaning of the passage which he quotes, for in the passage in question Mr. Forsyth apprehends that the word "_alone_" is governed by the verb "_include_" whereas an attentive examination of the context will show that the word "_alone_" is governed by the verb "_divide"_ and that the real meaning of the passage is this: That the rivers flowing north and south from the highlands claimed by the United States may be arranged in two genera, the first genus comprehending the rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence, the second genus comprehending those whose waters in some manner or other find their way into the Atlantic; but that even if, according to this general classification and in contradistinction from rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, the rivers which fall into the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy might be comprised in the same genus with the rivers which fall directly into the Atlantic, still the St. John and the Restigouche form a distinct species by themselves and do not belong to the species of rivers which fall _directly_ into the Atlantic, for the St. John and Restigouche are not divided in company with any such last-mentioned rivers. And the award goes on to say that, moreover, if this distinction between the two species were confounded an erroneous interpretation would be applied to a treaty in which every separate word must be supposed to have a meaning, and a generic distinction would be given to cases which are purely specific.

The above appears to be the true meaning of the passage quoted by Mr. Forsyth; but if that passage had not been in itself sufficiently explicit, which Her Majesty's Government think it is, the passage which immediately follows it would remove all doubt as to what the opinion of the King of the Netherlands was upon the river question, for that passage, setting forth reasons against the line of boundary claimed by the United States, goes on to say that such line would not even separate the St. Lawrence rivers immediately from the St. John and Restigouche, and that thus the rivers which this line would separate from the St. Lawrence rivers would need, _in order to reach the Atlantic_, the aid of _two intermediaries_--first, the rivers St. John and Restigouche, and, _secondly, the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy_.

Now it is evident from this passage that the King of the Netherlands deemed the bays of Fundy and Chaleurs to be, for the purposes of the treaty, as distinct and separate from the Atlantic Ocean as are the rivers St. John and Restigouche, for he specifically mentions those rivers and those bays as the channels through which certain rivers would have to pass in their way from the northern range of dividing highlands down to the Atlantic Ocean; and it is clear that he considers that the waters of those highland rivers would not reach the Atlantic Ocean until after they had traveled through the whole extent either of the Restigouche and the Bay of Chaleurs or of the St. John and the Bay of Fundy, as the case might be; and for this reason, among others, the King of the Netherlands declared it to be his opinion that the line north of the St. John claimed by the United States is not the line intended by the treaty.

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. Forsyth the assurances of his high respect and consideration.

H.S. FOX.

_Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth_.

WASHINGTON, _January 19, 1838_.

Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, etc.:

The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has received the orders of his Government to make the following communication to the Secretary of State of the United States with reference to the question pending between the two Governments upon the subject of the northeastern boundary:

The undersigned is, in the first instance, directed to express to Mr. Forsyth the sincere regret of Her Majesty's Government that the long-continued endeavors of both parties to come to a settlement of this important matter have hitherto been unavailing. Her Majesty's Government feel an undiminished desire to cooperate with the Cabinet of Washington for the attainment of an object of so much mutual interest, and they learn with satisfaction that their sentiments upon this point are fully shared by the actual President of the United States.

The communications which during the last few years have taken place between the two Governments with reference to the present subject, if they have not led to the solution of the questions at issue, have at least narrowed the field of future discussion.

Both Governments have agreed to consider the award of the King of the Netherlands as binding upon neither party, and the two Governments, therefore, are as free in this respect as they were before the reference to that Sovereign was made. The British Government, despairing of the possibility of drawing a line that shall be in literal conformity with the words of the treaty of 1783, has suggested that a conventional boundary should be substituted for the line described by the treaty, and has proposed that in accordance with the principles of equity and in pursuance of the general practice of mankind in similar cases the object of difference should be equally divided between the two differing parties, each of whom is alike convinced of the justice of its own claim.

The United States Government has replied that to such an arrangement it has no power to agree; that until the line of the treaty shall have been otherwise determined the State of Maine will continue to assume that the line which it claims is the true line of 1783, and will assert that all the land up to that line is territory of Maine; that consequently such a division of the disputed territory as is proposed by Great Britain would be considered by Maine as tantamount to a cession of what that State regards as a part of its own territory, and that the Federal Government has no power to agree to such an arrangement without the consent of the State concerned.

Her Majesty's Government exceedingly regrets that such an obstacle should exist to prevent that settlement which under all the circumstances of the case appears to be the simplest, the readiest, the most satisfactory, and the most just. Nor can Her Majesty's Government admit that the objection of the State of Maine is well founded, for the principle on which that objection rests is as good for Great Britain as it is for Maine. If Maine thinks itself entitled to contend that until the true line described in the treaty is determined the boundary claimed by Maine must be regarded as the right one, Great Britain is surely still more entitled to insist upon a similar pretension, and to assert that until the line of the treaty shall be established to the satisfaction of both parties the whole of the disputed territory ought to be considered as belonging to the British Crown, because Great Britain is the original possessor, and all the territory which has not been proved to have been by treaty ceded by her must be looked upon as belonging to her still. But the very existence of such conflicting pretensions seems to point out the expediency of a compromise, and what compromise can be more fair than that which would give to each party one-half of the subject-matter of dispute?

