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