Part 20

The attention of the Federal Government has, of course, in the first instance been directed to efforts to settle the treaty line. A historical outline of the measures which have been successively taken by it to that end may be useful to the government of Maine in coming to a conclusion on the proposition now submitted. It will, however, be unnecessary here to do more than advert to the cardinal features of this protracted negotiation.

The treaty of peace between the United States of America and His Britannic Majesty, concluded at Paris in September, 1783, defines the boundaries of the said States, and the following words, taken from the second article of that instrument, are intended to designate a part of the boundary between those States and the British North American Provinces, viz: "From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, viz, that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River;" ... "east by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence." An immediate execution of some of the provisions of this treaty was, however, delayed by circumstances on which it is now unnecessary to dwell, and in November, 1794, a second treaty was concluded between the two powers. In the meantime, doubts having arisen as to what river was truly intended under the name of the St. Croix mentioned in the treaty of peace and forming a part of the boundary therein described, this question was referred by virtue of the fifth article of the new treaty to the decision of a commission appointed in the manner therein prescribed, both parties agreeing to consider such decision final and conclusive. The commissioners appointed in pursuance of the fifth article of the treaty of 1794 decided by their declaration of October 25, 1798, that the northern branch (Cheputnaticook) of a river called Scoodiac was the true river St. Croix intended by the treaty of peace.

At the date of the treaty of Ghent, December 24, 1814, the whole of the boundary line from the source of the river St. Croix to the most northwesternmost point of the Lake of the Woods still remained unascertained, and it was therefore agreed to provide for a final adjustment thereof. For this purpose the appointment of commissioners was authorized by the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, with power to ascertain and determine the northwest angle of Nova Scotia and the northwestern-most head of Connecticut River, in conformity with the provisions of the treaty of 1783, and to cause the boundary from the source of the river St. Croix to the river Iroquois or Cateraguy to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions, etc. In the event of the commissioners differing, or both or either of them failing to act, the same article made provision for a reference to a friendly sovereign or state. Commissioners were appointed under this article in 1815-16, but although their sessions continued several years, they were unable to agree on any of the matters referred to them. Separate reports were accordingly made to both Governments of the two commissioners in 1822, stating the points on which they differed and the grounds upon which their respective opinions had been formed. The case having thus happened which made it necessary to refer the points of difference to a friendly sovereign or state, it was deemed expedient by the parties to regulate this reference by a formal arrangement. A convention for the purpose was therefore concluded on the 29th of September, 1827, and the two Governments subsequently agreed in the choice of His Majesty the King of the Netherlands as arbiter, who consented to act as such. The submission of the points of difference, three in number, was accordingly made to that Sovereign, and his award, or rather written opinion on the questions submitted to him, was rendered on the 10th of January, 1831. On the 7th of December following the President communicated the award of the arbiter to the Senate of the United States for the advice and consent of that body as to its execution, and at the same time intimated the willingness of the British Government to abide by it. The result was a determination on the part of the Senate not to consider the decision of His Netherland Majesty obligatory and a refusal to advise and consent to its execution. They, however, passed a resolution in June, 1832, advising the President to open a new negotiation with His Britannic Majesty's Government for the ascertainment of the boundary between the possessions of the two powers on the northeastern frontier of the United States according to the definitive treaty of peace. Of the negotiation subsequent to this event it is deemed proper to take a more particular notice.

In July the result of the action of the Senate in relation to the award was communicated to Mr. Bankhead, the British charge d'affaires, and he was informed that the resolution had been adopted in the conviction that the sovereign arbiter, instead of deciding the questions submitted to him, had recommended a specified compromise of them. The Secretary of State at the same time expressed the desire of the President to enter into further negotiation in pursuance of the resolution of the Senate, and proposed that the discussion should be carried on at Washington. He also said that if the plenipotentiaries of the two parties should fail in this new attempt to agree upon the line intended by the treaty of 1783 there would probably be less difficulty than before in fixing a convenient boundary, as measures were in progress to obtain from the State of Maine more extensive powers than were before possessed, with a view of overcoming the constitutional obstacles which had opposed themselves to such an arrangement; and he further intimated that the new negotiation would naturally embrace the important question of the navigation of the river St. John.

In April, 1833, Sir Charles R. Vaughan, the British minister, addressed a note to the Department of State, in which, hopeless of finding out by a new negotiation an assumed line of boundary which so many attempts had been fruitlessly made to discover, he wished to ascertain, first, the principle of the plan of boundary which the American Government appeared to contemplate as likely to be more convenient to both parties than those hitherto discussed, and, secondly, whether any, and what, arrangement for avoiding the constitutional difficulty alluded to had yet been concluded with the State of Maine. Satisfactory answers on these points, he said, would enable the British Government to decide whether it would entertain the proposition, but His Majesty's Government could not consent to embarrass the negotiation respecting the boundary by mixing up with it a discussion regarding the navigation of the St. John as an integral part of the same question or as necessarily connected with it.

