be the earnest endeavor of the two Governments to avoid doing anything which can have a tendency to lead to such mischievous consequences?
It is under this view of the subject that the undersigned has been instructed again to remonstrate against these proceedings of the authorities of New Brunswick, as a violation of the rights of Maine in the person of her agent, and to protest in the most solemn manner against the future exercise of all such acts of jurisdiction and sovereignty over the disputed territory or the citizens of the United States residing within its limits until a final adjustment of the controversy takes place.
The undersigned, therefore, can not and ought not to close this note without again invoking the early and earnest attention of Lord Palmerston and that of Her Majesty’s Government to this painful subject.
It is one of deep and mutual interest to the parties concerned, and the delicacy and embarrassments which surround it are justly appreciated by the Government of the United States. Deeply regretting, as that Government does, the collisions of authority to which both countries have been so repeatedly exposed by the delay that has taken place in the final settlement of the main question, it is sincerely desirous, as the undersigned has taken occasion repeatedly to assure Lord Palmerston, to have it brought to a speedy and amicable termination. This can only be done by measures of mutual forbearance and moderation on the part of both Governments. To this end the efforts of the American Government have been earnest, persevering, and constant. It has done, as it will continue to do, everything in its power to induce the State of Maine to pursue a course best calculated to avoid all excitement and collision between the citizens of that State and the inhabitants of New Brunswick, or which would tend in any manner to embarrass the mediatorial action of their two Governments on the subject; but it can not be expected, if the authorities of New Brunswick still persevere in attempting to exercise jurisdiction over the disputed territory by the arrest and imprisonment in foreign jails of citizens of Maine for performing their duty under the laws of their own State, and within what is believed to be her territorial limits, that measures of retaliation will not be resorted to by Maine, and great mischief ensue.
Indeed, under existing circumstances and in the nature of human connections, it is not possible, should such a course of violence be continued, to avoid collisions of the most painful character, for which the Government of the United States can not be responsible, but which both Governments would equally deplore.
It was doubtless with a view of guarding against these consequences that the understanding took place that each Government should abstain from exercising jurisdiction within the limits of the disputed territory pending the settlement of the main question.
The undersigned therefore persuades himself that these proceedings of the colonial government may have taken place without a careful examination of the important questions involved in them or the consequences to which they might lead, rather than under instructions from Her Majesty’s Government or with a deliberate view of asserting and enforcing territorial and jurisdictional rights over the contested territory.
In looking back, as he does with satisfaction, to the conciliatory spirit in which the negotiation has heretofore been conducted and the moderation which both Governments have observed, the undersigned can not permit himself to doubt but that upon a careful review of the whole subject Her Majesty’s Government will see fit not only to mark with its disapprobation this last proceeding of her colonial government, and direct the immediate liberation of Mr. Greely from imprisonment, with ample indemnity for the wrongs he may have sustained, but that it will see the propriety of giving suitable instructions to the authorities of New Brunswick to abstain for the future from all acts of that character, which can have no other tendency than to increase the excitement and jealousies which already prevail and retard the final and amicable adjustment of this painful controversy.
The undersigned requests Lord Palmerston to accept assurances of his distinguished consideration.
A. STEVENSON.
_Mr. Clay to Mr. Vaughan_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, January 9, 1829_.
Right Hon. CHARGES R. VAUGHAN, etc.
SIR: I have this day received a letter from the governor of the State of Massachusetts, transmitting an extract from a letter addressed by George W. Coffin, esq., land agent of Massachusetts, to his excellency, a copy of which is herewith communicated, and to which I request your immediate and particular attention.
It appears from this document that “mills are now erecting on the grant formerly made to General Baton, on the Aroostook River, for the avowed purpose of getting their supply of timber from our forests;” that the proprietor of these mills “says he has assurances from the authorities of New Brunswick that he may cut timber without hindrance from them, provided he will engage to pay them for it if they succeed in obtaining their right to the territory;” “that mills are also erected at Fish River, and to supply them the growth in that section is fast diminishing, and that the inhabitants of St. John River obtain from the Province of New Brunswick permits to cut on the Crown lands. But it is evident that many having such permits do not confine themselves to Crown lands, for in my travels across the interior country logging roads and the chips where timber had been hewn were seen in every direction, also many stumps of trees newly cut.” I need scarcely remark that the proceedings thus described are in opposition to the understanding which has existed between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain that during the pendency of the arbitration which is to settle the question of boundary neither party should exercise any jurisdiction or perform any act on the disputed territory to strengthen his own claims or to affect the state of the property in issue. The governor of Massachusetts observes in his letter to me that, “in relation to the lands on Fish River, it must be recollected that the survey of a road by the joint commissioners of Massachusetts and Maine a short time since was made matter of complaint by the British minister resident at Washington on the express ground that the territory was within the scope of the dispute. From courtesy to his Government and a respectful regard to a suggestion from the Department of State, the making of the road was suspended.” The governor justly concludes: “But it will be an ill requital for this voluntary forbearance on our part if the land is to be plundered of its timber and the value of the property destroyed before it shall be determined that it does not belong to us.”
If the government of New Brunswick will authorize or countenance such trespasses as have been stated by Mr. Coffin on the disputed territory, it can not be expected that the State of Maine will abstain from the adoption of preventive measures or from the performance of similar or other acts of jurisdiction and proprietorship. The consequence would be immediate and disagreeable collision. To prevent this state of things, I am directed by the President again to demand through you the effectual interposition of the British Government. Without that the friendly, if not the peaceful, relations between the two countries may be interrupted or endangered. I request your acceptance on this occasion of assurances of my distinguished consideration.
H. CLAY
_Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Clay_.
WASHINGTON, _January 13, 1829_.
Hon. HENRY CLAY, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Clay’s note containing a representation which has been made by his excellency the governor of the State of Massachusetts respecting the cutting down of timber upon the disputed territory in the Province of New Brunswick.
The undersigned will immediately transmit a copy of Mr. Clay’s note to His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, in order to obtain an explanation of the transaction which has given rise to the remonstrance made by the governor of Massachusetts.
The undersigned takes this opportunity of renewing to the Secretary of State the assurances of his highest consideration.
CHS. R. VAUGHAN
_Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Hamilton_.
WASHINGTON, _March 7, 1879_.
JAMES A. HAMILTON, Esq., etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, had the honor to receive from the Secretary of State of the United States a note, dated the 9th January last, containing a representation made by his excellency the governor of Massachusetts respecting some trespasses committed on the disputed territory in the Province of New Brunswick.
A copy of the note of the Secretary of State having been transmitted to Sir Howard Douglas, His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of that Province, the undersigned has lately received an answer, which he has the honor to communicate to Mr. Hamilton by inclosing an extract[13] of his excellency’s letter, which shews in the most satisfactory manner that, so far from the proceedings complained of by the governor of Massachusetts having been authorized or countenanced in any shape by the government of New Brunswick, every precaution has been taken to prevent and restrain depredations in the disputed territory.
Mr. Hamilton will see by the inclosed letter that Sir Howard Douglas has sent a magistrate to report upon the mills which have been established without license or authority, to inspect minutely the stations of the cutters of lumber, and to seize any timber brought into the acknowledged boundaries of New Brunswick from the disputed territory, and to hold the proceeds of the sale of it for the benefit of the party to whom that territory may be ultimately awarded.
As the time is approaching when Sir Howard Douglas will be absent from his government, he will leave injunctions strictly to observe the understanding between the two governments during his absence. The undersigned has great satisfaction in being able to offer to the Government of the United States the unequivocal testimony contained in the inclosed letter from Sir Howard Douglas of the conciliatory spirit in which the government of New Brunswick is administered, and trusting that a similar spirit will animate the government of the American States which border on that Province, he confidently anticipates a cessation of that excitement which has unfortunately prevailed in the neighborhood of the disputed territory.
The undersigned takes this occasion to offer to Mr. Hamilton the assurances of his high consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN.
[Footnote 13: Omitted.]
_Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Vaughan_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, March 11, 1829_.
Right Hon. CHARLES RICHARD VAUGHAN,
_Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from Great Britain_.