A conventional line different from that described in the treaty was agreed to, as stated by Mr. Forsyth in his note of the 28th of April, 1835, with respect to the boundary westward from the Lake of the Woods. Why should such a line not be agreed to likewise for the boundary eastward from the river Connecticut?

Her Majesty's Government can not refrain from again pressing this proposition upon the serious consideration of the Government of the United States as the arrangement which would be best calculated to effect a prompt and satisfactory settlement between the two powers.

The Government of the United States, indeed, while it expressed a doubt of its being able to obtain the assent of Maine to the above-mentioned proposal, did, nevertheless, express its readiness to apply to the State of Maine for the assent of that State to the adoption of another conventional line, which should make the river St. John from its source to its mouth the boundary between the two countries. But it is difficult to understand upon what grounds any expectation could have been formed that such a proposal could be entertained by the British Government, for such an arrangement would give to the United States even greater advantages than they would obtain by an unconditional acquiescence in their claim to the whole of the disputed territory, because such an arrangement would, in the first place, give to Maine all that part of the disputed territory which lies to the south of the St. John, and would, in the next place, in exchange for the remaining part of the disputed territory which lies to the north of the St. John, add to the State of Maine a large district of New Brunswick lying between the United States boundary and the southern part of the course of the St. John--a district smaller, indeed, in extent, but much more considerable in value, than the portion of the disputed territory which lies to the north of the St. John.

But with respect to a conventional line generally, the Government of Washington has stated that it has not at present the powers constitutionally requisite for treating for such a line and has no hopes of obtaining such powers until the impossibility of establishing the line described by the treaty shall have been completely demonstrated by the failure of another attempt to trace that line by a local survey.

Under these circumstances it appears that a conventional line can not at present be agreed upon, and that such a mode of settlement is in the existing state of the negotiation impossible.

Thus, then, the award of the King of the Netherlands has been abandoned by both parties in consequence of its rejection by the American Senate, and a negotiation between the two Governments for a conventional line suited to the interests and convenience of the two parties has for the present been rendered impossible by difficulties arising on the part of the United States; and both Governments are alike averse to a new arbitration. In this state of things the Government of the United States has proposed to the British cabinet that another attempt should be made to trace out a boundary according to the letter of the treaty, and that a commission of exploration and survey should be appointed for that purpose.

Her Majesty's Government have little expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and on that account would be disposed to object to the measure; but at the same time they are so unwilling to reject the only plan now left which seems to afford a chance of making any further advance in this long-pending matter that they will not withhold their consent to such a commission if the principle upon which it is to be formed and the manner in which it is to proceed can be satisfactorily settled.

The United States Government have proposed two modes in which such a commission might be constituted: First, that it might consist of commissioners named in equal numbers by each of the two Governments, with an umpire to be selected by some friendly European power; secondly, that it might be entirely composed of scientific Europeans, to be selected by a friendly sovereign, and might be accompanied in its operations by agents of the two different parties, in order that such agents might give to the commissioners assistance and information.

If such a commission were to be appointed, Her Majesty's Government think that the first of these two modes of constructing it would be the best, and that it should consist of members chosen in equal numbers by each of the two Governments. It might, however, be better that the umpire should be selected by the members of the commission themselves rather than that the two Governments should apply to a third power to make such a choice.

The object of this commission, as understood by Her Majesty's Government, would be to explore the disputed territory in order to find within its limits dividing highlands which may answer the description of the treaty, the search being first to be made in the due north line from the monument at the head of the St. Croix, and if no such highlands should be found in that meridian the search to be then continued to the westward thereof; and Her Majesty's Government have stated their opinion that in order to avoid all fruitless disputes as to the character of such highlands the commissioners should be instructed to look for highlands which both parties might acknowledge as fulfilling the conditions of the treaty.

The United States Secretary of State, in his note of the 5th of March, 1836, expresses a wish to know how the report of the commissioners would, according to the views of Her Majesty's Government, be likely when rendered to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question of boundary between the two Governments.

In reply to this inquiry Her Majesty's Government would beg to observe that the proposal to appoint a commission originated not with them, but with the Government of the United States, and that it is therefore rather for the Government of the United States than for that of Great Britain to answer this question.

Her Majesty's Government have themselves already stated that they have little expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and that they would on that account be disposed to object to it; and if Her Majesty's Government were now to agree to appoint such a commission it would be only in compliance with the desire so strongly expressed by the Government of the United States, and in spite of doubts (which Her Majesty's Government still continue to entertain) of the efficacy of the measure.

