Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Free Classic E-books

A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: Tyler by Compiled by James D. Richardson

Part 4 out of 11

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 1.2 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

territory which by neglect she had permitted France to occupy. On this
point the French are the best authority, for it can not be pretended
that the Crown of England intended in forming the Province of Quebec
to go beyond the utmost limits of the claim of France to her colony of
Canada. The assertions on the part of France in the argument preceding
the War of 1756 were:

First. That both banks of the St. Lawrence are included in Canada.

Second. That with the exception of Miscou and Cape Breton, her grants
extended 10 leagues from the river.

Third. That the commissions of the governors of Canada in the most
formal and precise manner extended their jurisdiction to the sources
of the rivers which discharge themselves into the St. Lawrence.

Now the distance of 10 French leagues and that of the sources of the
rivers, on an average, are nearly identical, and this narrow tract, of
which alone the Crown could with any shadow of justice assume the right
of disposing, is that of which Massachusetts was intended to be divested
by the proclamation of 1763.

It was because Great Britain held that these claims on the part of
France were too extensive that the War of 1756 was waged. In this war at
least one-half of the force which under Wolfe took Louisburg and reduced
Quebec, and under Amherst forced the French armies in Canada to a
capitulation, was raised and paid by the colonies. The creation of the
Province of Quebec, covering a part of their chartered limits, was
therefore a just subject of complaint.

The bounds assigned to the new Province of Quebec to the south by the
proclamation of 7th October, 1763, are as follows:

"The line, crossing the river St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain in 45 deg.
of north latitude, passes along the highlands which divide the rivers
that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence from those which fall into
the sea, and also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs and the
Gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosieres," etc.

In the same month of October, 1763, the limits of the royal Province of
Nova Scotia are fixed, in the commission to Governor Wilmot, on the west
"by the said river St. Croix to its source, and by a line drawn due
north from thence to the southern boundary of our Province of Quebec; to
the northward, by the same boundary, as far as the western extremity of
the Bay des Chaleurs."

Here, then, we find the first mention in an English dress of the line
to be drawn due north from the source of the St. Croix. There is no
evidence that it was a translation of the terms in the grant to Sir
William Alexander, but if it were it was made not by Americans, but by
Englishmen; and not only made, but set forth under the high authority of
the royal sign manual and authenticated by the great seal of the United
Kingdom of England and Scotland.

The due north line from the source of the St. Croix, meeting the south
bounds of the Province of Quebec, forms two angles. One of these was
the northeast angle of the Province of Sagadahock; the other is the
northwest angle of Nova Scotia. It aright be debated which of the
streams that fall into Passamaquoddy Bay was the true St. Croix, but
such a question could be settled by reference to evidence, and has been
thus settled by the award of the commissioners under the fifth article
of Jay's treaty. Among the many branches of a stream it may for a moment
be doubted which is to be considered as its principal source, but this
can be ascertained by proper methods, and it has been ascertained and
marked with a monument by the same commissioners. The tracing of a
meridian line may be a difficult operation in practical surveying, but
it can be effected by proper instruments and adequate skill, and this
task has in fact been performed by one of the present commissioners,
after being attempted by the surveyors under the fifth article of the
treaty of Ghent. The highlands are defined in the commission of Governor
Wilmot and the proclamation of 1763 beyond the possibility of doubt.
They are on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs as described in the
one instrument, and on the western extremity of that bay as described
by the other. They can therefore be found, and they have been found.

The Congress of 1779 and the framers of the treaty of 1783 were
therefore warranted in speaking of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia as
if it were a known point. It could have been laid down with precision on
any good map; it could be discovered by the use of adequate methods and
the expenditure of a sufficient appropriation; it was, in fact, as well
known as the forty-fifth and thirty-second parallels of latitude, which
are named in the same article of the treaty, or as the boundaries of
very many of the States which had united in the Confederation. These
were defined by the course and sources of rivers--by parallels of
latitude and circles of longitude, either of indefinite extent or
setting out from some prescribed point whose position was to be
determined. At the time of making these grants, as in the case before
us, many of the boundaries had never been visited by civilized men. Some
of these lines had, indeed, been sought and traced upon the ground in
pursuance of orders from the privy council of Great Britain or the high
court of chancery, and the recollection of the operation was fresh in
the memory of both parties. Thus in 1750 it was ordered by the latter
tribunal that the boundary on the lower counties on the Delaware (now
the State of that name) and the Province of Maryland should be marked
out. The boundary was an arc of a circle described around the town of
Newcastle, with a given radius, and a meridian line tangent thereto.
This was a far more difficult operation than to draw a meridian line
from a given point, such as the source of a river. It was thought
in 1763 worthy of the attention of the first assistant in the Royal
Observatory at Greenwich, and the American Rittenhouse was associated
with him. This operation was not only of great contemporary fame, but
is still quoted in English books among the data whence we derive our
knowledge of the magnitude and figure of the earth. So also the same
astronomer (Mason) had but a few years before the War of Independence
commenced the tracing of a parallel of latitude from the former line
to the westward, thus marking the respective limits of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia. With such examples before them the framers of
the treaty of 1783 were warranted in considering the northwest angle
of Nova Scotia as a point sufficiently definite to be made not merely
one of the landmarks of the new nation, but the corner at which the
description of its boundaries should begin. It has been well remarked by
one of the commentators[52] on the report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh
and Mudge that if the treaty of 1783 be a grant the grantors are bound
by rule of law to mark out that corner of their _own land_ whence the
description of the grant commences. The British Government therefore
ought, if it be, as it is maintained on its part, a grant, to have
traced the line of highlands dividing their Provinces of Nova Scotia
and Canada. Had this been done in conformity with the proclamation of
1763 and the commission to Governor Wilmot, the northwest angle of Nova
Scotia would be given by the trace of the meridian of the St. Croix.
So far from doing this, the question has been complicated by the denial
that the boundaries defined in that proclamation and in the treaty of
1783 were intended to be identical. The argument on this point was so
ingenious that the arbiter under the fifth article of the treaty of
Ghent did not consider the American case as made out,[53] and this doubt
was the principal ground on which his decision rested. It is therefore
an earnest of a more favorable state of feeling that the sophistry with
which this fact had been veiled, at least in part, is now withdrawn, and
that the commission whose report is under consideration frankly admit
this identity.[54] This admission being made, it is obvious that the
origin of the highlands of the treaty must be sought on the north shore
of the Bay des Chaleurs and at its western extremity, and it follows
that the point where this line of highlands is cut by the meridian of
the monument at the source of the St. Croix is the northwest angle of
Nova Scotia of the treaty of 1783, and must lie to the north of the
Restigouche, or in the very spot claimed by the United States.

[Footnote 52: Hon. John Holmes, of Maine.]

[Footnote 53: See Note VIII, p. 148.]

[Footnote 54: Report of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, pp. 6, 23.]

The British Government has not only failed in marking out the corner of
their territory at which the boundary of the United States begins, but
has in practice adopted a very different point as the northwest angle of
the Province of New Brunswick, which now occupies the place of ancient
Nova Scotia in its contiguity to the American lines. Up to the time of
the discussion before the King of the Netherlands the commissions of the
governors of New Brunswick had been, so far as the western and northern
boundaries are concerned, copies of that to Governor Wilmot. The
undersigned have no means of ascertaining when or how the form of these
commissions was changed, but it was found during the exploration of the
country that the jurisdiction of New Brunswick, limited at least to the
north of the St. John by the exploring meridian line, did not leave the
Bay of Chaleurs at its western extremity and follow thence the old
bounds of the Province of Quebec. It, on the contrary, was ascertained
that it was limited by the Restigouche as far as the confluence of its
southwestern branch, formerly known by the name of Chacodi, and thence
followed the latter up to the point where it is crossed by the exploring
meridian line. On all the territory thus severed from the ancient domain
of Nova Scotia permits to cut timber were found to have been issued by
Canadian authorities, and the few settlers derived their titles to land
from the same source.

Although this demarcation involves a double deviation from the
proclamation of 1763 (first, in following a river instead of highlands;
second, in taking a small branch instead of pursuing the main supply
of the Bay of Chaleurs), the northwest angle of Nova Scotia may be
considered as at last fixed by British authority at a point many miles
north of the point claimed to be such in the statements laid before
the King of the Netherlands on the part of Great Britain, and 48 miles
to the north of where the line of "abraded highlands" of Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge crosses the St. John. Were it not that the
American claim would be weakened by any change in the strong ground on
which it has always rested, it might be granted that this is in fact the
long-lost northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and the highlands allowed to
be traced from that point through the sources of the branches of the
St. John and the St. Lawrence.

In proof of the position now assigned to this angle of New Brunswick,
and consequently of ancient Nova Scotia, in the absence of documents
which the archives of Great Britain alone can furnish, the map published
by the Society for the Encouragement of Useful Knowledge, the several
maps of the surveyor-general of the Province of Canada, and the most
recent map of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, by John
Wyld, geographer to the Queen of Great Britain, may be cited.

It may therefore be concluded that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia
is no longer an unknown point. It can be found by a search conducted
in compliance with the proclamation of 1763 and the contemporaneous
commission of Governor Wilmot, and the researches of the present
commission show that it can not be far distant from the point originally
assigned to it in the exploring meridian line. The identity of the first
of these documents with the boundary of the treaty of 1783 is admitted,
and the latter is word for word the same with the description of the
eastern boundary of the United States in the same treaty. Moreover, a
northwest angle has been assigned to the Province of New Brunswick by
British authority, which, did it involve no dereliction of principle,
might without sensible loss be accepted on the part of the United
States.

IV.--HIGHLANDS OF THE TREATY OF 1783.