SIR: I have received and laid before the President of the United States the note, with its inclosures, which you did me the honor to write to me on the 7th of this month in answer to a representation which was made to you by Mr. Clay on the 9th of January last, at the instance of the governor of Massachusetts, concerning depredations complained of by him against inhabitants of the Province of New Brunswick in cutting timber, preparing lumber for market, and erecting mills upon the soil of the territory in dispute between the United States and Great Britain, and I am directed by the President to state in reply, as I have much pleasure in doing, that he derives great satisfaction from the information contained in your communication, as he especially perceives in the prompt and energetic measures adopted by Sir Howard Douglas, lieutenant-governor of the Province in question, and detailed in the inclosure referred to, a pledge of the same disposition on the part of the authorities of that Province which animates this Government–to enforce a strict observance of the understanding between the two Governments that the citizens or subjects of neither shall exercise any acts of ownership in the disputed territory whilst the title to it remains unsettled. I will lose no time in making known to the governors of Massachusetts and Maine the measures which have been thus adopted by the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick to guard against all depredations upon the disputed territory, and will at the same time inform their excellencies of the just and confident expectation entertained by the President that the conciliatory understanding or arrangement between the two Governments of the United States and Great Britain already referred to should not be disturbed by the citizens of these two States.
I am directed likewise by the President expressly to use this first occasion of an official communication with you under his orders to request the favor of you to make known to your Government the sincere regret he feels at the existence of any difference or misunderstanding between the United States and Great Britain upon the subject-matter of this letter, or any other whatever, and that in all the measures which may be adopted on his part toward their adjustment he will be entirely actuated and governed by a sincere desire to promote the kindest and best feelings on both sides and secure the mutual and lasting interests of the parties.
I pray you, sir, to accept the renewed assurances of the high and distinguished consideration with which I have the honor to be, your obedient, humble servant,
JAMES A. HAMILTON.
_Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Hamilton_.
WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1839_.
Mr. J.A. HAMILTON, etc.:
It is with great satisfaction that the undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, acknowledges the receipt of Mr. Hamilton’s note of the 11th instant, containing a prompt acknowledgment of the efficacious measures adopted by the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick to investigate and to restrain the proceedings complained of in the disputed territory; and he begs leave to assure the President that he derives great satisfaction from being requested to communicate to His Majesty’s Government that in the adjustment of differences between Great Britain and the United States the President will be entirely actuated and governed by a sincere desire to promote the kindest and best feelings on both sides and secure the mutual and lasting interests of the parties.
The undersigned begs Mr. Hamilton to accept the assurances of his highest consideration.
CHS. R. VAUGHAN.
_Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Van Buren_.
WASHINGTON, _April 10, 1829_.
Hon. MARTIN VAN BUREN, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to inform the Secretary of State of the United States that he has received an intimation from His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick that, apparently, it is the intention of the Government of the United States to carry the road now making through the State of Maine to Mars Hill over the point, and to occupy it as a military station.
The undersigned begs leave to remind Mr. Van Buren that Mars Hill is situated upon the northeastern line of boundary which is in dispute between the two Governments; and he is called upon to protest against the occupation of it by American troops upon the ground that the line drawn by the commissioners of boundary under the treaty of Ghent due north from the monument which marks the sources of the river St. Croix was not considered by them as correctly laid down, and it yet remains to be determined whether Mars Hill lies eastward or westward of a line drawn upon scientific principles. For a better explanation of the motives for this protest the undersigned has the honor to refer the Secretary of State to a copy of a letter, which is inclosed,[14] from Sir Howard Douglas.
A joint resolution of both Houses of Congress passed during the last session tends to confirm the intentions of the Government of the United States as inferred by Sir Howard Douglas from the information which he has received. That resolution authorized the making of a road from and beyond Mars Hill to the mouth of the Madawaska River; but as the carrying into effect that resolution was left entirely to the discretion of the President, the undersigned can not entertain any apprehension of a forcible seizure of a large portion of the disputed territory, which a compliance with the resolution of Congress would imply.
The undersigned acknowledges with great satisfaction the assurances which he has received of the kind feelings which will actuate the President of the United States in the adjustment of any differences which may exist with Great Britain. He submits, therefore, the representation of the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick respecting the occupation of Mars Hill, relying confidently on the manifest propriety of restraining the aggression which it is supposed is meditated from the frontier of the State of Maine, and of both parties mutually abstaining from any acts which can affect the disputed territory, as the question of possession is now in the course of arbitration.
The undersigned reiterates to the Secretary of State the assurances of his highest consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN.
[Footnote 14: Omitted.]
_Mr. Van Buren to Mr. Vaughan_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, May 11, 1829_.
Right Hon. CHARGES R. VAUGHAN, etc.:
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note which Mr. Vaughan, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, addressed to him on the 10th of April, stating upon the authority of a letter from the governor of New Brunswick, whereof a copy came inclosed in Mr. Vaughan’s note, that it was apparently the intention of the Government of the United States to carry the road now making through the State of Maine to Mars Hill over that point, and to occupy Mars Hill as a military station; and protesting against such occupation upon the ground that the line drawn by the commissioners of boundary under the treaty of Ghent due north from the monument which marks the source of the river St. Croix was not considered by them as correctly laid down, and that it yet remains to be determined whether Mars Hill is eastward or westward of the true line.
The undersigned deems it unnecessary upon the present occasion to enter into an elaborate discussion of the point stated by Sir Howard Douglas, the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, concerning the line referred to by him, inasmuch as the relative position of Mars Hill to that line is already designated upon map A, and the line itself mutually agreed to and sufficiently understood for all present purposes, though not definitively settled by the convention of Condon of the 29th September, 1827.
The undersigned will therefore merely state that he finds nothing in the record of the proceedings of the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent to warrant the doubt suggested by the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick whether Mars Hill lies to the westward of the line to be drawn due north from the monument at the source of the St. Croix to the highlands which divide the waters that empty into the river St. Lawrence from those which empty into the Atlantic Ocean; that the joint surveys and explorations made under that commission place the hill about a mile due west of that line; and that the agent of His Britannic Majesty before the commissioners, so far from intimating any doubt on the point, made it one ground of argument that the true line, when correctly laid down, would necessarily, on account of the ascertained progressive westerly variation of the needle, fall still farther westward.
The undersigned can not acquiesce in the supposition that, because the agent of His Britannic Majesty thought proper in the proceedings before the commissioners to lay claim to all that portion of the State of Maine which lies north of a line running westerly from Mars Hill, and designated as the limit or boundary of the British claim, thereby the United States or the State of Maine ceased to have jurisdiction in the territory thus claimed. In the view of this Government His Britannic Majesty’s agent might with equal justice have extended his claim to any other undisputed part of the State as to claim the portion of it which he has drawn in question, and in such case the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick could surely not have considered a continuance on the part of the United States and of the State of Maine to exercise their accustomed jurisdiction and authority to be an encroachment. If so, in what light are we to regard the continued acts of jurisdiction now exercised by him in the Madawaska settlement? More than twenty years ago large tracts of land lying westward of Mars Hill, and northward on the river Restook, were granted by the State of Massachusetts, which tracts are held and possessed under those grants to this day, and the United States and the States of Massachusetts and Maine, in succession, have never ceased to exercise that jurisdiction which the unsettled condition of the country in that region and other circumstances admitted and required.
The undersigned, therefore, can not discover in the facts and circumstances of the case any just principles upon which Sir Howard Douglas could predicate his protest. He has, however, submitted the note which he had the honor to receive from Mr. Vaughan to the President of the United States, and is by him directed to say in reply that although this Government could feel no difficulty in the exercise of what it deems an unquestionable right, and could not allow itself to be restrained by the protest of the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, yet, as a further proof of the spirit of amity, forbearance, and conciliation which the President is desirous of cultivating between the two Governments, he has decided to postpone for the present the exercise of the authority vested in him by the Congress of the United States to cause to be surveyed and laid out a military road to be continued from Mars Hill, or such other point on the military road laid out in the State of Maine as he may think proper, to the mouth of the river Madawaska, and to add that the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick is under a misapprehension as to the design of this Government to occupy Mars Hill as a military station, no such intention being entertained by the President, nor have any measures been taken by this Government with an ulterior view to that object.
The undersigned indulges the hope that Mr. Vaughan will perceive in the manner in which the President, discriminating between the rights of this Government and their present exercise, has used the discretion conferred upon him an additional evidence of the desire which he sincerely entertains, and which he has heretofore caused to be communicated to Mr. Vaughan, that both Governments should, as far as practicable, abstain from all acts of authority over the territory in dispute which are not of immediate and indispensable necessity, and which would serve to create or increase excitement whilst the matter is in course of arbitration; and he feels well persuaded that Mr. Vaughan will not fail to inculcate the same spirit and to recommend in the strongest terms the observance of the same course on the part of the provincial government of New Brunswick.
The undersigned offers to Mr. Vaughan the renewed assurances of his high consideration.
M. VAN BUREN.
_Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Van Buren_.