But with respect to the way in which the report of the commission might be likely to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question, Her Majesty's Government, in the first place, conceive that it was meant by the Government of the United States, that if the commission should discover highlands answering to the description of the treaty a connecting line drawn from these highlands to the head of the St. Croix should be deemed to be a portion of the boundary line between the two countries. But Her Majesty's Government would further beg to refer the United States Secretary of State to the notes of Mr. McLane of the 5th of June, 1833, and of the 11th and 28th of March, 1834, on this subject, in which it will be seen that the Government of the United States appears to have contemplated as one of the possible results of the proposed commission of exploration that such additional information might possibly be obtained respecting the features of the country in the district to which the treaty relates as might remove all doubt as to the impracticability of laying down a boundary in accordance with the letter of the treaty.

And if the investigations of the proposed commission should show that there is no reasonable prospect of finding a line strictly conformable with the description contained in the treaty of 1783, the constitutional difficulties which now prevent the United States from agreeing to a conventional line may possibly be removed, and the way may thus be prepared for the satisfactory settlement of the difference by an equitable division of the disputed territory.

But if the two Governments should agree to the appointment of such a commission it would be necessary that their agreement should be first recorded in a convention, and it would obviously be indispensable that the State of Maine should be an assenting party to the arrangement.

The undersigned, in making the above communication by order of Her Majesty's Government to the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, has the honor to renew to him the assurance of his high respect and consideration.

H.S. FOX.

_Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox_.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

_Washington, February 6, 1838_.

HENRY S. FOX, Esq., etc.:

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Fox, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, of the 10th ultimo, in which he presents, by direction of his Government, certain observations in respect to the construction to be given to that part of the award of the arbiter on the question of the northeastern boundary which relates to the character in which the rivers St. John and Restigouche are to be regarded in reference to that question. Sir Charles Vaughan, in his note to Mr. McLane of February 10, 1834, alleged that although the arbiter had not decided the first of the three main questions proposed to him, yet that he had determined certain subordinate points connected with that question upon which the parties had entertained different views, and among others that the rivers St. John and Restigouche could not be considered, according to the meaning of the treaty, as "rivers flowing into the Atlantic." The undersigned, in his note to Sir Charles R. Vaughan of the 28th of April, 1835, questioned the correctness of the interpretation which had been given by Sir Charles to the award of the arbiter in this particular, and after quoting that part of the award to which Sir Charles was supposed to refer as containing the determination by the arbiter of the point just mentioned observed that it could not but appear from further reflection to Sir Charles that the declaration that the rivers St. John and Restigouche could not be _alone_ taken into view without hazard in determining the disputed boundary was not the expression of an opinion that they should be altogether excluded in determining that question; or, in other words, that they could not be looked upon as rivers emptying into the Atlantic. The remarks presented by Mr. Fox in the note to which this is a reply are designed to shew a misconception on the part of the undersigned of the true meaning of the passage cited by him from the award and to support the construction which was given to it by Sir Charles Vaughan. Whether the apprehension entertained by the one party or the other of the opinion of the arbiter upon this minor point be correct is regarded by the undersigned as a matter of no consequence in the settlement of the main question. The Government of the United States, never having acquiesced in the decision of the arbiter that "the nature of the difference and the vague and not sufficiently determinate stipulations of the treaty of 1783 do not permit the adjudication of either of the two lines respectively claimed by the interested parties to one of the said parties without wounding the principles of law and equity with regard to the other," can not consent to be governed in the prosecution of the existing negotiation by the opinion of the arbiter upon any of the preliminary points about which there was a previous difference between the parties, and the adverse decision of which has led to so unsatisfactory and, in the view of this Government, so erroneous a conclusion. This determination on the part of the United States not to adopt the premises of the arbiter while rejecting his conclusion has been heretofore made known to Her Majesty's Government, and while it remains must necessarily render the discussion of the question what those premises were unavailing, if not irrelevant. The few observations which the undersigned was led to make in the course of his note to Sir Charles Vaughan upon one of the points alleged to have been thus determined were prompted only by a respect for the arbiter and a consequent anxiety to remove a misinterpretation of his meaning, which alone, it was believed, could induce the supposition that the arbiter, in searching for the rivers referred to in the treaty as designating the boundary, could have come to the opinion that the two great rivers whose waters pervaded the whole district in which the search was made and constituted the most striking objects of the country had been entirely unnoticed by the negotiators of the treaty and were to be passed over unheeded in determining the line, while others were to be sought for which he himself asserts could not be found. That the imputation of such an opinion to the respected arbiter could only be the result of misinterpretation seemed the more evident, as he had himself declared that "it could not be sufficiently explained how, if the high contracting parties intended in 1783 to establish the boundary at the south of the river St. John, that river, to which the territory in dispute was in a great measure indebted for its distinctive character, had been neutralized and set aside." It is under the influence of the same motives that the undersigned now proceeds to make a brief comment upon the observations contained in Mr. Fox's note of the 10th ultimo, and thus to close a discussion which it can answer no purpose to prolong.