The highlands of the treaty of 1783 are described as those "which divide
those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from
those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean." It has been uniformly and
consistently maintained on the part of the United States that by the
term "highlands" was intended what is in another form of the same words
called the height of land. The line of highlands in this sense was to be
sought by following the rivers described in the treaty to their source
and drawing lines between these sources in such manner as to divide the
surface waters. It was believed that the sources of such rivers as the
Connecticut and the St. John must lie in a country sufficiently elevated
to be entitled to the epithet of highlands, although it should appear on
reaching it that it had the appearance of a plain. Nay, it was even
concluded, although, as now appears, incorrectly--and it was not feared
that the conclusion would weaken the American argument--that the line
from the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, at least as far as the sources
of Tuladi, did pass through a country of that description. Opposite
ground was taken in the argument of Great Britain by her agent, but
however acute and ingenious were the processes of reasoning by which
this argument was supported, it remained in his hands without
application, for the line claimed by him on the part of his Government
was one having the same physical basis for its delineation as that
claimed by the agent of the United States, namely, one joining the
culminating points of the valleys in which streams running in opposite
directions took their rise. The argument appears to have been drawn
while he hoped to be able to include Katahdin and the other great
mountains in that neighborhood in his claimed boundary, and he does not
appear to have become aware how inapplicable it was in every sense to
the line by which he was, for want of a better, compelled to abide.
The British Government, however, virtually abandoned the construction
of their agent in the convention signed in London the 27th September,
1827.[55]

[Footnote 55: See Note IX, p. 148.]

In this it was stipulated that Mitchell's and Map A should be admitted
to the exclusion of all others "as the only maps that shall be
considered as evidence" of the topography of the country, and in the
latter of these maps, constructed under the joint direction of the
British and American negotiators by the astronomer of the British
Government, it was agreed that nothing but the water courses should
be represented. Finally, it was admitted in the report of Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge that the terms highlands and height of land
are identical. The decision of the King of the Netherlands, to which
Great Britain gave her assent in the first instance, recognizes the
correctness of the views entertained in the American statements.[56]
All discussion on this subject is, however, rendered unnecessary by the
knowledge which the undersigned have obtained of the country. The line
surveyed by them not only divides rivers, but possesses in a preeminent
degree the character by which in the British argument highlands are
required to be distinguished.

[Footnote 56: See Note X, pp. 148, 149.]

It is sufficient for the present argument that the identity of the
lines pointed out by the proclamation of 1763 and the act of 1774 with
the boundary of the treaty of 1783 be admitted. Such has been the
uniform claim of the Government of the United States and the State
of Massachusetts, and such is the deliberate verdict of the British
commissioners.[57] The words of the proclamation of 1763 have already
been cited. By reference to them it will be seen that the origin of "the
highlands" is to be sought on the _north_ shore of the Bay of Chaleurs.
If they are not to be found there, a gap exists in the boundary of the
proclamation, which it is evident could not have been intended. It has
been thought by some that the gap did actually exist, but this idea was
founded on an imperfect knowledge of the country. The Bay of Chaleurs
seems, in fact, to have been better known to the framers of the
proclamation of 1763 and the act of 1774 than to any subsequent
authorities, whether British or American. Researches made in the year
1840 show that at the head of the tide of the Bay of Chaleurs a mountain
rises immediately on the northern bank, which from its imposing
appearance has been called by the Scotch settlers at its foot Ben
Lomond. This, indeed, has by measurement been found to be no more than
1,024 feet in height, but no one can deny its title to the name of a
highland. From this a continuous chain of heights has been ascertained
to exist, bounding in the first instance the valley of the Matapediac
to the sources of that stream, which they separate from those of the
Metis. The height of land then passes between the waters of Metis and
Restigouche, and, bending around the sources of the latter to the
sources of the Rimouski, begins there to separate waters which fall into
the St. Lawrence from those which fall into the St. John, which they
continue to do as far as the point where they merge in the line admitted
by both parties.

[Footnote 57: Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, pp. 6, 23.]

These highlands have all the characteristics necessary to constitute
them the highlands of the treaty. Throughout their whole northern
and western slopes flow streams which empty themselves into the St.
Lawrence. Beginning at the Bay of Chaleurs, they in the first place
divide, as it is necessary they should, waters which fall into that
bay; they next separate the waters of Restigouche from those of Metis;
they then make a great detour to the south and inclose the valley
of Rimouski, separating its waters from those of Matapediac and
Restigouche, the Green River of St. John and Tuladi; they next perform a
circuit around Lake Temiscouata, separating its basin from those of the
Otty and Trois Pistoles, until they reach the Temiscouata portage at
Mount Paradis. This portage they cross five times, and finally, bending
backward to the north, inclose the stream of the St. Francis, whose
waters they divide from those of Trois Pistoles, Du Loup, and the Green
River of the St. Lawrence. Leaving the Temiscouata portage at the
sixteenth milepost, a region positively mountainous is entered, which
character continues to the sources of the Etchemin. It there assumes for
a short space the character of a rolling country, no point in which,
however, is less than 1,200 feet above the level of the sea. It speedily
resumes a mountainous character, which continues unaltered to the
sources of the Connecticut.

Now it is maintained that all the streams and waters which have been
named as flowing from the southern and eastern sides of this line are in
the intended sense of the treaty of 1783 rivers which empty themselves
into the Atlantic. The first argument adduced in support of this
position is that the framers of that treaty, having, as is admitted,
Mitchell's map before them, speak only of two classes of rivers--those
which discharge themselves into the St. Lawrence River and those which
fall into the Atlantic Ocean; yet upon this map were distinctly seen the
St. John and the Restigouche. The latter, indeed, figures twice--once
as a tributary to the Bay of Miramichi and once as flowing to the Bay
of Chaleurs.[58] It can not reasonably be pretended that men honestly
engaged in framing an article to prevent "all disputes which might arise
in future" should have intentionally passed over and left undefined
these important rivers, when by the simplest phraseology they might have
described them had they believed that in any future time a question
could have arisen whether they were included in one or the other of the
two classes of rivers they named. Had it been intended that the due
north line should have stopped short of the St. John, the highlands
must have been described as those which divide rivers which fall into
the St. Lawrence _and the St. John_ from those which fall into the
Atlantic Ocean. The mouth of the St. Lawrence had been defined in the
proclamation of 1763 by a line drawn from the river St. John (on the
Labrador coast) to Cape Rozier. If, then, it had been intended that the
meridian line should not have crossed the Restigouche, the phraseology
must have been highlands which divide rivers which fall into the river
_and_ Gulf of St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic
Ocean. Where such obvious modes of expressing either of these intentions
existed, it is not to be believed that they would have been omitted;
but had they been proposed to be introduced the American negotiators
would have been compelled by their instructions to refuse them. Such
expressions would have prescribed a boundary different not only in
fact, but in terms, from that of the proclamation of 1763 and the
contemporaneous commission to Governor Wilmot. Either, then, the British
plenipotentiaries admitted the American claim to its utmost extent or
they fraudulently assented to terms with the intention of founding upon
them a claim to territory which if they had openly asked for must have
been denied them. The character of the British ministry under whose
directions that treaty was made forbids the belief of the latter having
been intended. The members of that ministry had been when in opposition
the constant advocates of an accommodation with the colonies or of an
honorable peace after all hopes of retaining them in their allegiance
had ceased. They showed on coming into power a laudable anxiety to put
an end to the profitless effusion of human blood, and they wisely saw
that it would be of more profit to their country to convert the new
nation into friends by the free grant of terms which sooner or later
must have been yielded than to widen the breach of kindred ties by an
irritating delay. The debates which ensued in the British Parliament
when the terms of the treaty were made known show the view which the
party that had conducted the war entertained of this question. The
giving up of the very territory now in dispute was one of the charges
made by them against their successors, and that it had been given up by
the treaty was not denied. Nay, the effect of this admission was such
as to leave the administration in a minority in the House of Commons,
and thus became at least one of the causes of the resignation of the
ministry[59] by which the treaty had been made. At this very moment more
maps than one were published in London which exhibit the construction
then put upon the treaty by the British public. The boundary exhibited
upon these maps is identical with that which the United States now claim
and have always claimed.

[Footnote 58: See Note XI, p. 149.]

[Footnote 59: Hansard's Parliamentary Register for 1783.]

The full avowal that the boundary of the treaty of 1783 and of the
proclamation of 1763 and act of 1774 are identical greatly simplifies
the second argument. It has been heretofore maintained on the part of
Great Britain that the word "sea" of the two latter-named instruments
was not changed in the first to "Atlantic Ocean" without an obvious
meaning. All discussion on this point is obviated by the admission.
But it is still maintained that the Bay of Fundy is not a part of the
Atlantic Ocean because it happens to be named in reference to the St.
Croix in the same article of the treaty. To show the extent to which
such an argument, founded on a mere verbal quibble, may be carried, let
it be supposed that at some future period two nations on the continent
of North America shall agree on a boundary in the following terms: By a
line drawn through the Mississippi from its mouth in the Gulf of Mexico
to its source; thence a parallel of latitude until it meet the highlands
which divide the waters that empty themselves into the Pacific Ocean
from those which fall into the Atlantic. Could it be pretended that
because the mouth of the Mississippi is said to be in the Gulf of
Mexico the boundary must be transferred from the Rocky Mountains to
the Alleghanies? Yet this would be as reasonable as the pretensions
so long set up by the British agents and commissioners.