WASHINGTON, _May 14, 1829_.
Hon. MARTIN VAN BUREN, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Van Buren’s note dated the 11th instant, and he derives great satisfaction from being able to communicate to His Majesty’s Government the assurances which it contains that the Government of the United States has never entertained the design of occupying Mars Hill, and that the President, in the spirit of amity, forbearance, and conciliation which he is desirous of cultivating between the two Governments, has decided to postpone for the present the exercise of the authority vested in him by the Congress of the United States to cause to be surveyed and laid out a military road to be continued from Mars Hill to the river Madawaska.
The undersigned will transmit immediately a copy of Mr. Van Buren’s note to His Majesty’s Government, and he forbears, therefore, from taking notice of the observations which it contains relative to the exact position of Mars Hill and to the exercise of jurisdiction in the district on the northwest of it.
The undersigned begs leave to renew to Mr. Van Buren the assurances of his highest consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN.
_Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Van Buren_.
WASHINGTON, _June 8, 1829_.
Hon. MARTIN VAN BUREN, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, had the honor on the 7th March last to lay before the Government of the United States a letter from Sir Howard Douglas, His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, in explanation of trespasses alleged by the governor of the State of Massachusetts to have been committed by British subjects in the disputed territory within that Province. The lieutenant-governor announced his intention in that letter of sending a magistrate into the district where the proceedings complained of had taken place to ascertain the nature and extent of the alleged trespasses and afterwards to make a report to his excellency.
The report of the magistrate having been received by Mr. Black, who has been commissioned by His Majesty to administer the government of New Brunswick during the temporary absence of Sir Howard Douglas, a copy of it has been transmitted to the undersigned, and he begs leave to submit it[15] to the consideration of the Secretary of State of the United States, together with an extract[15] of the letter of Mr. Black which accompanied it. As it appears by the report of Mr. Maclauchlan, the magistrate, that some American citizens settled in the disputed territory are implicated in the trespasses which have been committed, Mr. Black, the president and commissioner in chief of the government of New Brunswick, suggests the propriety of an officer being appointed by the Government of the United States to act in concert with the British magistrate in preventing further depredations.
The undersigned has received from Mr. Black the most satisfactory assurances that it will be his earnest study to adhere scrupulously to the good feeling and conciliatory conduct toward the United States which has been observed by Sir Howard Douglas.
The undersigned seizes this opportunity to renew to Mr. Van Buren the assurances of his distinguished consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN.
_Mr. Bankhead to Mr. Livingston_.
WASHINGTON, _October 1, 1831_.
Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s charge d’affaires, has the honor to acquaint Mr. Livingston, Secretary of State of the United States, that he has received a communication from His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, stating that the authorities of Maine have endeavored to exercise a jurisdiction over part of the territory at present in dispute between His Majesty and the United States, and, further, that an order has been issued by a justice of the peace for the county of Penobscot to the inhabitants of the town of Madawaska to assemble for the purpose of choosing municipal officers.
The undersigned regrets sincerely that these irregular proceedings should have been had recourse to during a period when the question of boundary is in a course of settlement, and in opposition to the desire expressed by the President that pending the discussion of that question the State of Maine should refrain from committing any act which could be construed into a violation of the neighboring territory.
The undersigned begs leave to submit to the Secretary of State several documents[15] which he has received from Sir Archibald Campbell in support of his complaint of a violation of territory; and the undersigned entertains a confident hope that such measures will be adopted as shall prevent a recurrence of acts on the part of the authorities of the State of Maine which are productive of so much inconvenience and which tend to disturb that harmony and good will so necessary to be preserved between the two countries.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Livingston the assurances of his distinguished consideration.
CHARLES BANKHEAD.
[Footnote 15: Omitted.]
_Mr. Livingston to Mr. Bankhead_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, October 17, 1831_.
CHARLES BANKHEAD, Esq., etc.
SIR: Immediately after receiving your note of the 1st instant I wrote to the governor of the State of Maine for information on the subject of it. I have just received his answer, of which I have the honor to inclose two extracts.[16] By the first you will perceive that the election of town officers in the settlement of Madawaska, of which complaint was made in the papers inclosed in your letter, was made under color of a general law, which was not intended by either the executive or legislative authority of that State to be executed in that settlement, and that the whole was the work of inconsiderate individuals.
By the second extract it will appear that the individuals said to have been most prominent in setting up the authority of the State have been arrested by order of the lieutenant-governor of the Province of New Brunswick, and were on their way to be imprisoned at Frederickton.
The innovation on the existing state of things in the disputed territory being distinctly disavowed by the executive authority of the State, no act of authority or exercise of jurisdiction having followed the election, I would respectfully suggest the propriety of your recommending to the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick the release of the prisoners who were arrested for exercising this act of authority in the territory mutually claimed by the two nations, contrary to the understanding between their Governments. It is their avowed object to avoid any collision until the intention of both parties in relation to the award shall be fully known. All subjects calculated to produce irritation, therefore, ought evidently to be avoided. The arrest of the persons concerned in the election must produce that feeling in a high degree. A conviction can not take place without eliciting a decision from the bench declaratory of and enforcing the jurisdiction over the territory in dispute, which it is the present policy of both powers to avoid, at least for the short time that must elapse before the question can be finally settled. If punishment should follow conviction, the passions that would be excited must inevitably be hostile to that spirit of conciliation so necessary where sacrifices of national feeling and individual interest are required for the common good. It would be absurd here to enter into the question of title. Both parties claim it. No act that either can do is necessary to assist its right while there is hope of an amicable arrangement; and it was with this view of the subject that a mutual understanding has been had to leave things in the state in which they are until the question of the award is settled.
On the part of the Americans some individuals, in contravention of this understanding, have proceeded to do acts which if followed out would change the political state of part of the disputed land. But it has not been so followed out; it is disavowed by the power whose assent is necessary to carry it into execution. It is therefore of no avail, and can have no more effect than if the same number of men had met at Madawaska and declared themselves duly elected members of the British Parliament. The act interferes with no right; it comes in actual collision with no established power. Not so the punishment of the individuals concerned. This is at once a practical decision of the question, and may lead to retaliating legal measures; for if the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick feels himself obliged, as he says he does, to impose the authority of the law within which he thinks the boundaries of his Province, will not the same feeling incite the governor of Maine, under the same sense of duty, to pursue the like measures? And thus the fruits of moderation and mutual forbearance during so long a period will be lost for the want of perseverance in them for the short time that is now wanting to bring the controversy to an amicable close. It is therefore, sir, that I invite your interposition with his excellency the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick to induce him to set at liberty the persons arrested, on their engagement to make no change in the state of things until the business shall be finally decided between the two Governments.
On our part, the desire of the General Government to avoid any measures tending to a change in the existing state of things on our northeast boundary has been fully and, it is believed, efficaciously expressed to the executive of the State of Maine, so that the actual relation of the State with the neighboring Province will not in future suffer any change.
I have great pleasure, sir, in renewing on this occasion the assurance of my high consideration.
EDWD. LIVINGSTON.
[Footnote 16: Omitted.]
_Mr. Bankhead to Mr. Livingston_.
WASHINGTON, _October 20, 1831_.
Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, Esq., etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s charge d’affaires, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Livingston’s note of the 17th instant, in answer to a representation which the undersigned thought it his duty to make to the Government of the United States upon a violation committed upon the territory at present in dispute between the two countries.
The friendly tone assumed by the Secretary of State in this communication, the discountenance on the part of the General Government of the proceedings which were complained of, and the determination of the President to cause the strictest forbearance to be maintained until the question of boundary shall be settled have been received by the undersigned with great satisfaction, and it is in the same spirit of harmony that he has addressed a letter to His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, inclosing a copy of Mr. Livingston’s note, for his excellency’s serious consideration.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Livingston the assurance of his distinguished consideration.
CHARLES BANKHEAD.
_Mr. Bankhead to Mr. Livingston_.
WASHINGTON, _October 22, 1831_.
Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s charge d’affaires, has the honor to transmit to the Secretary of State of the United States the copy of a letter[17] from His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, inclosing a deposition[17] made before a justice of the peace of that Province in support of a charge against certain inhabitants of Houlton, in the State of Maine, for having made a forcible inroad on the territory of His Majesty in search of an Irishman (an inhabitant of Woodstock, New Brunswick) who committed a most violent outrage against the constituted authorities at Houlton.
The lieutenant-governor deprecates in the strongest manner the infamous conduct of the individual in question, and is perfectly ready to exert the utmost rigor of the laws against him; but his excellency at the same time protests against the conduct of those persons who have thus attempted to interfere with the jurisdiction of the laws in His Majesty’s possessions.