In reply to this note, Mr. Livingston, under date of the 30th of April, stated that the arrangement spoken of in his previous communication, by which the Government of the United States expected to be enabled to treat for a more convenient boundary, had not been effected, and that as the suggestion in regard to the navigation of the St. John was introduced merely to form a part of the system of compensations in negotiating for such a boundary if that of the treaty should be abandoned, it would not be insisted on.

The proposition of the President for the appointment of a joint commission, with an umpire, to decide upon all points on which the two Governments disagree was then presented. It was accompanied by a suggestion that the controversy might be terminated by the application to it of the rule for surveying and laying down the boundaries of tracts and of countries designated by natural objects, the precise situation of which is not known, viz, that the natural objects called for as terminating points should first be found, and that the lines should then be drawn to them from the given points with the least possible departure from the course prescribed in the instrument describing the boundary. Two modes were suggested in which such commission might be constituted: First, that it should consist of commissioners to be chosen in equal numbers by the two parties, with an umpire selected by some friendly sovereign from among the most skillful men in Europe; or, secondly, that it should be entirely composed of such men so selected, to be attended in the survey and view of the country by agents appointed by the parties. This commission, it was afterwards proposed, should be restricted to the simple question of determining the point designated by the treaty as the highlands which divide the waters that fall into the Atlantic from those which flow into the St. Lawrence; that these highlands should be sought for in a north or northwest direction from the source of the St. Croix, and that a straight line to be drawn from the monument at the head of that river to those highlands should be considered, so far as it extends, as a part of the boundary in question. The commissioners were then to designate the course of the line along the highlands and to fix on the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River.

In a note of 31st May the British minister suggested that this perplexed and hitherto interminable question could only be set at rest by an abandonment of the defective description of boundary contained in the treaty, by the two Governments mutually agreeing upon a conventional line more convenient to both parties than those insisted upon by the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, or that suggested by the King of the Netherlands.

Mr. McLane remarked in reply (June 5) that the embarrassments in tracing the treaty boundary had arisen more from the principles assumed and from the manner of seeking for it than from any real defect in the description when properly understood; that in the present state of the business the suggestion of Sir Charles R. Vaughan would add to the existing difficulties growing out of a want of power in the General Government under the Constitution of the United States to dispose of territory belonging to either of the States of the Union without the consent of the State; that as a conventional line to the south of and confessedly variant from that of the treaty would deprive the State of Maine of a portion of the territory she claims, it was not probable that her consent to it would be given while there remained a reasonable prospect of discovering the line of the treaty of 1783, and that the President would not be authorized, after the recent proceedings in the Senate, to venture now to agree upon a conventional line without such consent, whilst the proposition submitted in April afforded not only a fair prospect, but in his opinion the certain means, of ascertaining the boundary called for by the treaty of 1783 and of finally terminating all the perplexities which have encompassed that subject.

In February, 1834, Sir Charles R. Vaughan, after submitting certain observations intended to controvert the positions assumed by the United States on the subject of the constitutional difficulty by which the American Government was prevented from acquiescing in the arrangement recommended by the King of the Netherlands for the settlement of the boundary in the neighborhood of the St. John, asserted that the two Governments bound themselves by the convention of September, 1827, to submit to an arbiter certain points of difference relative to the boundary between the American and British dominions; that the arbiter was called on to determine certain questions, and that if he has determined the greater part of the points submitted to him his decision on them ought not to be set aside merely because he declares that one remaining point can not be decided in conformity with the words of the treaty of 1783, and therefore recommends to the parties a compromise on that particular point; that the main points referred to the arbiter were three in number; that upon the second and third of these he made a plain and positive decision; that upon the remaining point he has declared that it is impossible to find a spot or to trace a line which shall fulfill all the conditions required by the words of the treaty for the northwest angle of Nova Scotia and for the highlands along which the boundary from that angle is to be drawn; yet that in the course of his reasoning upon this point he has decided several questions connected with it upon which the two parties had entertained different views, viz:

"First. The arbiter expresses his opinion that the term 'highlands' may properly be applied not only to a hilly and elevated country, but to a tract of land which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions, and consequently, according to this opinion, the highlands to be sought for are not necessarily a range of mountains, but rather the summit level of the country.

"Second. The arbiter expresses his opinion that an inquiry as to what were the ancient boundaries of the North American Provinces can be of no use for the present purpose, because those boundaries were not maintained by the treaty of 1783 and had in truth never been distinctly ascertained and laid down.

"Third. The arbiter declares that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia mentioned in the treaty of 1783 is not a point which was then known and ascertained; that it is not an angle which is created by the intersection of any lines of boundary at that time acknowledged as existing, but that it is an angle still to be found and to be created by the intersection of new lines, which are hereafter to be drawn in pursuance of the stipulations of the treaty; and further, that the nature of the country eastward of the said angle affords no argument for laying that angle down in one place rather than in another.