It can not be denied that the line claimed by the United States fulfills
at least one of the conditions. The streams which flow from one side of
it fall without exception into the river St. Lawrence. The adverse line
claimed by Great Britain in the reference to the King of the Netherlands
divides until within a few miles of Mars Hill waters which fall into the
St. John from those of the Penobscot and Kennebec. The latter do not
discharge their waters directly into the ocean, but Sagadahock and
Penobscot bays intervene, and the former falls into the Bay of Fundy;
hence, according to the argument in respect to the Bay of Fundy, this
line fulfills neither condition.

The line of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge is even less in
conformity to the terms of the treaty. In order to find mountains
to form a part of it they are compelled to go south of the source of
branches of the Penobscot; thence from mountains long well known, at
the sources of the Alleguash, well laid down on the rejected map of
Mr. Johnson, it becomes entangled in the stream of the Aroostook, which
it crosses more than once. In neither part does it divide waters at all.
It then, as if to make its discrepancy with the line defined in the
proclamation of 1763 apparent, crosses the St. John and extends to the
_south_ shore of the Bay of Chaleurs, although that instrument fixes the
boundary of the Province of Quebec on the north shore of the bay. In
this part of its course it divides waters which fall into the said bay
from those which fall into the St. John. But the proclamation with whose
terms this line is said to be identical directs that the highlands shall
divide waters which fall into the St. Lawrence from those which fall
into the sea. If the branches of the Bay of Chaleurs fulfill the first
condition, which, however, is denied, the St. John must fulfill the
latter. It therefore falls into the Atlantic Ocean, and as the identity
of the boundary of the treaty with that of the proclamation of 1763 and
act of 1774 is admitted, then is the St. John an Atlantic river, and the
line claimed by the United States fulfills both conditions, and is the
only line to the west of the meridian of the St. Croix which can
possibly do so.

The choice of a line different from that presented to the choice of the
King of the Netherlands is no new instance of the uncertainty which has
affected all the forms in which Great Britain has urged her claim.

In fact, nothing shows more conclusively the weakness of the ground on
which the British claim rests than the continual changes which it has
been necessary to make in order to found any feasible argument upon
it.[60] In the discussion of 1798 it was maintained on the part of Great
Britain that the meridian line must cross the St. John River; in the
argument before the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty
of Ghent it was denied that it ever could have been the intention of the
framers of the treaty of 1783 that it should. Yet the mouthpiece by
which both arguments were delivered was one and the same person. The
same agent chose as the termination of what he attempted to represent
as a continuous range of hills an isolated mountain, Mars Hill; and
the commissioners whose report is under consideration place a range of
abraded highlands, "the maximum axis of elevation," in a region over
which British engineers have proposed to carry a railroad as the most
level and lowest line which exists between St. Andrews and Quebec.[61]

[Footnote 60: See Note XII, p. 149.]

[Footnote 61: Prospectus of St. Andrews and Quebec Railroad, 1836; and
Survey of Captain Yule, 1835.]

On the other hand, the American claim, based on the only practicable
interpretation of the treaty of 1783, has been consistent throughout:
"Let the meridian line be extended until it meets the southern boundary
of the Province of Quebec, as defined by the proclamation of 1763 and
the act of Parliament of 1774."

No argument can be drawn against the American claim from the secret
instructions of Congress dated August, 1779. All that is shown by
these instructions is the willingness to accept a more convenient
boundary--one defined by a great natural feature, and which would have
rendered the difficult operation of tracing the line of highlands and
that of determining the meridian of the St. Croix by astronomic methods
unnecessary. The words of the instructions are:

"And east by a line to be drawn along the middle of the St. John from
its source to its mouth in the Bay of Fundy, _or_ by a line to be
settled and adjusted between that part of the State of Massachusetts Bay
formerly called the Province of Maine and the colony of Nova Scotia,
agreeably to their respective rights, comprehending all islands within
20 leagues of the shores of the United States and lying between lines to
be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between
Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other part shall
respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean."

The proposal in the first alternative was to appearance a perfectly fair
one. From an estimate made by Dr. Tiarks, the astronomer of Great
Britain under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, in conformity
with directions from Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, it was
ascertained that the whole disputed territory contained 10,705 square
miles; that the territory bounded by the St. John to its mouth contained
707 square miles less, or 9,998 square miles. The difference at the time
was probably believed to be insensible. The first alternative was,
however, rejected by Great Britain, and obviously on grounds connected
with a difference in supposed advantage between the two propositions.
The American commissioners were satisfied that they could urge no legal
claim along the coast beyond the river St. Croix; they therefore treated
on the other alternative in their instructions--the admitted limits
between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. Even in the former alternative,
Nova Scotia would still have had a northwest angle, for the very use of
the term shows that by the St. John its northwestern and not the
southwestern branch was intended.

At that moment, when the interior of the country was unknown, the
adoption of the St. John as the boundary, even admitting that the
Walloostook, its southwestern branch, is the main stream, would have
given to the United States a territory of more immediate value than
that they now claim. For this very reason the proposition was instantly
rejected by Great Britain, and the State of Massachusetts was forced
to be contented with the distant region now in debate--a region then
believed to be almost inaccessible and hardly fit for human habitation.

Even now, were there not vested private rights on both sides which might
render such a plan difficult of application, the undersigned would not
hesitate to recommend that this line should be accepted in lieu of the
one which is claimed under the treaty of 1783.

It is finally obvious, from the most cursory inspection of any of the
maps of the territory in question, that the line claimed for Great
Britain in the argument before the King of the Netherlands fulfills
no more than one of the two conditions, while that of Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge fulfills neither; and as the line claimed on
the part of the United States is denied to be capable of meeting the
terms of the treaty of 1783 by Great Britain, there is no line that,
in conformity with the British argument, can be drawn within the
disputed territory or its vicinity that will comply with either of
the conditions. This is as well and as distinctly shown in the map of
Mitchell as in the map of the British commission. It would therefore
appear, if, these views be correct, that the framers of the treaty
of 1783 went through the solemn farce of binding their respective
Governments to a boundary which they well knew did not and could not
exist.

V.--NORTHWEST HEAD OF CONNECTICUT RIVER.

The true mode of determining the most northwesterly of any two given
points need no longer be a matter of discussion. It has already been
a matter adjudicated and assented to by both Governments, in the case
of the Lake of the Woods. The point to be considered as most to the
northwest is that which a ruler laid on a map drawn according to
Mercator's projection in a direction northeast and southwest and moved
parallel to itself toward the northwest would last touch. In this view
of the subject the Eastern Branch of the Connecticut, which forms the
lake of that name, is excluded, for its source, so far from lying to the
northwest of those of the other two branches which have been explored,
actually lies to the south of the source of the Indian Stream. The
question must therefore lie between the two others, and it is as yet
impossible to decide which of them is best entitled to the epithet, as
their sources lie very nearly in the same northeast and southwest rhomb
line. Another circumstance would, however, render the decision between
them easy. The forty-fifth parallel of latitude, as laid out by the
surveyors of the Provinces of Quebec and New York in conformity with
the proclamation of 1763, crosses Halls Stream above its junction with
the united current of the other two. In this case the latter is the
Connecticut River of the treaty of 1783, and Halls Stream, which has
not yet joined it, must be excluded. The parallel, as corrected by the
united operations of the British and American astronomers under the
fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, does not touch Halls Stream, and
the Connecticut River, to which it is produced, is the united current of
the three streams. If, then, the corrected parallel should become the
boundary between the United States and the British Provinces, Halls
Stream must become one of those the claim of whose source to the title
of the north-westernmost head of Connecticut River is to be examined.
And here it may be suggested, although with the hesitation that is
natural in impeaching such high authority, that the commissioners under
the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent in all probability misconstrued
that instrument when they reopened the question of the forty-fifth
parallel. It can not be said that the forty-fifth degree of latitude had
"_not been surveyed_" when it is notorious that it had been traced and
marked throughout the whole extent from St. Regis to the bank of the
Connecticut River.

In studying, for the purpose of illustration, the history of this part
of the boundary line it will be found that a change was made in it by
the Quebec act of 1774. The proclamation of 1763 directs the forty-fifth
parallel to be continued only until it meets highlands, while in that
bill the Connecticut River is made the boundary of the Province of
Quebec. Now the earlier of these instruments was evidently founded upon
the French claim to extend their possession of Canada 10 leagues from
the St. Lawrence River, and from the citadel of Quebec, looking to the
south, are seen mountains whence rivers flow to the St. Lawrence. On
their opposite slope there was a probability that streams might flow to
the Atlantic. These mountains, however, are visibly separated from those
over which the line claimed by the United States runs by a wide gap.
This is the valley of the Chaudiere; and the St. Francis also rises on
the southeastern side of these mountains and makes its way through them.
It is not, therefore, in any sense a dividing ridge. Yet under the
proclamation of 1763 the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire claimed
and were entitled to the territory lying behind it, which is covered by
their royal charters. The Quebec act, it would appear, was intended to
divest them of it, and according to the construction of the treaty of
1783 now contended for the United States acquiesced in this diminution
of the territory of those members of the Union. If, however, it be true,
as maintained by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, that the highlands
seen to the south of Quebec are a portion of the ridge seen from
southeast to northeast, and if, as they maintain, so deep and wide a
valley as that of the St. John is no disruption of the continuity of
highlands, it would be possible to show that the highlands of the treaty
of 1783 are made up of these two ridges of mountains and that the United
States is entitled to the whole of the eastern townships. This range of
highlands would coincide with the terms of the proclamation of 1763 by
terminating on the north shore of the Bay of Chaleurs, while the abraded
highlands of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge terminate on its south
shore. In fact, there is no step in their argument which might not be
adduced to support this claim, nor any apparent absurdity in preferring
it which would not find its parallel in one or other of the positions
they assume.