Under these circumstances the undersigned has to request that Mr. Livingston will be good enough to cause the necessary inquiries to be instituted into this transaction, and upon the charges being clearly proved that he will make such a representation to the authorities of the State of Maine as shall prevent the recurrence of a similar irregularity in future.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Livingston the assurances of his distinguished consideration.
CHARLES BANKHEAD.
[Footnote 17: Omitted.]
_Mr. Bankhead to Mr. Livingston_.
WASHINGTON, _November 25, 1831_.
Hon. EDWARD LIVINGSTON, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s charge d’affaires, has the honor to refer the Secretary of State of the United States to the correspondence which took place in the month of October upon the subject of violations which had been committed upon the territory at present in dispute between Great Britain and the United States, and the measures which His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick deemed it expedient to adopt thereupon.
The trial of these persons took place at Frederickton, and they were sentenced by the supreme court of the Province to fine and imprisonment.
At the time the undersigned communicated to the Government of the United States the decision which the authorities of New Brunswick had felt it necessary to adopt upon this occasion he expressed the deep regret of the governor of that Province that the conduct of these individuals was such as to compel his excellency to pursue a course so uncongenial to his own feelings and at variance with the harmony which subsists between the Governments of Great Britain and the United States.
The Secretary of State upon receiving this communication expressed to the undersigned the earnest desire of the President, upon a total disavowal on the part of the General Government of the proceedings of the persons implicated in this transaction, that His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor might consider himself authorized to exercise a prerogative in their favor and to remit the sentence which had been pronounced against them.
No time was lost in submitting Mr. Livingston’s note to the consideration of Sir Archibald Campbell, and the undersigned has the greatest satisfaction in acquainting him that his excellency fully acquiesced in the desire manifested by the President of the United States. The undersigned can not better fulfill the wishes of Sir Archibald Campbell, which are so much in accordance with that spirit of good will which happily subsists between the two countries and which characterizes their relations with each other, than by transmitting to the Secretary of State a copy of the dispatch which he yesterday received from that officer, and which he feels assured will be received by the President as an earnest of his uninterrupted good feeling toward the Government and people of the United States.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. Livingston the assurance of his highest consideration,
CHARLES BANKHEAD.
_Sir Archibald Campbell to Mr. Bankhead_.
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
_Frederickton, November 8, 1831_.
SIR: I had this morning the honor to receive your letter of the 20th ultimo, which, with its inclosures, are in every respect so satisfactory that I did not lose a moment in giving effect to the wishes therein expressed by exercising that prerogative so congenial to my own feelings, whether viewed in the extension of mercy or in the gratifying anticipation of such a measure being received as an earnest of my most anxious desire, as far as rests with me (consistent with my public duties), to preserve inviolate the harmony and good understanding so happily existing between the two Governments. The prisoners, Barnabas Hunnewell, Jesse Wheelock, and Daniel Savage, are released; and I have taken it upon myself, knowing that such a measure will be fully sanctioned by my Government, to remit the fines imposed by the supreme court of this Province, as already communicated to you by Lieutenant-Colonel Snodgrass–an act that I trust will not fail in being duly appreciated _when it is known_ that the above-mentioned individuals did, with several others, follow up their first proceedings by acts of much more serious aggression, for which they stood charged under another (untried) indictment. However, everything connected therewith is now corrected.
You will see with what readiness and satisfaction I have received and adopted your kind advice, for which accept of my sincere thanks, and believe me to remain, sir, etc.,
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL,
_Lieutenant-Governor_.
_Mr. Livingston to Mr. Bankhead_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, November 28, 1831_.
CHARLES BANKHEAD, Esq., etc.:
The undersigned, Secretary of State, etc., has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a note from Mr. Bankhead, His Britannic Majesty’s charge d’affaires, under date of the 25th instant, accompanied by a copy of a letter from Sir A. Campbell, the lieutenant-governor of the Province of New Brunswick, by both of which the Secretary of State is informed that the citizens of the United States lately under prosecution at Frederickton for acts done in the territory now possessed by Great Britain within the country claimed both by that power and the United States, have been set at liberty, in accordance with the suggestions made in the former correspondence between Mr. Bankhead and the Secretary of State.
Mr. Bankhead’s note, with its inclosure, has been laid before the President, who has instructed the undersigned to express his satisfaction at the prompt manner in which his suggestions have been complied with, and to say that he considers it as a proof of the disposition of His Britannic Majesty’s officers to preserve the harmony that so happily subsists between the two Governments.
The undersigned renews to Mr. Bankhead the assurance of his high consideration.
EDWARD LIVINGSTON.
_Sir Charles R. Vaughan to Mr. McLane_.
WASHINGTON, _October 20, 1833_.
Hon. LOUIS McLANE, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to lay before the Secretary of State of the United States a copy of a letter[18] which he has received from His Excellency Sir Archibald Campbell, His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, and to call his attention to the conduct of certain land agents of the States of Maine and Massachusetts in the territory in dispute between Great Britain and the United States.
It appears by the report contained in Sir Archibald Campbell’s letter that land agents of Maine and Massachusetts have been holding out inducements to persons of both countries to cut pine timber on the disputed territory on condition of paying to them 2 shillings and 6 pence the ton, and that they have entered into contracts for opening two roads which will intersect the Roostook River.
As it is the declared will and mutual interest of the Governments of Great Britain and of the United States to preserve the disputed territory in its present state and to avoid all collision pending the settlement of the boundary question, the undersigned is convinced that it is sufficient to insure the prompt interference of the Government of the United States to put a stop to the proceedings of these land agents to state the conduct complained of.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. McLane the assurance of his most distinguished consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN
[Footnote 18: Omitted.]
_Mr. McLane to Sir Charles R. Vaughan_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, October 23, 1833_.
Right Hon. SIR CHARGES R. VAUGHAN, G.C.H.,
_Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty_:
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Sir Charles R. Vaughan, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, of the 20th instant, accompanied by a copy of a letter from Sir Archibald Campbell, lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, to Sir Charles R. Vaughan, and also a letter from J.A. Maclauchlan to the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, complaining of the “conduct of certain land agents of the States of Maine and Massachusetts in the territory in dispute between the United States and Great Britain.”
The undersigned is instructed to state that it would be a source of regret to the President should this complaint prove to be well founded, and that he has caused a copy of Sir Charles’s note and of the accompanying papers promptly to be communicated to the governors of Maine and Massachusetts, in order that the necessary steps may be taken to enforce a due observance of the terms of the existing arrangement between the Government of the United States and that of Great Britain in regard to the disputed territory.
The undersigned avails himself of the occasion to renew to Sir Charles R. Vaughan the assurance of his distinguished consideration.
LOUIS McLANE
_Sir Charles R. Vaughan to Mr. McLane_.
WASHINGTON, _December 17, 1833_.
Hon. LOUIS McLANE, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, regrets that a letter received from His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick should again require him to ask the intervention of the General Government of the United States to put a stop to certain proceedings of the State of Maine in the territory still in dispute between Great Britain and the United States. The inclosed letter, with the report which accompanies it,[19] shows that the State of Maine has opened a road beyond the conventional frontier, with the avowed intention of carrying it to the bank of the river St. John.
The undersigned is convinced that the Secretary of State of the United States will agree with him that the State of Maine must not be allowed to take upon herself the right to define the meaning of the treaty of 1783, and, by aggressions such as those against which the undersigned is called upon to remonstrate, to take possession, without reference to the General Government of the United States, of territory which has been so long in abeyance between the two Governments. Such conduct is calculated to lead to collisions of a distressing nature between the subjects of His Britannic Majesty and the citizens of the United States employed to assert a futile and hazardous possession which so entirely depends upon the arrangements in progress between the two Governments.
The undersigned trusts that the representation made in this note will be received by the Secretary of State in the same spirit of good will and conciliation which has hitherto characterized the conduct of the Government of the United States in all occurrences of a similar nature.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. McLane the assurance of his most distinguished consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN
[Footnote 19: Omitted.]
_Mr. McLane to Sir Charles R. Vaughan_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, December 21, 1833_.
Right Hon. SIR CHARLES R. VAUGHAN, G.C.H.,
_Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty_:
The undersigned, Secretary of State, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note addressed to him on the 17th instant by Sir Charles R. Vaughan, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, requesting the intervention of the Government of the United States to put a stop to certain proceedings of the State of Maine in the territory still in dispute between Great Britain and the United States.