"Fourth. He states that no just argument can be deduced for the settlement of this question from the exercise of the rights of sovereignty over the fief of Madawaska and over the Madawaska settlement.

"Fifth. He declares that the highlands contemplated in the treaty should divide immediately, and not mediately, rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence and rivers flowing into the Atlantic, and that the word 'divide' requires contiguity of the things to be divided.

"Sixth. He declares that rivers falling into the Bay of Chaleurs and the Bay of Fundy can not be considered according to the meaning of the treaty as rivers flowing into the Atlantic, and specifically that the rivers St. John and Restigouche can not be looked upon as answerable to the latter description.

"Seventh. He declares that neither the line of boundary claimed by Great Britain nor that claimed by the United States can be adjudged as the true line without departing from the principles of equity and justice as between the two parties."

It was the opinion of His Majesty's Government, Sir Charles alleged, that the decisions of the arbiter upon the second and third points referred to him, as well as upon the subordinate questions, ought to be acquiesced in by the two Governments, and that in any future attempt to establish a boundary, whether in strict conformity with the words of the treaty of 1783 or by agreeing to the mode of settlement recommended by the arbiter, it would be necessary to adopt these seven decisions as a groundwork for further proceedings; that the British Government, therefore, previously to any further negotiation, claimed from the Government of the United States an acquiescence in the decisions pronounced by the arbiter upon all those points which he had decided, and as a preliminary to any attempt to settle the remaining point by negotiation to be satisfied that the Federal Government was possessed of the necessary powers to carry into effect any arrangement upon which the two parties might agree.

With respect to the proposition made by the American Government, Sir Charles thought that the difficulty which was found insurmountable as against the line recommended by the King of the Netherlands, viz., the want of authority to agree to any line which might imply a cession of any part of the territory to which the treaty as hitherto interpreted by the United States might appear to entitle one of the component States of the Union, would be equally fatal to that suggested by Mr. Livingston, since a line drawn from the head of the St. Croix to highlands found to the westward of the meridian of that spot would not be the boundary of the treaty and might be more justly objected to by Maine and with more appearance of reason than that proposed by the arbiter.

The reply of Mr. McLane to the preceding note is dated on the 11th of March. He expressed his regret that His Britannic Majesty's Government should still consider any part of the opinion of the arbiter obligatory on either party. Those opinions, the Secretary stated, could not have been carried into effect by the President without the concurrence of the Senate, who, regarding them not only as not determining the principal object of the reference, but as in fact deciding that object to be impracticable, and therefore recommending to the two parties a boundary not even contemplated either by the treaty or by the reference nor within the power of the General Government to take, declined to give their advice and consent to the execution of the measures recommended by the arbiter, but did advise the Executive to open a new negotiation for the ascertainment of the boundary in pursuance of the treaty of 1783, and the proposition of Mr. Livingston, submitted in his letter of 30th of April, 1833, accordingly proceeded upon that basis. Mr. McLane denied that a decision, much less the expression of an opinion, by the arbiter upon some of the disputed points, but of a character not to settle the real controversy, was binding upon either party, and he alleged that the most material point in the line of the true boundary, both as it respects the difficulty of the subject and the extent of territory and dominions of the respective Governments, the arbiter not only failed to decide, but acknowledged his inability to decide, thereby imposing upon both Governments the unavoidable necessity of resorting to further negotiation to ascertain the treaty boundary and absolving each party from any obligation to adopt his recommendations. The Secretary also declined to admit that of the three main points referred to the arbiter as necessary to ascertain the boundary of the treaty he had decided two. On the first point, Mr. McLane said, it was not contended a decision was made or that either the angle or the highlands called for by the treaty was found, and on the third point an opinion merely was expressed that it would be suitable to proceed to fresh operations to measure the observed latitude, etc.

The Secretary admitted that if the American proposition should be acceded to by His Majesty's Government and the commission hereafter to be appointed should result in ascertaining the true situation of the boundary called for by the treaty of 1783, that it would be afterwards necessary, in order to ascertain the true line, to settle the other two points according to which it should be traced. He therefore offered, if the American proposition should be acceded to, notwithstanding the obligatory effect of the decision of the arbiter on the point is denied, "to take the stream situated farthest to the northwest among those which fall into the northernmost of the three lakes, the last of which bears the name of Connecticut Lake, as the north-westernmost head of the Connecticut River according to the treaty of 1783;" and as it respects the third point referred to the arbiter, the line of boundary on the forty-fifth degree of latitude, but upon which he failed to decide, the President would agree, if the proposition as to the first point was embraced, to adopt the old line surveyed and marked by Valentine and Collins in 1771 and 1772.