In this view of the history of this part of the line it becomes evident,
however, that in divesting the Provinces of New York and New Hampshire
by the Quebec act of territory admitted to belong to them in the
proclamation of 1763 the British Parliament must have intended to make
the encroachment as small as possible, and the first important branch of
the Connecticut met with in tracing the forty-fifth parallel must have
been intended. This intention is fully borne out by the words of the
treaty of 1783, which chose from among the branches of the Connecticut
that whose source is farthest to the northwest.

It has therefore been shown in the foregoing statement--

1. That the river to be considered as the St. Croix and its true source
have been designated by a solemn act, to which the good faith of the
majesty of Great Britain and of the people of the United States is
pledged, and can not now be disturbed.

2. That the boundary line must, in compliance with the provisions of the
treaty of 1783, be drawn due north from the source of that river, and in
no other direction whatever.

3. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was a point sufficiently
known at the date of the treaty of 1783 to be made the starting point
of the boundary of the United States; that it was both described in the
treaty and defined, without being named in previous official acts of the
British Government, in so forcible a manner that no difficulty need have
existed in finding it.

4. That the line of highlands claimed by the United States is, as the
argument on the part of Great Britain has maintained it ought to be, in
a mountainous region, while that proposed by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh
and Mudge does not possess this character; that it is also, in the sense
uniformly maintained by the United States, the height of land, which
that of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge is not; that it fulfills in
every sense the conditions of the proclamation of 1763, the Quebec act
of 1774, and the treaty of 1783, which no other line that can possibly
be drawn in the territory in question can perform.

5. That as far as the Indian Stream and that flowing through Lake
Connecticut are concerned, the source of the former must in the sense
established by the assent of both parties be considered as the
northwestern source of the Connecticut River, but that if the old
demarcation of the forty-fifth parallel be disturbed the question must
lie between the sources of Halls and of Indian streams.

All which is respectfully submitted.

JAS. RENWICK
JAMES D. GRAHAM,
A. TALCOTT,
_Commissioners_.

_Note I_.

[Treaty of 1794, Article V.]

Whereas doubts have arisen what river was truly intended under the
name of the river St. Croix mentioned in the said treaty of peace, and
forming a part of the boundary therein described, that question shall be
referred to the final decision of commissioners to be appointed in the
following manner, viz:

One commissioner shall be named by His Majesty and one by the President
of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate
thereof, and the said two commissioners shall agree on the choice of a
third, or, if they can not so agree, they shall each propose one person,
and of the two names so proposed one shall be drawn by lot in the
presence of the two original commissioners; and the three commissioners
so appointed shall be sworn impartially to examine and decide the said
question according to such evidence as shall respectively be laid before
them on the part of the British Government and of the United States.
The said commissioners shall meet at Halifax, and shall have power to
adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit. They
shall have power to appoint a secretary and to employ such surveyors
or other persons as they shall judge necessary. The said commissioners
shall, by a declaration under their hands and seals, decide what river
is the river St. Croix intended by the treaty. The said declaration
shall contain a description of the said river and shall particularize
the latitude and longitude of its mouth and of its source. Duplicates
of this declaration and of the statements of their accounts and of the
journal of their proceedings shall be delivered by them to the agent
of His Majesty and to the agent of the United States who may be
respectively appointed and authorized to manage the business on behalf
of the respective Governments. And both parties agree to consider such
decision as final and conclusive, so as that the same shall never
thereafter be called into question or made the subject of dispute or
difference between them.

_Note II_.

Declaration of the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty
of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain, respecting the true
river St. Croix, by Thomas Barclay, David Howell, and Egbert Benson,
commissioners appointed in pursuance of the fifth article of the treaty
of amity, commerce, and navigation between His Britannic Majesty and the
United States of America finally to decide the question "What river was
truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix mentioned in the
treaty of peace between His Majesty and the United States, and forming
a part of the boundary therein described?"

DECLARATION.

We, the said commissioners, having been sworn impartially to examine
and decide the said question according to such evidence as should
respectively be laid before us on the part of the British Government and
of the United States, respectively, appointed and authorized to manage
the business on behalf of the respective Governments, have decided,
and hereby do decide, the river hereinafter particularly described and
mentioned to be the river truly intended under the name of the river St.
Croix in the said treaty of peace, and forming a part of the boundary
therein described; that is to say, the mouth of the said river is in
Passamaquoddy Bay at a point of land called Joes Point, about 1 mile
northward from the northern part of St. Andrews Island, and in the
latitude of 45 deg. 5' and 5" north, and in the longitude of 67 deg. 12' and 30"
west from the Royal Observatory at Greenwich, in Great Britain, and 3 deg.
54' and 15" east from Harvard College, in the University of Cambridge,
in the State of Massachusetts; and the course of the said river up from
its said mouth is northerly to a point of land called the Devils Head;
then, turning the said point, is westerly to where it divides into
two streams, the one coming from the westward and the other from the
northward, having the Indian name of Cheputnatecook, or Chebuitcook, as
the same may be variously spelt; then up the said stream so coming from
the northward to its source, which is at a stake near a yellow-birch
tree hooped with iron and marked S.T. and J.H., 1797, by Samuel Titcomb
and John Harris, the surveyors employed to survey the above-mentioned
stream coming from the northward.

_Note III_.

[Article V of the treaty of Ghent, 1814.]

Whereas neither that point of the highlands lying due north from the
source of the river St. Croix, and designated in the former treaty of
peace between the two powers as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, nor
the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River has yet been ascertained;
and whereas that part of the boundary line between the dominions of the
two powers which extends from the source of the river St. Croix directly
north to the above-mentioned northwest angle of Nova Scotia; thence
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; thence down
along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth degree of north
latitude; thence by a line due west on said latitude until it strikes
the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy, has not yet been surveyed, it is
agreed that for these several purposes two commissioners shall be
appointed, sworn, and authorized to act exactly in the manner directed
with respect to those mentioned in the next preceding article, unless
otherwise specified in the present article. The said commissioners shall
meet at St. Andrews, in the Province of New Brunswick, and shall have
power to adjourn to such other place or places as they shall think fit.
The said commissioners shall have power to ascertain and determine the
points above mentioned in conformity with the provisions of the said
treaty of peace of 1783, and shall cause the boundary aforesaid, from
the source of the river St. Croix to the river Iroquois, or Cataraquy,
to be surveyed and marked according to the said provisions. The said
commissioners shall make a map of the said boundary, and annex to it a
declaration under their hands and seals certifying it to be the true map
of the said boundary, and particularizing the latitude and longitude
of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, of the northwesternmost head of
Connecticut River, and of such other points of the said boundary as
they may deem proper; and both parties agree to consider such map and
declaration as finally and conclusively fixing the said boundary. And in
the event of the said two commissioners differing, or both or either of
them refusing, declining, or willfully omitting to act, such reports,
declarations, or statements shall be made by them or either of them, and
such reference to a friendly sovereign or state shall be made in all
respects as in the latter part of the fourth article is contained, and
in as full a manner as if the same was herein repeated.

_Note IV_.

The point originally chosen by the commissioners in 1798 as the source
of the St. Croix was to all appearance the act of an umpire who wished
to reconcile two contending claims by giving to each party about half
the matter in dispute. No one who compares Mitchell's map with that of
Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge can fail to recognize in the St.
Croix of the former the Magaguadavic of the latter. That this was the
St. Croix intended by the framers of the treaty of 1783 was maintained,
and, it may be safely asserted, proved on the American side. On the
other hand, it was ascertained that the river called St. Croix by De
Monts was the Schoodiac; and the agent of Great Britain insisted that
the letter of the instrument was to be received as the only evidence, no
matter what might have been the intentions of the framers. The American
argument rested on the equity of the case, the British on the strict
legal interpretation of the document. The commissioners were divided in
opinion, each espousing the cause of his country. In this position of
things the umpire provided for in the treaty of 1794 was chosen, and
in the United States it has always been believed unfortunately for her
pretensions. A lawyer of eminence, who had reached the seat of a judge,
first of a State court and then of a tribunal of the General Government,
he prided himself on his freedom from the influence of feeling in his
decisions. As commissioner for the settlement of the boundary between
the States of New York and Vermont, he had offended the former, of which
he was a native, by admitting the claim of the latter in its full
extent, and it was believed that he would rather encounter the odium of
his fellow-citizens than run the risk of being charged with partiality
toward them. Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, who concurred
in choosing him as umpire, had been his schoolfellow and youthful
associate, and it is believed in the United States that he concurred in,
if he did not prompt, the nomination from a knowledge of this feature
of character. Had he, as is insinuated by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and
Mudge, been inclined to act with partiality toward his own country, he
had most plausible grounds for giving a verdict in her favor, and that
he did not found his decisions upon them is evidence of a determination
to be impartial, which his countrymen have said was manifested in a
leaning to the opposite side. Those who suspect him of being biased by
improper motives must either be ignorant of the circumstances of the
case or else incapable of estimating the purity of the character of
Egbert Benson. His award, however, has nothing to do with the question,
as it was never acted upon. Both parties were dissatisfied with the
conclusions at which he arrived, and in consequence a conventional
line in which both concurred was agreed upon, and the award of the
commissioners was no more than a formal act to make this convention
binding.

If, then, both Governments should think it expedient to unsettle the
vested rights which have arisen out of the award of 1798, there is a
strong and plausible ground on which the United States may claim the
Magaguadavic as their boundary, and the meridian line of its source
will throw the valley of the St. John from Woodstock to the Grand
Falls within the limits of the State of Maine. While, therefore, it
is maintained that it would violate good faith to reopen the question,
there is good reason to hope that an impartial umpire would decide it
so as to give the United States the boundary formerly claimed.

_Note V_.