The proceedings referred to appear, by the letter of the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick and the report of the officer acting on the part of Great Britain as warden of the disputed territory (copies of which accompanied Sir Charles R. Vaughan’s note), to be the construction of a road to the Restook River, passing, as is alleged, through 15 miles of the disputed territory, and supposed by the warden to be intended to intersect the St. John River in the Madawaska settlement.
The undersigned is happy to have it in his power to afford at once such explanations upon this subject as he trusts may be satisfactory. By a communication received from the governor of Maine, in answer to a representation recently made by Sir Charles R. Vaughan concerning other alleged encroachments on the disputed territory, it will be seen that no part of the road now constructing by that State is believed to be within the territory of which the British Government has ever been in the actual possession since the treaty of 1783, and that it is not designed to extend the road beyond the Aroostook. The apprehensions entertained of its being extended to the St. John River in the Madawaska settlement appear, therefore, to be groundless, and, if the views of the governor of Maine as to the locality of the road be correct, it would seem that its construction can afford no just cause of complaint, as it is not supposed that such improvements made by either party within that part of the territory which has been in its possession, or so considered, since the treaty of 1783 are contrary to the spirit of the existing understanding between the two Governments. It will be seen, moreover, as well by the communication from the governor of Maine as by one received from the governor of Massachusetts on the same occasion, that a conciliatory and forbearing disposition prevails on their part, and that no measures will be taken or any acts authorized by them which may justly be considered as a violation of the understanding in regard to the disputed territory.
The undersigned has nevertheless been directed by the President to transmit copies of Sir Charles R. Vaughan’s note and its inclosures to the governors of Maine and Massachusetts, and to repeat to their excellencies his earnest desire that as far as depends on them no departure from the understanding between the two Governments may be permitted.
In regard to the complaint heretofore made by Sir Charles R. Vaughan, upon the representations of the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick and the warden of the disputed territory, as to the cutting and sale of timber under the authority of the land agents of Maine and Massachusetts, the undersigned begs leave to refer to the communications from the governors of those States already mentioned, copies of which are now transmitted, by which it appears that the conduct of those agents has furnished no just cause of dissatisfaction, but that, on the contrary, it is alleged that His Britannic Majesty’s officers of the Province of New Brunswick, by the seizure and sale of timber cut by trespassers on the Aroostook, and afterwards in the rightful custody of the agent of the State of Massachusetts, have been the first to violate the existing understanding upon this subject.
These complaints on both sides, arising, as the undersigned believes, from acts which do not on either side indicate an intention to disregard the existing understanding, but are attributable to the unsettled state of the boundary question, and which should therefore be viewed with mutual forbearance, furnish increased reason for a speedy adjustment of that interesting matter; and the President looks with great solicitude for the answer, which is daily expected, from the British Government to the proposition submitted on the part of the United States, in the hope that it may soon set all those difficulties at rest.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Sir Charles R. Vaughan the assurance of his distinguished consideration.
LOUIS McLANE.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS,
_November 1, 1833_.
Hon. LOUIS McLANE,
_Secretary of State of the United States_.
SIR: I have to acknowledge the honor of the receipt of your letter of the 23d of October, covering a copy of a note addressed to you by Sir Charles R. Vaughan, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of His Britannic Majesty, accompanied also by copies of certain documents conveying complaints on the part of the authorities of His Majesty’s Province of New Brunswick “of the conduct of certain land agents of the States of Maine and Massachusetts on the territory in dispute between the United States and Great Britain.”
Permit me to assure you that I shall lose no time in making inquiry of the land agent of this Commonwealth into the supposed occasion of the complaints of His Majesty’s provincial officers, and in transmitting to the Department of State such information as I may receive in reply.
Prejudicial as the delay in the settlement of this long-vexed subject of boundary is to the rights of property which Massachusetts claims in the disputed territory, and impatient as both the government and the people have become at the unreasonableness and pertinacity of the adversary pretensions and with the present state of the question, yet the executive of this Commonwealth will not cease to respect the understanding which has been had between the Governments of the two countries, _that no act of wrong to the property of either_ shall be committed during the pending of measures to produce an amicable adjustment of the controversy.
In the meantime, I can not but earnestly protest against the authority of any appointment on the behalf of His Majesty’s Government which may be regarded as a claim to the executive protection of this property or be deemed an acquiescence on the part of the United States in an interference, _under color_ of a “wardenship of the disputed territory,” with the direction to its improvement which the governments of Massachusetts and Maine, respectively, may see fit to give to their agents. The rights of soil and jurisdiction over it are in the States, and forbearance to the exercise of these rights for a season, from mere prudential considerations, a respectful regard to the wishes of the General Government, or amity toward a foreign nation is not to be construed into a readiness to surrender them upon the issue of any proposed negotiation.
I have the honor to be, sir, with sentiments of the highest respect, your obedient servant,
LEVI LINCOLN.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF MAINE,
_Augusta, November 23, 1833_.
Hon. LOUIS McLANE,
_Secretary of State of the United States, Washington_.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23d of October last, communicating a copy of a note from Sir Charles R. Vaughan, accompanied with a copy of a letter from Sir Archibald Campbell, lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, to Sir Charles R. Vaughan, and also of a letter from Lieutenant J.A. Maclauchlan to Sir Archibald Campbell, complaining of the conduct of the land agents of the States of Maine and Massachusetts in the territory in dispute between the United States and Great Britain.
In compliance with your request to be furnished with information in relation to this subject, I reply that by a resolve of the legislature of this State passed March 30, 1831, “the land agent of this State, in conjunction with the land agent of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is authorized and empowered to survey, lay out, and make a suitable winter road, or cause the same to be done, from the mouth of the Matawamkeag, a branch of the Penobscot River, in a northerly direction, so as to strike the Aroostook River on or near the line dividing the sixth and seventh ranges of townships.” The same resolve authorizes the land agents to lay out and make, or cause to be made, a winter road from the village of Houlton, in a westerly direction, to intersect the road to the Aroostook River at some point most convenient for traveling and most for the interest of the State. By a subsequent resolve, passed March 8, 1832, the authority given to the land agents was enlarged so as to authorize them “to locate and survey the Aroostook road so that it may strike the Aroostook River at any place between the west line of the third range and the east line of the sixth range of townships west of the east line of the State.” The first of these roads has been surveyed and located, and much the greater part of it lies within the undisputed limits of this State south of the sources of the Penobscot River, and it is believed that no part of it lies within territory of which the British Government has ever been in the actual possession since the treaty of 1783. A portion of this road only has yet been opened, and I have no information that any part of it has been opened over territory _claimed_ by the British, although it is contemplated to extend it to the Aroostook when it can be done consistently with the public interest. The second road described in the resolve of March 30, 1831, is wholly within the undisputed limits of this State.
A report of the recent proceedings of the land agent in making these roads and disposing of the timber on the lands of the State has not been received, and his late sickness and death have rendered it impossible at this time to obtain a detailed statement of all that has been done in his official capacity. But it can not be presumed that he has in any particular exceeded his instructions (copies of which are herewith transmitted[20]), or, in the discharge of his official duties, taken any measures or authorized any acts to be done which could justly be considered as a violation of any known provision of the existing arrangement between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain in regard to the disputed territory.
With high consideration, I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
SAML. E. SMITH.
[Footnote 20: Omitted.]
_Sir Charles R. Vaughan to Mr. McLane_.
WASHINGTON, _December 23, 1833_.
Hon. LOUIS McLANE, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Secretary of State of the United States, in answer to the representation which he was called upon to make respecting proceedings of the States of Massachusetts and Maine in the disputed territory.
To understand correctly the bearings of the roads which those States have resolved to construct requires a more accurate knowledge of the topography of the country through which they are to pass than the undersigned possesses, but he will not fail to transmit a copy of Mr. McLane’s note, together with its inclosures, to His Majesty’s lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick. In the meantime the undersigned begs leave to observe that the letter from the executive of Maine states that one of the roads surveyed and located lies, for the greater part of it, within the undisputed limits of that State, although it is contemplated to extend it to the Aroostook River. The land agent of Massachusetts is aware that the road from the river Matawamkeag to the Aroostook is the one that has given rise to complaint, and which, he observes, “is now nearly completed.” As the Aroostook River, from its source till it falls into the St. John, flows exclusively through the disputed territory, to reach it by a road from the State of Maine must cause an encroachment and be considered an attempt to assume a right of possession in territory which has never yet been set apart from the original possession of Great Britain, on account of the difficulties of ascertaining the boundary according to the treaty of 1783.