The angle made by the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec with
the due north line from the source of the St. Croix first appeared in an
English dress in the commission to Governor Wilmot. This was probably
intended to be identical in its meaning with the terms in the Latin
grant to Sir William Alexander, although there is no evidence to that
effect. If, therefore, it were a false translation, the error has been
committed on the side of Great Britain, and not on that of the United
States. But it is not a false translation, as may be shown to the
satisfaction of the merest tyro in classical literature.

The words of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as quoted by Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, are as follows, viz:

"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in
America intra caput seu promontorium communiter _Cap de Sable_ appellat,
jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab
equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem, a quo promontorio versus littus
maris tenden, ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo
_Sanctmareis Bay_. Et deinceps, versus septentrionem per directam lineam
introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien, quae
excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et
Etcheminorum vulgo _Suriquois_ et _Etchemines_ ad fluvium vulgo nomine
_Sanctae Crucis_ appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem
ex occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet.
Unde per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere
versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem, fluvium,
vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo
pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de
Canada ad fluvium, stationem navium, portum, aut littus communiter
nomine de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."

The authentic Latin copy of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as
communicated officially by the British Government, contains no commas,
and would read as follows:

"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in
America intra caput seu promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellat.
Jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab
equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem a quo promontorio versus littus
maris tenden. ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo
Sanctmareis Bay. Et deinceps versus septentrionem per directam lineam
introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien. quae
excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et
Etecheminorum vulgo Suriquois et Etechemines ad fluvium vulgo nomine
Sanctae Crucis appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem ex
occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet. Unde
per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere
versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem fluvium
vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo
pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de
Canada ad fluvium stationem navium portum aut littus communiter nomine
de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."

The translation of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh is as follows:

"All and each of the lands of the continent and the islands situated
and lying in America within the headland or promontory commonly called
Cape Sable, lying near the forty-third degree of latitude from the
equinoctial line or thereabout; from which promontory stretching
westwardly toward the north by the seashore to the naval station of
St. Mary, commonly called St. Marys Bay; from thence passing toward the
north by a straight line, the entrance or mouth of that great naval
station which penetrates the interior of the eastern shore betwixt the
countries of the Suriquois and Etchemins, to the river commonly called
the St. Croix, and to the most remote source or spring of the same on
the western side which first mingles itself with the aforesaid river;
from whence, by an imaginary straight line, which may be supposed
(concipietur) to advance into the country or to run toward the north to
the nearest naval station, river, or spring discharging itself into the
great river of Canada and from thence advancing toward the east by the
gulf shores of the said river of Canada to the river, naval station,
port, or shore commonly known or called by the name of Gathepe or
Gaspe."

The only American translations which have ever been presented in
argument are as follows:

[Translation of Messrs. Gallatin and Preble, who were employed to
prepare the statement laid before the King of the Netherlands.]

"Beginning at Cape Sable, in 43 deg. north latitude or thereabout; extending
thence westwardly along the seashore to the road commonly called St.
Marys Bay; thence toward the north by a direct line, crossing the
entrance or mouth of that great ship road which runs into the eastern
tract of land between the territories of the Souriquois and of the
Etchemins (Bay of Fundy), to the river commonly called St. Croix, and
to the most remote spring or source which from the western part thereof
first mingles itself with the river aforesaid; and from thence, by an
imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to stretch through the
land or to run toward the north, to the nearest road, river, or spring
emptying itself into the great river de Canada (river St. Lawrence); and
from thence, proceeding eastwardly along the seashores of the said river
de Canada, to the river, road, port, or shore commonly known and called
by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe."

[Translation of Mr. Bradley, the American agent under the fifth article
of the treaty of Ghent.]

"By the tenor of this our present charter we do give, grant, and convey
to the said Sir William Alexander, his heirs or assigns, all and
singular the lands of the continent and islands situated and lying in
America within the headland or promontory commonly called Cape Sable,
lying near the latitude of 43 deg. or thereabout, from the equinoctial line
toward the north; from which promontory stretching toward the shore of
the sea to the west to the road of ships commonly called St. Marys Bay,
and then toward the north by a direct line, crossing the entrance or
mouth of that great road of ships which runs into the eastern tract of
land between the territories of the Souriquois and the Etchemins, to the
river called by the name of St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or
fountain from the western part thereof which first mingles itself with
the river aforesaid; whence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be
conceived to go through or run toward the north, to the nearest road of
ships, river, or spring emptying itself into the great river of Canada;
and from thence proceeding toward the east by the shores of the sea of
the said river of Canada to the river, road of ships, or shore commonly
known and called by the name of Gachepe or Gaspe."

But the translations of the Americans were merely for form's sake, as
the original Latin, in a copy furnished from a British public office,
was laid before the King of the Netherlands; and no fear need have been
felt that the umpire would not have been able to judge whether the
translations were true or not. It was rather to be inferred that he, in
examining a question submitted in a language foreign to him, would have
found the Latin quite as intelligible as the English. This examination,
however, is wholly superfluous.

From whatever source the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 derived their
view of the boundary, that instrument directs that it shall be a due
north line from the source of the river St. Croix. This expression is
too definite to require explanation or illustration, and it is only for
those purposes that any other instrument can be permitted to be quoted.

In the passages referred to the words "versus septentrionem" occur three
times, and in two of the instances are qualified by the context in such
manner as to leave no possible doubt as to the meaning. The first time
they occur the words of the passage are, "prope latitudinem quadraginta
trium graduum aut eo circa versus septentrionem." The free translation
into modern idiom is beyond doubt, "near the forty-third degree of north
latitude or thereabout;" and the direction toward the north must be
along a meridian line on which latitude is measured, or due north.
Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, instead of connecting in their
translation the words "versus septentrionem" with the words "prope
latitudinem," etc., with which they stand in juxtaposition in the Latin
text which they quote, connect them with the words "ad occidentem
tendentem," which occur in the next clause of the sentence, even
according to their own punctuation. We note this as a false translation,
although it does not touch the point in dispute. They have, indeed,
attempted to use it in their argument; but even if the use they make
of it had been successful their inferences fall, because drawn from
erroneous premises.

The second clause in which the words occur is as follows: "Ad stationem
navium Sanctae Mariae vulgo St. Marys Bay, et deinceps versus
septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius
stationis navium trajicientem," etc., "ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae
Crucis appellatum." Here the line, although directed to be drawn toward
the north, is also directed to be drawn between two given points, and it
is clear that under the double direction, if they should differ from
each other, the position of the given points must govern, and the line
be traced from one of them to the other, no matter what may be their
bearings.

The last time the words occur is after the direction that the line shall
pass up the St. Croix and to the most remote western spring or fountain
of that stream, "unde per imaginariam lineam directam quae pergere per
terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur." Here alone can any
doubt exist as to the meaning of the terms, and that is easily solved.

The boundary pointed out in the instrument is "such as may be conceived
to go or run toward the north by (per) a direct (directam) line." Now a
direct line toward the north can be no other than a meridian line. Had
it been merely a straight line of vague northerly direction which was
meant, _rectum_, the usual expression for a mathematical straight line,
would have been used instead of _directam_. It is, moreover, to be
considered that the Romans had names both for the northeast and
northwest points of the compass, and that the expression "versus
septentrionem" in its most vague application could not possibly have
admitted of a deviation of more than two points on either hand. Had the
direction intended deviated more than that amount from the true north,
the Latin term corresponding to northeast or northwest must have been
used. Nor is this a matter of mere surmise, for in a passage immediately
following that which has been quoted the direction through the Gulf
of St. Lawrence toward Cape Breton is denoted by the term "versus
Euronotum," leaving no possibility of doubt that had the line directed
to be drawn from the source of the St. Croix been intended to have
a northwestern bearing the appropriate Latin words would have been
employed.

It is, besides, to be recollected that the instrument was drawn by a
person using habitually and thinking in a modern idiom, and that in
translating the English words due north into Latin no other possible
expression could suggest itself than the one employed. Such, then,
was the sense appropriately given to the Latin words, first in the
commission of Governor Wilmot and his successors, governors of Nova
Scotia, and subsequently in the commission of all the governors of New
Brunswick from the time that it was erected into a province until the
question was referred to the King of the Netherlands. In this reference,
although a translation was given in the American argument, it was not as
quoted by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, but was in the words which
have already been cited.

Connected with this subject, although, like it, wholly irrelevant, is
another conclusion which Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh attempt to
draw from the same grant to Sir William Alexander. That charter directs
the line "versus septentrionem" to be produced "ad proximam navium
stationem, fluvium, vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese
exonerantem." It can hardly be credited that, although a literal
translation of this passage is given, including the whole of the three
terms naval station, river, _or_ spring, that it is attempted to limit
the meaning to the first expression only, and to infer that as Quebec,
in their opinion, is the first naval station above Gaspe on the St.
Lawrence, the line "versus septentrionem" was intended to be drawn
toward that place, but that as "spring" is also mentioned the line
must stop at the source of the Chaudiere. Now it has been uniformly
maintained by British authorities, and most strongly in the discussion
which preceded the War of 1756, that Nova Scotia extended to the St.
Lawrence. The boundary of Sir William Alexander's grant was therefore to
be changed from a geographical line to a water course as soon as it met
with one, and the apparently useless verbiage was introduced to meet
every possible contingency. Supposing, however, that it did not extend
so far, the northwest angle of his Nova Scotia will be where the
meridian line of the St. Croix crosses the Beaver Stream running into
Lake Johnson, only a mile to the north of the point maintained by the
American claim to be such.

The map of L'Escarbot, quoted by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh,
illustrates both this point and the second instance in which the term
"versus septentrionem" is employed. On that map, due north of the Bay
of St. Marys, a deep inlet of the Bay of Fundy is represented, and,
continuing in the same direction, a deep inlet of the St. Lawrence is
figured. The latter does not exist, but this map shows that it was
believed to exist at the time of the grant, and must be the "statio
navium" of that instrument.

This inlet of the Bay of Fundy occupies the position of the St. John,
which is almost due north by the most recent determination from St.
Marys Bay, and is so represented on their own map. That the St. John
was by mistake arising from this cause taken for the St. Croix in the
charter to Alexander is obvious from its being described as lying
between the territories of the Etchemin and Souriquois. Now Etchemin, or
canoe men, is the name given by the Micmac Indians to the race of the
Abenakis, from their skill in the management of the canoe; and this race
has always inhabited the river, whence one of their tribes is still
called St. John's Indians. The language of this tribe, although they
have lived apart for many years, is still perfectly intelligible by the
Indians of the Penobscot, and those in the service of the commission
conversed with perfect ease with the Indians of Tobique. Massachusetts,
then, was right in claiming to the St. John as the eastern limit of
the grant to Sir William Alexander, being the stream understood and
described in it under the name of St. Croix, and wholly different from
the river known to the French under that name. If, therefore, Great
Britain should insist that the question in relation to the St. Croix
shall be reopened, the United States would be able to maintain in the
very terms of the original grant to Alexander (on which the British
argument in 1797 rested) that the St. John is the St. Croix, and the
boundary will be that river to its most northwestern source, the
Asherbish, which flows into the upper end of Lake Temiscouata. Nova
Scotia will then have recovered her lost northwest angle, which can not
be found in any of the many shapes under which the British argument has
been presented, although it forms the place of beginning of what is
called a grant to the United States.

_Note VI_.

The fact that a line drawn from the source of the Kennebec to the mouth
of the Chaudiere or thereabout must be one of the boundary lines of
the grant to the Duke of York has not escaped the notice of Messrs.
Featherstonhaugh and Mudge; but they have not derived the true result
from this discovery. The Kennebec being the western limit of the grant,
the line in question bounds the territory on the southwest, while they
infer that it bounds it on the northeast. In making this inference they
appear to have forgotten that the St. Croix is the eastern boundary of
the grant. By their argument the grant to the Duke of York is blotted
wholly from the map, or, rather, becomes a mathematical line which is
absurd.

_Note VII_.

No name which has ever been applied to any part of North America is as
vague as that of Acadie. The charter to De Monts in 1604 extended from
the fortieth to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude; that is to
say, from Sandy Hook, at the mouth of the Hudson, to the peninsula of
Nova Scotia. It therefore included New York, parts of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, and all the New England States, but excluded the disputed
territory. His settlement was at the mouth of the St. Croix, but
was speedily removed to Port Royal. The latter place was soon after
destroyed by an expedition from Virginia under Argall. Under the title
derived from this conquest it would appear probable that the celebrated
grant to Sir William Stirling was made; but when his agents attempted
to make settlements in the country they found that the French had
preoccupied it. Although the son of Alexander succeeded in conquering
the country granted to his father, and even beyond it to the Penobscot,
it was restored to France by the treaty of St. Germains in 1634, and the
Alexanders were indemnified for the loss by the Crown of England.

In the subsequent cessions to France after its occupations by the arms
of Massachusetts, and in its final cession to Great Britain by the
treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the country ceded is described as Acadie or
Nova Scotia, with its ancient bounds (_cum finibus antiquis_). The
uncertainty arising from this vague description became in 1750 a subject
of controversy between France and England, and was one of the causes
which led to the war of 1756. In this discussion both parties admitted
that the names Acadie and Nova Scotia were convertible terms. England
maintained that the territory thus named extended to the St. Lawrence;
the French, on the other hand, insisted that their Acadie had never
extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy; while by
geographers, as quoted by the British commissioners, the name was
limited to the peninsula which forms the present Province of Nova
Scotia.[62] If Acadie had been limited to the north by the forty-sixth
degree of north latitude, as expressed in the charter of De Monts,
that parallel is to the south of Mars Hill. The British Government,
therefore, derives no title to the disputed territory from this source,
as the title of Massachusetts and of Maine as her successor is admitted
to all country south of that parallel.[63]

[Footnote 62: Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, p. 8.]

[Footnote 63: It can not be seriously pretended that when by the treaty
of St. Germains, in 1632, Acadie was restored to France the intention
was to cede to her the colonies already settled in New England. Yet the
language of the British commissioners would imply that this was the case
were it not that they evidently consider the forty-sixth parallel as the
southern boundary of the grant to De Monts, whereas it is the northern.]

It is very easy to tell what country was actually settled by the French
as Acadie. Its chief town was Port Royal, now Annapolis, at the head of
the Bay of Fundy. Nearly all the settlements of the Acadians were in
that vicinity, and for the most part within the peninsula.

From these seats they were removed in 1756 by Great Britain, and to
them a remnant was permitted to return. The most western settlement of
Acadians was on the St. John River near the present site of Fredericton,
and no permanent occupation was ever made by them of country west of the
St. Croix. It is even doubtful whether the settlement near Fredericton
was a part of French Acadie, for it seems to have been formed by persons
who escaped from the general seizure and transportation of their
countrymen.

This settlement was broken up in 1783, and its inhabitants sought refuge
at Madawaska; but it can not be pretended that this forced removal of
Acadians subsequent to the treaty of 1783 was an extension of the name
of their country. The whole argument in favor of the British claim
founded on the limits of ancient Acadie therefore fails:

First. Because of the inherent vagueness of the term, on which no
settled understanding was ever had, although England held it to be
synonymous with Nova Scotia and France denied that it extended more
than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy.

Second. Because by its original definition in the grant to De Monts it
excludes the whole disputed territory on the one side; and

Third. Because in its practical sense, as a real settlement, it is
wholly to the east of the meridian of the St. Croix, and this excludes
the whole of the disputed territory on the other.

The portion of the territory granted to the Duke of York, and which is
now the subject of dispute, therefore can not be claimed as a part of
Acadie, as it never fell within its limits either by charter or by
occupation.

_Note VIII_.

[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]

Considering that in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 1782 it was established that
Nova Scotia should be bounded at the north as far as the western
extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs by the southern boundary of the
Province of Quebec; that this delimitation is again found with respect
to the Province of Quebec in the commission of the Governor-General of
Quebec of 1786, wherein the language of the proclamation of 1763 and of
the Quebec act of 1774 has been used, as also in the commissions of 1786
and others of subsequent dates of the governors of New Brunswick, with
respect to the last-mentioned Province, as well as in a great number
of maps anterior and posterior to the treaty of 1783; and that the
first article of the said treaty specifies by name the States whose
independence is acknowledged; but that this mention does not imply
(_implique_) the entire coincidence of the boundaries between the
two powers, as settled by the following article, with the ancient
delimitation of the British Provinces, whose preservation is not
mentioned in the treaty of 1783, and which, owing to its continual
changes and the uncertainty which continued to exist respecting it,
created from time to time differences between the provincial
authorities.

_Note IX_.

[Article IV of the convention of 1827.]

The map called Mitchell's map, by which the framers of the treaty
of 1783 are acknowledged to have regulated their joint and official
proceedings, and the Map A, which has been agreed on by the contracting
parties as a delineation of the water courses, and of the boundary lines
in reference to the said water courses, as contended for by each party,
respectively, and which has accordingly been signed by the above-named
plenipotentiaries at the same time with this convention, shall be
annexed to the statements of the contracting parties and be the only
maps that shall be considered as evidence mutually acknowledged by the
contracting parties of the topography of the country.

It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex to its respective
first statement, for the purposes of general illustration, any of the
maps, surveys, or topographical delineations which were filed with
the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent,
any engraved map heretofore published, and also a transcript of the
above-mentioned Map A or of a section thereof, in which transcript each
party may lay down the highlands or other features of the country as it
shall think fit, the water courses and the boundary lines as claimed
by each party remaining as laid down in the said Map A. But this
transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical
delineations, other than the Map A and Mitchell's map, intended to be
thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be
communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within
nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention,
and shall be subject to such objections and observations as the other
contracting party may deem it expedient to make thereto, and shall annex
to his first statement, either in the margin of such transcript, map or
maps, or otherwise.

_Note X_.

[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]

Considering that, according to the instances alleged, the term highlands
applies not only to a hilly or elevated country, but also to land which,
without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions, and
that thus the character, more or less hilly and elevated, of the country
through which are drawn the two lines respectively claimed at the north
and at the south of the river St. John can not form the basis of a
choice between them.

_Note XI_.

The reason of the double delineation of the Restigouche on the map of
Mitchell and several others of ancient date is obvious. A mistake was
common to them all by which the Bay of Chaleurs was laid down too
far to the north. The main branch, or Grande Fourche, of Restigouche
(Katawamkedgwick) has been reached by parties setting out from the banks
of the St. Lawrence at Metis, and was known to fall into the Bay of
Chaleurs, while the united stream had also been visited by persons
crossing the wagansis of Grand River and descending the Southwestern
Branch. The map makers could not, in consequence of the error in
latitude, make their plat meet, and therefore considered the part of
the united streams reached in the two different directions as different
bodies of water, and without authority sought an outlet for that which
they laid down as the southernmost of the two in another bay of the Gulf
of St. Lawrence. On many of the maps, however, the small stream which
modern geographers improperly call Restigouche is readily
distinguishable under the name of Chacodi.

_Note XII_.

In the argument of the British commissioners under Jay's treaty the
following points were maintained, and, being sanctioned by the decision
of the umpire, became the grounds of an award acceded to by both
Governments:

First. That the limits of Nova Scotia had been altered from the southern
bank of the St. Lawrence to the highlands described in the treaty of
peace.