With regard to the cutting down and sale of timber, the justification of the land agent at Boston will be submitted to Sir Archibald Campbell, and the undersigned is sure that the grievance complained of (taking away timber which had been seized by the agent from Massachusetts) will be attended to.
The undersigned receives with great satisfaction the assurances of Mr. McLane that “a conciliatory and forbearing disposition prevails on the part of Massachusetts and Maine, and that no measure will be taken or any acts authorized by them which may justly be considered as a violation of the understanding in regard to the disputed territory;” and he can not conclude without begging leave to acknowledge the readiness with which the President directed inquiries to be made and the desire which he has shewn on this and every similar occasion to prevent any encroachment on the disputed territory pending the settlement of the boundary now in progress between the two Governments.
The undersigned has the honor to assure Mr. McLane of his most distinguished consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN.
_Sir Charles R. Vaughan to Mr. McLane_.
WASHINGTON, _February 28, 1834_.
Hon. LOUIS McLANE, etc.:
The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has the honor to communicate to the Secretary of State of the United States the explanation which he has received from the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick of a transaction complained of by the land agent of Massachusetts in a report communicated to the undersigned in a note from Mr. McLane dated 21st December last.
The complaint arose out of the seizure of timber cut down without authority upon the disputed territory, and which, after having been seized in the first instance by the land agent of Massachusetts, was taken possession of and sold by the British agent intrusted with the preservation of the disputed territory on the northeastern frontier of the United States.
The explanation of this transaction is contained in an extract of a letter to the undersigned from the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick and the report of Mr. Beckwith, the surveyor-general of that Province, which the undersigned has the honor to inclose in this note.[21]
The seizure of the timber in the first instance by Mr. Coffin, the land agent of Maine [Massachusetts], was the exercise of authority within the conventional frontier of the Province of New Brunswick, which could not be admitted so long as the northeastern boundary of the United States remains a subject of negotiation; and it appears that the proceeds of the sale of timber unlawfully cut down are carried to account, and the possession of them will be appropriated to the party to which the territory may be adjudged by the settlement of the boundary question.
The undersigned trusts that the explanation which he is now able to give of this transaction will prove satisfactory to the Government of the United States.
The undersigned has the honor to renew to Mr. McLane the assurance of his most distinguished consideration.
CHAS. R. VAUGHAN
[Footnote 21: Omitted.]
_Mr. McLane to Sir Charles R. Vaughan_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, March 4, 1834_.
Right Hon. SIR CHARLES R. VAUGHAN, G.C.H.,
_Envoy Extraordinary, etc_.
SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 28th ultimo, furnishing the explanation of the lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick of a transaction referred to by the land agent of Massachusetts in a letter addressed to his excellency the governor of that Commonwealth, and subsequently communicated to you by this Department in a note dated 21st December last, and to inform you that copies of your communication, together with the documents which accompanied it, will, by direction of the President, be transmitted without unnecessary delay to the executive of the State of Massachusetts.
I pray you to accept the assurance of my distinguished consideration.
LOUIS McLANE.
WASHINGTON, _January 27, 1838_.
Hon. R.M. JOHNSON,
_President of the Senate_.
SIR: I transmit herewith, in compliance with the requirements of the second section of the act of March 3, 1837, making appropriations for the Indian Department, a communication from the War Department, accompanied by a copy of the report of the agents appointed to inquire what depredations had been committed by the Seminole and Creek Indians on the property of citizens of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
M. VAN BUREN.
[The same message was addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.]
WASHINGTON CITY, _February 5, 1838_.
Hon. JAMES K. POLK,
_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.
SIR: I have the honor to transmit to you a report from the Secretary of the Navy, prepared in obedience to a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 7th December last, requiring information as to the causes which have delayed the outfit and preparation of the South Sea surveying and exploring expedition.
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _February, 1838_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 20th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, which is accompanied by a copy and translation of the pamphlet[22] requested in that resolution.
M. VAN BUREN.
[Footnote 22: Issued by Manuel E. de Gorostiza, formerly minister from Mexico, before his departure from the United States, containing the correspondence between the Department of State and the Mexican legation relative to the passage of the Sabine River by troops under the command of General Gaines.]
WASHINGTON, _February 17, 1838_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit for your constitutional action articles of a treaty concluded on the 23d ultimo with the Chippewas of Saganaw, accompanied by a communication from the Secretary of War.
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _February 17, 1838_.
_To the Senate_:
I transmit for your consideration a communication from the Secretary of War, respecting a treaty now before you with the Stockbridge and Munsee Indians.
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _March, 1838_.
Hon. J.K. POLK,
_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.
SIR: The inclosed report and accompanying papers from the Secretary of War contain all the information required by the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant, respecting the present state of the campaign in Florida and the disposition of the Indians to treat for peace.
Very respectfully, your most obedient servant,
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _March 12, 1838_.
_To the House of Representatives_:
I transmit for the consideration of Congress a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents, relative to an application made by the minister of France in behalf of Captain Beziers for remuneration for services in saving the captain and crew of an American vessel wrecked in the bay of Cadiz in the year 1825.
I am happy to evince my high sense of the humane and intrepid conduct of Captain Beziers by presenting his case to Congress, to whom alone it belongs to determine upon the expediency of granting his request.
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _March 13, 1838_.
The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In compliance with a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 17th of February, I transmit a report[23] of the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents, which contain the information requested.
M. VAN BUREN.
[Footnote 23: Relating to a ship canal across the Isthmus of Darien.]
WASHINGTON, _March 14, 1838_.
The PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE:
I transmit to the Senate a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and His Majesty the King of Greece, concluded at London on the 22d day of December last, together with a copy of the documents relating to the negotiation of the same, for the constitutional consideration of the Senate in reference to its ratification.
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _March 15, 1838_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant, I transmit a report[24] from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred, with the documents by which the said report was accompanied.
M. VAN BUREN.
[Footnote 24: Relating to the prosecution of the claim of the United States to the bequest made by James Smithson.]
WASHINGTON, _March, 1838_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I transmit a copy and translation of a letter from Mr. Pontois, the minister plenipotentiary from France to this Government, addressed to the Secretary of State, and communicating a memorial to me from the trustees of the former house of Lafitte & Co., of Paris, complaining of the rejection of a claim preferred in behalf of that house before the commissioners under the convention with France of the 4th of July, 1831, and asking redress.
The commission created by the act for carrying that convention into effect has expired. The fund provided by it has been distributed among those whose claims were admitted. The Executive has no power over the subject. If the memorialists are entitled to relief, it can be granted by Congress alone, to whom, in compliance with the request of the trustees, that question is now submitted for decision.
M. VAN BUREN.
WASHINGTON, _March 19, 1838_.
_To the House of Representatives of the United States_:
I transmit a report[25] from the Secretary of State, to whom the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant was referred, with the documents by which the said report was accompanied.
M. VAN BUREN.
[Footnote 25: Relating to high duties and restrictions on tobacco imported into foreign countries from the United States, etc.]
WASHINGTON, _March 20, 1838_.
_To the Senate of the United States_:
I herewith transmit to the Senate of the United States a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by a copy of the correspondence requested by their resolution of the 5th ultimo.
M. VAN BUREN.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, March 7, 1838_.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
The Secretary of State, to whom has been referred the resolution of the Senate of the 5th of February, requesting the President of the United States to communicate to that body, in such manner as he shall deem proper, all the correspondence recently received and had between this and the Governments of Great Britain and the State of Maine on the subject of the northeastern boundary, has the honor to report to the President the accompanying copy of letters, which comprise all the correspondence in the Department asked for by the resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN FORSYTH.
_Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth_.
WASHINGTON, _January 10, 1838_.
Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, etc.:
The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, is directed by his Government to make the following observations to Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State of the United States, with reference to certain points connected with the question of the northeastern boundary, which question forms the subject of the accompanying note, which the undersigned has the honor this day to address to Mr. Forsyth:
The British Government, with a view to prevail upon that of the United States to come to an understanding with Great Britain upon the river question, had stated that the King of the Netherlands in his award had decided that question according to the British interpretation of it and had expressed his opinion that the rivers which fall into the Bay of Fundy are not to be considered as Atlantic rivers for the purposes of the treaty.
Mr. Forsyth, however, in his note to Sir Charles Vaughan of the 28th of April, 1835, controverts this assertion and maintains that the King of the Netherlands did not in his award express such an opinion, and Mr. Forsyth quotes a passage from the award in support of this proposition.