Second. That if the river Schoodiac were the true St. Croix the
northwest angle of Nova Scotia could be formed by the western and
northern boundaries (the meridian line and the highlands).

Third. That the territory of Acadie, or Nova Scotia, was, the same
territory granted to Sir William Alexander.

Fourth. That the sea and Atlantic Ocean were used as convertible terms.

Fifth. That from the date of the treaty of Utrecht the boundary between
Massachusetts and Nova Scotia was that of the patent to Sir William
Alexander.

Sixth. That the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia belonged to and were
in possession of His Britannic Majesty in 1783, and that he had an
undoubted right to cede to the United States such part of them as he
might think fit.

Seventh. That the due north line from the source of the St. Croix must
of necessity cross the St. John.

It has since been maintained on the part of Great Britain:

First. That the limits of Nova Scotia never did extend to the St.
Lawrence.

Second. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was unknown in 1783.

Third. That Acadie extended south to the forty-sixth degree of north
latitude, and was not the same with Nova Scotia.

Fourth. That the sea and the Atlantic Ocean were different things.

Fifth. That the claims and rights of Massachusetts did not extend to the
western bounds of the grant to Sir William Alexander.

Sixth. That this being the case the cession of territory not included
within her limits is void.

Seventh. That it could never have been intended that the meridian line
should cross the St. John.

_Note XIII_.

It has been pretended that the grant of the fief of Madawaska in 1683
can be urged as a bar to the claim of Massachusetts. That fief, indeed,
was among the early grants of the French governors of Canada, but it is
not included in the claim which the French themselves set up. It was
therefore covered by the Massachusetts charter, because the grant had
never been acted upon. Even up to the present day this fief can hardly
be said to be settled or occupied except by the retainers of the
garrison of Fort Ingall, and from all the evidence which could be found
on the spot it appeared that no settlement had ever been made upon it
until the establishment of a posthouse some time between the date of the
treaties of 1783 and 1794. It therefore was not at the time the charter
of Massachusetts was granted (1691) "actually possessed or inhabited by
any other Christian prince or state."

An argument has also been attempted to be drawn from the limits given on
Greenleaf's map to a purchase made from the State of Massachusetts by
Watkins and Flint. This purchase is, however, by the patent extended to
the highlands, and the surveyors who laid it out crossed the Walloostook
in search of them. Here they met, at a short distance from that stream,
with waters running to the north, which they conceived to be waters of
the St. Lawrence, and they terminated their survey. The lines traced on
Greenleaf's map are therefore incorrect, either as compared with the
grant or the actual survey, and although from a want of knowledge of the
country the surveyors stopped at waters running into Lake Temiscouata
instead of the St. Lawrence, the very error shows the understanding they
had of the true design of the patent, and this transaction, so far from
being an available argument against the American claim, is an act of
possession at an early date within the limits of the disputed territory.

WASHINGTON, _April 8, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with your resolution of the 31st March, 1842, I have the
honor to submit the accompanying document and report[64] from the
Commissioner of the General Land Office.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 64: Relating to surveys and sales of the public lands during
1841 and 1842, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _April 9, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the
Secretary of State, with a copy of the correspondence[65] requested by
their resolution of the 7th instant.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 65: With Great Britain relative to an international copyright
law.]

WASHINGTON, _April 11, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit a memorial[66] which I have received from the
Choctaw tribe of Indians and citizens of the State of Mississippi, with
a request that I should communicate the same to Congress. This I do not
feel myself at liberty to decline, inasmuch as I think that some action
by Congress is called for by justice to the memorialists and in
compliance with the plighted national faith.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 66: Relating to an alleged violation by the United States of
the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.]

WASHINGTON, _April 12, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In further compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d of
February last, requesting information touching the demarcation of the
boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Texas,
I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the accompanying
documents.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 24th of July last,
I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State,
conveying copies of the correspondence[67] which contains the
information called for by that resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 67: Of the diplomatic agent and minister of the United States
at the Court of Austria relative to the commercial interests of the
United States.]

WASHINGTON, _April 13, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 29th July last, I
communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying
copies of the correspondence[68] which contains the information called
for by said resolution.

In communicating these papers to the Senate I call their particular
attention to that portion of the report of the Secretary of State in
which he suggests the propriety of not making public certain parts of
the correspondence which accompanied it.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 68: Between the Department of State and Belgium relative to
the rejection by that Government of the treaty ratified by the Senate
February 9, 1833, and the causes of the delay in exchanging the
ratifications of the treaty ratified by the Senate December 31, 1840.]

WASHINGTON, _April 18, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I have the honor to transmit herewith the report[69] of the Secretary
of State, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 18th
February, 1842.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 69: Transmitting names of agents employed by the State
Department without express provision of law.]

WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith, in part compliance with a resolution of the Senate
of February 18, a report from the Secretary of War, inclosing a list
of all officers, agents, and commissioners employed under the War
Department who are not such by express provision of law, with other
information required by the resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 19, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing a
list of appointments to office made in that Department since the 4th day
of April, 1841, in part compliance with the resolution of the House of
Representatives of the 21st ultimo.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 20, 1842_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States_:

I submit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied
by documents relating to an application by the captain and owners of the
Spanish ship _Sabina_,[70] which is recommended to their favorable
consideration.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 70: For compensation for rescuing and supporting the captain,
supercargo, and 17 officers and men of the American ship _Courier_, of
New York, which foundered at sea, and landing them safely at the Cape of
Good Hope.]

WASHINGTON, _April 28, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a
treaty concluded on the 11th day of August last with the Minda Wankanton
bands of the Dakota or Sioux Nation of Indians, with the papers
necessary to an understanding of the subject.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 28, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a
treaty concluded with the half-breeds of the Dakota or Sioux Nation on
the 3ist day of July last, together with the papers referred to in the
accompanying communication from the Secretary of War as necessary to a
full view of the whole subject.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _April 30, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

In compliance with your resolution of the 29th instant, I have the honor
to transmit the reports of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart, two of the
commissioners originally appointed, along with Mr. Poindexter, to
investigate the affairs of the custom-house of New York, together with
all the correspondence and testimony accompanying the same, and also the
report of Mr. Poindexter, to which is annexed two letters, subscribed by
Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Bradley. The last-named gentleman was substituted
in the place of Mr. Kelley, whose inclinations and duties called him to
his residence in Ohio after the return of the commissioners to this
city, about the last of August. One of the letters just mentioned was
addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and bears date the 12th of
April instant, and the other to myself, dated the 20th of this month.
From the former you will learn that a most interesting portion of
the inquiry instituted by this Department (viz, that relating to
light-houses, buoys, beacons, revenue cutters, and revenue boats) is
proposed to be made the subject of a further report by Messrs. Bradley
and Poindexter. You will also learn, through the accompanying letter
from Mr. Steuart, the reasons which have delayed him in making a
supplemental and additional report to that already made by himself and
Mr. Kelley, embracing his views and opinions upon the developments made
subsequent to the withdrawal of Mr. Kelley from the commission and the
substitution of Mr. Bradley in his place. I also transmit two documents
furnished by Mr. Steuart, and which were handed by him to the Secretary
of the Treasury on the 7th instant, the one being "memoranda of
proceedings," etc., marked No. 1, and the other "letters accompanying
memoranda," etc., marked No. 2.

The commission was instituted for the purpose of ascertaining existing
defects in the custom-house regulations, to trace to their true causes
past errors, to detect abuses, and by wholesome reforms to guard
in future not only against fraud and peculation, but error and
mismanagement. For these purposes a selection was made of persons of
acknowledged intelligence and industry, and upon this task they have
been engaged for almost an entire year, and their labors remain yet to
be completed. The character of those labors may be estimated by the
extent of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, embracing about 100
pages of closely written manuscript, the voluminous memoranda and
correspondence of Mr. Steuart, the great mass of evidence accompanying
Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, and the report of Mr. Poindexter,
extending over 394 pages, comprised in the volume accompanying this,
and additional reports still remaining to be made, as before stated.

I should be better pleased to have it in my power to communicate the
entire mass of reports made and contemplated to be made at one and the
same time, and still more should I have been gratified if time could
have been allowed me, consistently with the apparent desire of the House
of Representatives to be put into immediate possession of these papers,
to have compared or even to have read with deliberation the views
presented by the commissioners as to proposed reforms in the revenue
laws, together with the mass of documentary evidence and information by
which they have been explained and enforced and which do not admit of a
satisfactory comparison until the whole circle of reports be completed.
Charges of malfeasance against some of those now in office will devolve
upon the Executive a rigid investigation into their extent and
character, and will in due season claim my attention. The readiness,
however, with which the House proposes to enter upon the grave and
difficult subjects which these papers suggest having anticipated that
consideration of them by the Executive which their importance demands,
it only remains for me, in lieu of specific recommendations, which under
other circumstances it would have been my duty to make, to urge upon
Congress the importance and necessity of introducing the earliest
reforms in existing laws and usages, so as to guard the country in
future against frauds in the collection of the revenues and the Treasury
against peculation, to relieve trade and commerce from oppressive
regulations, and to guard law and morality against violation and abuse.

As from their great volume it has been necessary to transmit the
original papers to the House, I have to suggest the propriety of the
House taking order for their restoration to the Treasury Department
at such time as may comport with its pleasure.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 2, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I have this day received and now transmit to the House of
Representatives the accompanying communication from Benjamin F. Butler,
having relation to the reports of the commissioners appointed by me to
examine into the affairs connected with the New York custom-house. As
the whole subject is in possession of the House, I deem it also proper
to communicate Mr. Butler's letter.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 10, 1842_.