But it appears to Her Majesty’s Government that Mr. Forsyth has not correctly perceived the meaning of the passage which he quotes, for in the passage in question Mr. Forsyth apprehends that the word “_alone_” is governed by the verb “_include_” whereas an attentive examination of the context will show that the word “_alone_” is governed by the verb “_divide”_ and that the real meaning of the passage is this: That the rivers flowing north and south from the highlands claimed by the United States may be arranged in two genera, the first genus comprehending the rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence, the second genus comprehending those whose waters in some manner or other find their way into the Atlantic; but that even if, according to this general classification and in contradistinction from rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, the rivers which fall into the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy might be comprised in the same genus with the rivers which fall directly into the Atlantic, still the St. John and the Restigouche form a distinct species by themselves and do not belong to the species of rivers which fall _directly_ into the Atlantic, for the St. John and Restigouche are not divided in company with any such last-mentioned rivers. And the award goes on to say that, moreover, if this distinction between the two species were confounded an erroneous interpretation would be applied to a treaty in which every separate word must be supposed to have a meaning, and a generic distinction would be given to cases which are purely specific.
The above appears to be the true meaning of the passage quoted by Mr. Forsyth; but if that passage had not been in itself sufficiently explicit, which Her Majesty’s Government think it is, the passage which immediately follows it would remove all doubt as to what the opinion of the King of the Netherlands was upon the river question, for that passage, setting forth reasons against the line of boundary claimed by the United States, goes on to say that such line would not even separate the St. Lawrence rivers immediately from the St. John and Restigouche, and that thus the rivers which this line would separate from the St. Lawrence rivers would need, _in order to reach the Atlantic_, the aid of _two intermediaries_–first, the rivers St. John and Restigouche, and, _secondly, the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy_.
Now it is evident from this passage that the King of the Netherlands deemed the bays of Fundy and Chaleurs to be, for the purposes of the treaty, as distinct and separate from the Atlantic Ocean as are the rivers St. John and Restigouche, for he specifically mentions those rivers and those bays as the channels through which certain rivers would have to pass in their way from the northern range of dividing highlands down to the Atlantic Ocean; and it is clear that he considers that the waters of those highland rivers would not reach the Atlantic Ocean until after they had traveled through the whole extent either of the Restigouche and the Bay of Chaleurs or of the St. John and the Bay of Fundy, as the case might be; and for this reason, among others, the King of the Netherlands declared it to be his opinion that the line north of the St. John claimed by the United States is not the line intended by the treaty.
The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. Forsyth the assurances of his high respect and consideration.
H.S. FOX.
_Mr. Fox to Mr. Forsyth_.
WASHINGTON, _January 19, 1838_.
Hon. JOHN FORSYTH, etc.:
The undersigned, Her Britannic Majesty’s envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, has received the orders of his Government to make the following communication to the Secretary of State of the United States with reference to the question pending between the two Governments upon the subject of the northeastern boundary:
The undersigned is, in the first instance, directed to express to Mr. Forsyth the sincere regret of Her Majesty’s Government that the long-continued endeavors of both parties to come to a settlement of this important matter have hitherto been unavailing. Her Majesty’s Government feel an undiminished desire to cooperate with the Cabinet of Washington for the attainment of an object of so much mutual interest, and they learn with satisfaction that their sentiments upon this point are fully shared by the actual President of the United States.
The communications which during the last few years have taken place between the two Governments with reference to the present subject, if they have not led to the solution of the questions at issue, have at least narrowed the field of future discussion.
Both Governments have agreed to consider the award of the King of the Netherlands as binding upon neither party, and the two Governments, therefore, are as free in this respect as they were before the reference to that Sovereign was made. The British Government, despairing of the possibility of drawing a line that shall be in literal conformity with the words of the treaty of 1783, has suggested that a conventional boundary should be substituted for the line described by the treaty, and has proposed that in accordance with the principles of equity and in pursuance of the general practice of mankind in similar cases the object of difference should be equally divided between the two differing parties, each of whom is alike convinced of the justice of its own claim.
The United States Government has replied that to such an arrangement it has no power to agree; that until the line of the treaty shall have been otherwise determined the State of Maine will continue to assume that the line which it claims is the true line of 1783, and will assert that all the land up to that line is territory of Maine; that consequently such a division of the disputed territory as is proposed by Great Britain would be considered by Maine as tantamount to a cession of what that State regards as a part of its own territory, and that the Federal Government has no power to agree to such an arrangement without the consent of the State concerned.
Her Majesty’s Government exceedingly regrets that such an obstacle should exist to prevent that settlement which under all the circumstances of the case appears to be the simplest, the readiest, the most satisfactory, and the most just. Nor can Her Majesty’s Government admit that the objection of the State of Maine is well founded, for the principle on which that objection rests is as good for Great Britain as it is for Maine. If Maine thinks itself entitled to contend that until the true line described in the treaty is determined the boundary claimed by Maine must be regarded as the right one, Great Britain is surely still more entitled to insist upon a similar pretension, and to assert that until the line of the treaty shall be established to the satisfaction of both parties the whole of the disputed territory ought to be considered as belonging to the British Crown, because Great Britain is the original possessor, and all the territory which has not been proved to have been by treaty ceded by her must be looked upon as belonging to her still. But the very existence of such conflicting pretensions seems to point out the expediency of a compromise, and what compromise can be more fair than that which would give to each party one-half of the subject-matter of dispute?
A conventional line different from that described in the treaty was agreed to, as stated by Mr. Forsyth in his note of the 28th of April, 1835, with respect to the boundary westward from the Lake of the Woods. Why should such a line not be agreed to likewise for the boundary eastward from the river Connecticut?
Her Majesty’s Government can not refrain from again pressing this proposition upon the serious consideration of the Government of the United States as the arrangement which would be best calculated to effect a prompt and satisfactory settlement between the two powers.
The Government of the United States, indeed, while it expressed a doubt of its being able to obtain the assent of Maine to the above-mentioned proposal, did, nevertheless, express its readiness to apply to the State of Maine for the assent of that State to the adoption of another conventional line, which should make the river St. John from its source to its mouth the boundary between the two countries. But it is difficult to understand upon what grounds any expectation could have been formed that such a proposal could be entertained by the British Government, for such an arrangement would give to the United States even greater advantages than they would obtain by an unconditional acquiescence in their claim to the whole of the disputed territory, because such an arrangement would, in the first place, give to Maine all that part of the disputed territory which lies to the south of the St. John, and would, in the next place, in exchange for the remaining part of the disputed territory which lies to the north of the St. John, add to the State of Maine a large district of New Brunswick lying between the United States boundary and the southern part of the course of the St. John–a district smaller, indeed, in extent, but much more considerable in value, than the portion of the disputed territory which lies to the north of the St. John.
But with respect to a conventional line generally, the Government of Washington has stated that it has not at present the powers constitutionally requisite for treating for such a line and has no hopes of obtaining such powers until the impossibility of establishing the line described by the treaty shall have been completely demonstrated by the failure of another attempt to trace that line by a local survey.
Under these circumstances it appears that a conventional line can not at present be agreed upon, and that such a mode of settlement is in the existing state of the negotiation impossible.
Thus, then, the award of the King of the Netherlands has been abandoned by both parties in consequence of its rejection by the American Senate, and a negotiation between the two Governments for a conventional line suited to the interests and convenience of the two parties has for the present been rendered impossible by difficulties arising on the part of the United States; and both Governments are alike averse to a new arbitration. In this state of things the Government of the United States has proposed to the British cabinet that another attempt should be made to trace out a boundary according to the letter of the treaty, and that a commission of exploration and survey should be appointed for that purpose.
Her Majesty’s Government have little expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and on that account would be disposed to object to the measure; but at the same time they are so unwilling to reject the only plan now left which seems to afford a chance of making any further advance in this long-pending matter that they will not withhold their consent to such a commission if the principle upon which it is to be formed and the manner in which it is to proceed can be satisfactorily settled.
The United States Government have proposed two modes in which such a commission might be constituted: First, that it might consist of commissioners named in equal numbers by each of the two Governments, with an umpire to be selected by some friendly European power; secondly, that it might be entirely composed of scientific Europeans, to be selected by a friendly sovereign, and might be accompanied in its operations by agents of the two different parties, in order that such agents might give to the commissioners assistance and information.
If such a commission were to be appointed, Her Majesty’s Government think that the first of these two modes of constructing it would be the best, and that it should consist of members chosen in equal numbers by each of the two Governments. It might, however, be better that the umpire should be selected by the members of the commission themselves rather than that the two Governments should apply to a third power to make such a choice.
The object of this commission, as understood by Her Majesty’s Government, would be to explore the disputed territory in order to find within its limits dividing highlands which may answer the description of the treaty, the search being first to be made in the due north line from the monument at the head of the St. Croix, and if no such highlands should be found in that meridian the search to be then continued to the westward thereof; and Her Majesty’s Government have stated their opinion that in order to avoid all fruitless disputes as to the character of such highlands the commissioners should be instructed to look for highlands which both parties might acknowledge as fulfilling the conditions of the treaty.
The United States Secretary of State, in his note of the 5th of March, 1836, expresses a wish to know how the report of the commissioners would, according to the views of Her Majesty’s Government, be likely when rendered to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question of boundary between the two Governments.
In reply to this inquiry Her Majesty’s Government would beg to observe that the proposal to appoint a commission originated not with them, but with the Government of the United States, and that it is therefore rather for the Government of the United States than for that of Great Britain to answer this question.
Her Majesty’s Government have themselves already stated that they have little expectation that such a commission could lead to any useful result, and that they would on that account be disposed to object to it; and if Her Majesty’s Government were now to agree to appoint such a commission it would be only in compliance with the desire so strongly expressed by the Government of the United States, and in spite of doubts (which Her Majesty’s Government still continue to entertain) of the efficacy of the measure.
But with respect to the way in which the report of the commission might be likely to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question, Her Majesty’s Government, in the first place, conceive that it was meant by the Government of the United States, that if the commission should discover highlands answering to the description of the treaty a connecting line drawn from these highlands to the head of the St. Croix should be deemed to be a portion of the boundary line between the two countries. But Her Majesty’s Government would further beg to refer the United States Secretary of State to the notes of Mr. McLane of the 5th of June, 1833, and of the 11th and 28th of March, 1834, on this subject, in which it will be seen that the Government of the United States appears to have contemplated as one of the possible results of the proposed commission of exploration that such additional information might possibly be obtained respecting the features of the country in the district to which the treaty relates as might remove all doubt as to the impracticability of laying down a boundary in accordance with the letter of the treaty.
And if the investigations of the proposed commission should show that there is no reasonable prospect of finding a line strictly conformable with the description contained in the treaty of 1783, the constitutional difficulties which now prevent the United States from agreeing to a conventional line may possibly be removed, and the way may thus be prepared for the satisfactory settlement of the difference by an equitable division of the disputed territory.
But if the two Governments should agree to the appointment of such a commission it would be necessary that their agreement should be first recorded in a convention, and it would obviously be indispensable that the State of Maine should be an assenting party to the arrangement.
The undersigned, in making the above communication by order of Her Majesty’s Government to the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, has the honor to renew to him the assurance of his high respect and consideration.
H.S. FOX.
_Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox_.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, February 6, 1838_.
HENRY S. FOX, Esq., etc.:
The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Fox, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, of the 10th ultimo, in which he presents, by direction of his Government, certain observations in respect to the construction to be given to that part of the award of the arbiter on the question of the northeastern boundary which relates to the character in which the rivers St. John and Restigouche are to be regarded in reference to that question. Sir Charles Vaughan, in his note to Mr. McLane of February 10, 1834, alleged that although the arbiter had not decided the first of the three main questions proposed to him, yet that he had determined certain subordinate points connected with that question upon which the parties had entertained different views, and among others that the rivers St. John and Restigouche could not be considered, according to the meaning of the treaty, as “rivers flowing into the Atlantic.” The undersigned, in his note to Sir Charles R. Vaughan of the 28th of April, 1835, questioned the correctness of the interpretation which had been given by Sir Charles to the award of the arbiter in this particular, and after quoting that part of the award to which Sir Charles was supposed to refer as containing the determination by the arbiter of the point just mentioned observed that it could not but appear from further reflection to Sir Charles that the declaration that the rivers St. John and Restigouche could not be _alone_ taken into view without hazard in determining the disputed boundary was not the expression of an opinion that they should be altogether excluded in determining that question; or, in other words, that they could not be looked upon as rivers emptying into the Atlantic. The remarks presented by Mr. Fox in the note to which this is a reply are designed to shew a misconception on the part of the undersigned of the true meaning of the passage cited by him from the award and to support the construction which was given to it by Sir Charles Vaughan. Whether the apprehension entertained by the one party or the other of the opinion of the arbiter upon this minor point be correct is regarded by the undersigned as a matter of no consequence in the settlement of the main question. The Government of the United States, never having acquiesced in the decision of the arbiter that “the nature of the difference and the vague and not sufficiently determinate stipulations of the treaty of 1783 do not permit the adjudication of either of the two lines respectively claimed by the interested parties to one of the said parties without wounding the principles of law and equity with regard to the other,” can not consent to be governed in the prosecution of the existing negotiation by the opinion of the arbiter upon any of the preliminary points about which there was a previous difference between the parties, and the adverse decision of which has led to so unsatisfactory and, in the view of this Government, so erroneous a conclusion. This determination on the part of the United States not to adopt the premises of the arbiter while rejecting his conclusion has been heretofore made known to Her Majesty’s Government, and while it remains must necessarily render the discussion of the question what those premises were unavailing, if not irrelevant. The few observations which the undersigned was led to make in the course of his note to Sir Charles Vaughan upon one of the points alleged to have been thus determined were prompted only by a respect for the arbiter and a consequent anxiety to remove a misinterpretation of his meaning, which alone, it was believed, could induce the supposition that the arbiter, in searching for the rivers referred to in the treaty as designating the boundary, could have come to the opinion that the two great rivers whose waters pervaded the whole district in which the search was made and constituted the most striking objects of the country had been entirely unnoticed by the negotiators of the treaty and were to be passed over unheeded in determining the line, while others were to be sought for which he himself asserts could not be found. That the imputation of such an opinion to the respected arbiter could only be the result of misinterpretation seemed the more evident, as he had himself declared that “it could not be sufficiently explained how, if the high contracting parties intended in 1783 to establish the boundary at the south of the river St. John, that river, to which the territory in dispute was in a great measure indebted for its distinctive character, had been neutralized and set aside.” It is under the influence of the same motives that the undersigned now proceeds to make a brief comment upon the observations contained in Mr. Fox’s note of the 10th ultimo, and thus to close a discussion which it can answer no purpose to prolong.
The passage from the award of the arbiter quoted by the undersigned in his note of the 28th April, 1835, to Sir Charles Vaughan, and the true meaning of which Mr. Fox supposes to have been misconceived, is the following: “If in contradistinction to the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence it had been proper, agreeably to the language ordinarily used in geography, to comprehend the rivers falling into the bays Fundy and Des Chaleurs with those emptying themselves directly into the Atlantic Ocean in the generical denomination of rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean it would be hazardous to include into the species belonging to that class the rivers St. John and Restigouche, which the line claimed at the north of the river St. John divides _immediately_ from rivers emptying themselves into the river St. Lawrence, not with other rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, but _alone_, and thus to apply in interpreting the delimitation established by a treaty, where each word must have a meaning, to two exclusively special cases, and where no mention is made of the genus (_genre_), a generical expression which would ascribe to them a broader meaning,” etc.
It was observed by the undersigned that this passage did not appear to contain an expression of opinion by the arbiter that the rivers St. John and Restigouche should be altogether excluded in determining the question of disputed boundary, or, in other words, that they could not be looked upon as “rivers emptying into the Atlantic.” Mr. Fox alleges this to be a misconception of the meaning of the arbiter, and supposes it to have arisen from an erroneous apprehension by the undersigned that the word “_alone_” is governed by the verb “_include_,” whereas he thinks that an attentive examination of the context will shew that the word “_alone_” is governed by the verb “_divide,_” and that the real meaning of the passage is this: “That the rivers flowing north and south from the highlands claimed by the United States may be arranged in two genera, the first genus comprehending the rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence, the second genus comprehending those whose waters in some manner or other find their way into the Atlantic; but that even if, according to the general classification and in contradistinction from rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, the rivers which fall into the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy might be comprised in the same genus with the rivers which fall directly into the Atlantic, still the St. John and the Restigouche form a distinct species by themselves and do not belong to the species of rivers which fall _directly_ into the Atlantic, for the St. John and Restigouche are not divided in company with any _such last-mentioned rivers_.” The undersigned considers it unnecessary to enter into the question whether according to the context the circumstance expressed by the adverb “alone” has reference to the verb “divide” or to the verb “include,” because even allowing it to refer to the former it does not appear to the undersigned that his interpretation of the passage is thereby impaired or that of Mr. Fox sustained. The undersigned conceives that the arbiter contemplated two different _species_ of rivers as admissible into _genus_ of those which “fall into the Atlantic,” to wit, those which fall _directly_ into the Atlantic and