_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:

The season for active hostilities in Florida having nearly terminated,
my attention has necessarily been directed to the course of measures to
be pursued hereafter in relation to the few Indians yet remaining in
that Territory. Their number is believed not to exceed 240, of whom
there are supposed to be about 80 warriors, or males capable of bearing
arms. The further pursuit of these miserable beings by a large military
force seems to be as injudicious as it is unavailing. The history
of the last year's campaign in Florida has satisfactorily shown that
notwithstanding the vigorous and incessant operations of our troops
(which can not be exceeded), the Indian mode of warfare, their dispersed
condition, and the very smallness of their number (which increases the
difficulty of finding them in the abundant and almost inaccessible
hiding places of the Territory) render any further attempt to secure
them by force impracticable except by the employment of the most
expensive means. The exhibition of force and the constant efforts
to capture or destroy them of course places them beyond the reach of
overtures to surrender. It is believed by the distinguished officer in
command there that a different system should now be pursued to attain
the entire removal of all the Indians in Florida, and he recommends
that hostilities should cease unless the renewal of them be rendered
necessary by new aggressions; that communications should be opened by
means of the Indians with him to insure them a peaceful and voluntary
surrender, and that the military operations should hereafter be directed
to the protection of the inhabitants.

These views are strengthened and corroborated by the governor of the
Territory, by many of its most intelligent citizens, and by numerous
officers of the Army who have served and are still serving in that
region. Mature reflection has satisfied me that these recommendations
are sound and just; and I rejoice that consistently with duty to Florida
I may indulge my desire to promote the great interests of humanity and
extend the reign of peace and good will by terminating the unhappy
warfare that has so long been carried on there, and at the same time
gratify my anxiety to reduce the demands upon the Treasury by curtailing
the extraordinary expenses which have attended the contest. I have
therefore authorized the colonel in command there as soon as he shall
deem it expedient to declare that hostilities against the Indians have
ceased, and that they will not be renewed unless provoked and rendered
indispensable by new outrages on their part, but that neither citizens
nor troops are to be restrained from any necessary and proper acts of
self-defense against any attempts to molest them. He is instructed to
open communications with those yet remaining, and endeavor by all
peaceable means to persuade them to consult their true interests by
joining their brethren at the West; and directions have been given for
establishing a cordon or line of protection for the inhabitants by the
necessary number of troops.

But to render this system of protection effectual it is essential
that settlements of our citizens should be made within the line so
established, and that they should be armed, so as to be ready to repel
any attack. In order to afford inducements to such settlements, I submit
to the consideration of Congress the propriety of allowing a reasonable
quantity of land to the head of each family that shall permanently
occupy it, and of extending the existing provisions on that subject so
as to permit the issue of rations for the subsistence of the settlers
for one year; and as few of them will probably be provided with arms, it
would be expedient to authorize the loan of muskets and the delivery of
a proper quantity of cartridges or of powder and balls. By such means it
is to be hoped that a hardy population will soon occupy the rich soil of
the frontiers of Florida, who will be as capable as willing to defend
themselves and their houses, and thus relieve the Government from
further anxiety or expense for their protection.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _May 13, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:

I transmit herewith a report[71] from the Postmaster-General, made in
pursuance of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st
of March last, together with the accompanying documents.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 71: Transmitting lists of postmasters and others appointed by
the President and Post-Office Department from April 4, 1841, to March
21, 1842.]

WASHINGTON, _May 16, 1842_.

_To the Senate_:

Having directed hostilities in Florida to cease, the time seems to have
arrived for distinguishing with appropriate honors the brave army that
have so long encountered the perils of savage warfare in a country
presenting every imaginable difficulty and in seasons and under a
climate fruitful of disease. The history of the hardships which our
soldiers have endured, of the patience and perseverance which have
enabled them to triumph over obstacles altogether unexampled, and of the
gallantry which they have exhibited on every occasion which a subtle
and skulking foe would allow them to improve is so familiar as not to
require repetition at my hands. But justice to the officers and men now
in Florida demands that their privations, sufferings, and dauntless
exertions during a summer's campaign in such a climate, which for the
first time was witnessed during the last year, should be specially
commended. The foe has not been allowed opportunity either to plant or
to cultivate or to reap. The season, which to him has usually been one
of repose and preparation for renewed conflict, has been vigorously
occupied by incessant and harassing pursuit, by penetrating his hiding
places and laying waste his rude dwellings, and by driving him from
swamp to swamp and from everglade to everglade. True, disease and death
have been encountered at the same time and in the same pursuit, but
they have been disregarded by a brave and gallant army, determined on
fulfilling to the uttermost the duties assigned them, however inglorious
they might esteem the particular service in which they were engaged.

To all who have been thus engaged the executive department, responding
to the universal sentiment of the country, has already awarded the meed
of approbation. There must, however, in all such cases be some who,
availing themselves of the occasions which fortune afforded, have
distinguished themselves for "gallant actions and meritorious conduct"
beyond the usual high gallantry and great merit which an intelligent
public opinion concedes to the whole Army. To express to these the sense
which their Government cherishes of their public conduct and to hold up
to their fellow-citizens the bright example of their courage, constancy,
and patriotic devotion would seem to be but the performance of the very
duty contemplated by that provision of our laws which authorizes the
issuing of brevet commissions.

Fortunately for the country, a long peace, interrupted only by
difficulties with Indians at particular points, has afforded few
occasions for the exercise of this power, and it may be regarded as
favorable to the encouragement of a proper military spirit throughout
the Army that an opportunity is now given to evince the readiness of the
Government to reward unusual merit with a peculiar and lasting
distinction.

I therefore nominate to the Senate the persons whose names are contained
in the accompanying list[72] for brevet commissions for services in
Florida. That the number is large is evidence only of the value of the
services rendered during a contest that has continued nearly as long as
the War of the Revolution. The difficulty has been to reduce the number
as much as possible without injustice to any, and to accomplish this
great and mature consideration has been bestowed on the case of every
officer who has served in Florida.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 72: Omitted.]

WASHINGTON, _May 24, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the Senate a treaty recently concluded with the
Wyandott tribe of Indians, and request the advice and consent of the
Senate to the ratification of the same as proposed to be modified by the
War Department.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 1, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I herewith transmit a report from the Acting Commissioner of the General
Land Office and the documents accompanying the same (from No. 1 to No.
7), in relation to the conduct of N.P. Taylor, present register and
former clerk in the land office at St. Louis, in compliance with your
resolution of the 9th May.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 10, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I submit herewith a treaty concluded at Buffalo Creek on the 20th day of
May last between the United States and the Seneca Nation of Indians, for
your advice and consent to its ratification, together with a report on
the subject from the War Department.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 13, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March last,
requesting information touching proceedings under the convention of the
11th of April, 1839, between the United States and the Mexican Republic,
I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying
documents.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 15, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 29th of March
last, calling for information touching the relations between the United
States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary
of State, with the accompanying documents.[73]

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 73: Correspondence respecting certain citizens of the United
States captured with the Texan expedition to Santa Fe, and held in
confinement in Mexico.]

WASHINGTON, _June 17, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, which,
accompanied by copies of certain letters of Mr. Ewing, late Secretary
of the Treasury, and a statement[74] from the Treasury Department,
completes the answer, a part of which has heretofore been furnished, to
your resolution of the 7th of February last, and complies also with your
resolution of the 3d instant.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 74: Of expenses of the commission to investigate the New York
custom-house, etc.]

WASHINGTON, _June 20, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

A resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant has
been communicated to me, requesting, "so far as may be compatible with
the public interest, a copy of the quintuple treaty between the five
powers of Europe for the suppression of the African slave trade, and
also copies of any remonstrance or protest addressed by Lewis Cass,
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States
at the Court of France, to that Government, against the ratification
by France of the said treaty, and of all correspondence between
the Governments of the United States and of France, and of all
communications from the said Lewis Cass to his own Government and
from this Government to him relating thereto."

In answer to this request I have to say that the treaty mentioned
therein has not been officially communicated to the Government of the
United States, and no authentic copy of it, therefore, can be furnished.
In regard to the other papers requested, although it is my hope and
expectation that it will be proper and convenient at an early day to lay
them before Congress, together with others connected with the same
subjects, yet in my opinion a communication of them to the House of
Representatives at this time would not be compatible with the public
interest.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, _June 22, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 15th of April last,
I communicate to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State,
accompanying copies of the correspondence[75] called for by said
resolution.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 75: Relating to the conduct and character of William B.
Hodgson (nominated to be consul at Tunis) while dragoman at
Constantinople.]

WASHINGTON, _June 24, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

I transmit herewith to the Senate the translation of a letter[76]
addressed by the minister of France at Washington to the Secretary of
State of the United States and a copy of the answer given thereto by my
direction, and invite to the subject of the minister's letter all the
consideration due to its importance and to a proposition originating in
a desire to promote mutual convenience and emanating from a Government
with which it is both our interest and our desire to maintain the most
amicable relations.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 76: Relating to the establishment of a line of steamers
between Havre and New York.]

[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]

WASHINGTON, _June 24, 1842_.

_To the Senate of the United States_:

In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 16th of February
last, I herewith transmit a letter[77] from the Secretary of State and
the papers in that Department called for by the resolution aforesaid.

JOHN TYLER.

[Footnote 77: Transmitting names and compensation of employees and
witnesses in connection with the commission of inquiry relative to
the public buildings in Washington, D.C.]

WASHINGTON, _June 25, 1842_.

_To the House of Representatives_:

I have this day approved and signed an act, which originated in the
House of Representatives, entitled "An act for an apportionment of

Book of the day: