that the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec was intended, according to the Acts of the British Government, to run in the manner and direction last stated, implies the monstrous supposition, that that Government, in designating the said southern Boundary, adopted a definition wholly inapplicable to near three-fourths of the Boundary which they intended to prescribe. (b) Such a supposition was too repugnant to common sense to be adopted at a time when there was no motive to deviate from the obvious meaning of the Proclamation of 1763, and of the other acts of the British Government. It was, therefore, the universal understanding, as late, at least, as the year 1783, that the Southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec was along, and no further south than the Highlands in which the tributary streams of the River St. Lawrence have their sources, and which divide those streams from the upper branches of either the rivers that fall into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the river St. John, or any of the other rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the Connecticut River. The maps published since the treaty of 1783 may bear the marks of partiality, and have been modified in conformity with the pretensions of either party. No such bias could affect those that were published in Great Britain between the years 1763 and 1783. There was no motive that could influence Geographers to deviate from the true and obvious meaning of the acts of Great Britain which had established the Boundaries of her new and old Provinces. A solitary map, even though belonging to that epoch, contradicted, perhaps, by others, would be no authority. But if all the maps published in England, during that period, and in which the Boundaries of the Province of Quebec, as established by the acts of Great Britain, are delineated, (c) do agree in that respect, it will be a conclusive proof that the meaning of the acts, in reference to that Boundary, was so clear and obvious that they were universally understood in the same manner. All the maps of that period, on which the southern Boundary of the province of Quebec is laid down, and which, after a diligent search, both in England and America, have been obtained, accompany this Statement. (d) Some maps may have escaped notice, but not a single one has been omitted that has come within the knowledge of the American Government. The maps thus collected are the following, viz: No. 1. T. Kitchen's British Dominions in North America, &c. engraved for Dodsley's Annual Register of 1763. 2. T. Kitchen's British Dominions in North America, &c. engraved for Captain John Knox's History of the War in America, and annexed to his Historical Journal of the Campaigns in North America. London, 1769. 3. British Empire in North America, &c. annexed to Wynn's History of the British Empire, &c. London, 1770. 4. J. Palairet's North America, with Improvements, &c. by Delarochette. London, 1765. 5. J. Ridge's British Dominions in North America, &c. annexed to a complete History of the late War, &c. Dublin, 1766. (b) Let it also be observed that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia must have necessarily been understood to be north of the main River St. John; since the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs, being more north-west than any point south of that river on the due north line from the source of the River St. Croix, would have been the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, had the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec extended from the said western extremity to any point south of the main river St. John. (e) This Boundary having been established only in 1763, could not be exhibited, and does not appear, in Mitchell's Map which was published in 1755. (d) Topographical Evidence, Printed Maps. 6. North and South America, by the American Traveller, annexed to the "American Traveller," &c. London, 1769. 7. North America and West Indies, with the opposite Coasts, &c. London, 1775. (Jeffery's Atlas.) 8. North America improved from D'Anville, with divisons by P. Bell, engraved by R. W. Seale.-London, 1771. 9. P. Bell's British Dominions in North America, &c. 1772, annexed to "History of British Dominions in North America, &c. in fourteen books."London, 1773. 10. S. Dunn's British Empire in North America.-London, 1774.-(Jeffery's Atlas.) 11. D'Anvill's North America, improved with English Surveys, &c.-London, 1775.-(Jeffery's Atlas.) 12. E. Bowen and J. Gibson's North America, &c.-London, 1775.-(Two sheets, Jeffery's Atlas.) 13. Sayer and Bennett's Province of Quebec, &c.-London, 1776.-(Jeffery's Atlas.) 14. Seat of War in the Northern Colonies, &c.-London, 1776, annexed to the American Military Pocket Atlas. 15. North America, &c. corrected from the materials of Governor Pownall, M. P.-London, 1777.-(Jeffery's Atlas.) 16. Continent of America, &c. corrected from the materials of Governor Pownall. London, 1777. 17. W. Faden's British Colonies in North America, 1777. 18. North America from the latest discoveries, 1778; engraved for "Carver's Travels."-London, 1778 and 1781. 47. T. Jeffery's Nova Scotia, &c.—London, 1775. (e) The identity of the Highlands which form the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec, with those which are claimed by the United States as their Boundary, will appear evident on the first inspection of those maps. It strengthens the proofs derived from them, that many differ from each other in several irrelevant particulars The River Penobscot is laid down, in some, as the western Boundary of Nova Scotia; in others, where the river called St Croix is made the Boundary, the name is given to different rivers, to those now known as the Magaguadavic, the Scoodic, and the Cobscook. The course of the line drawn from the source of the St. Croix to the Highlands, is not the same in all, being generally due north, but, in some, west of north; and, in one instance, a crooked instead of a straight line. That line, in most of the maps, crosses no other waters but those of the river St. John, and its tributary streams; (f) while, in others, it also crosses some upper branches of rivers that empty themselves into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The Boundary from that line eastward, in some of the maps, reaches the Bay des Chaleurs, by passing north of, and leaving on the right, the river Ristigouche: in others, it extends along the dividing ridge, to the source of that river, which is represented as a short stream, and then down the same to the Bay. But, in every instance, the course of the line from the source of the River St. Croix is northward; in every instance, that line crosses the River St John, and terminates at the Highlands in which the rivers that fall into the river St. Lawrence have (e) This map is the same with No. 46. with the difference only of the boundaries of the several Provinces which, in No. 47, are laid down, according to the Geographer's conception, in conformity with the Proclamation of 1763. (ƒ) This is also the case in Mitchell's Map. their sources; in every instance, the north-west angle of Nova Scotia is laid down on those Highlands, and where the north line terminates; in every instance, the Highlands, from that point to the Connecticut River, divide the rivers that fall into the River St. Lawrence, from the tributary streams of the River St. John, and from the other rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean. This universal understanding is easily accounted for. The description of the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec, in the Acts of the British Government, was in that respect, like that of the Bonndary of the United States by the treaty of 1783, expressed in terms so clear as to admit of no doubt, and to be susceptible of but one construction. What effect that universal understanding had on the framers of the treaty of 1783, will now be considered. Mitchell's map is acknowledged, by both parties, to have regulated the joint and official proceedings of the framers of the treaty of 1783: and it has already been observed that the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec, designated for the first time by the Proclamation of 1763, was not, and could not be, laid down on that map, which was published in the year 1755. This acknowledgment is founded on the testimony of the American Negotiators, taken at the time when the question "what" was the true River St. Croix, had, by virtue of the treaty of 1794, been submitted to a Joint Commission. The deposition. of John Adams states, that "Mitchell's map was the only map or plan which was used by the Commissioners at their public conferences, though other maps were occasionally consulted by the American Commissioners, at their lodgings." (g) In a letter to Lieutenant Governor Cushing, of Massachusetts, of the 25th of October, 1784, when Mr. Adams's recollections on the subject were quite fresh, he writes: "We had before us, through the whole negotiation, a variety of maps; but it was Mitchell's map upon which was marked out the whole of the Boundary Lines of the United States; and the River St. Croix, which we fixed on, was upon that map the nearest river to St. John's; so that, in all equity, good conscience, and honor, the river next to St. John's should be the Boundary." (g) One of the maps annexed to this statement, (No. 12,) that of Emanuel Bowen, published in 1775, is specially quoted in the Report of the Committee of Congress of the 16th August, 1782, (h) and was therefore in possession of the American Govern ment. The fact of other maps having been consulted by the American Ministers, is sufficient proof of their knowledge of what was universally understood by the Highlands prescribed as the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec. And it may be fairly inferred from the words, in the letter of Mr. Adams of October, 1784, "We had before us, through the whole negotiation, a variety of maps," &c. that those maps were before the Joint Negotiators. Yet it may be insisted that it is not in proof that the British Commissioners were acquainted with any other map than that of Mitchell. On the supposition that the British Government selected, for the purpose of treating with the American Commissioners respecting Boundaries, men who had never seen, and, on that occasion, did not examine any of the numerous maps of America published during the twenty next preceding years; on the supposition that those Negotiators had no knowledge of such familiar collections as Jeffery's American Atlas, or (g) Written Evidence, No. 23. Though the remark may be superflous, it may be observed that the fact of other maps having been consulted is mentioned by Mr. Adams for no particular purpose, and only in order to state the whole truth. The River St. Croix was, at that time, the only object of contention, and Mitchell's map was, in that respect, decisive in favor of the pretension of the United States, whilst several of the subsequent maps favored, as to that point, the British claim. (h) Secret Journals of Congress, Vol. 3, page 190. the American Military Pocket Atlas; on the supposition that having, almost throughout the treaty, adopted the Boundaries designated, and even the phraseology used in the Proclamation of 1763, they neglected to consult any of the maps in which the Boundaries were laid down in conformity with that Proclamation; on the supposition that the same unaccountable carelessness existed in the British Cabinet, to whom the case is proved to have been specially referred more than once; on these suppositions, but on these alone, may it be pretended that the British Negotiators were ignorant of the universal understanding respecting the southern Boundary of the Province of Quebec, and unaware of its connection with the Boundary established by the treaty of 1783. Even on such supposition, it has already been shewn, and further arguments might be adduced to the same effect, that Mitchell's map is sufficient to establish what Highlands were intended by the Proclamation of 1763, and by the treaty of 1783. The Provisional Articles of Peace between Great Britain and the United States had been signed on the 30th of November, 1782. The Boundaries then agreed on are, without any alteration, the same as those of the definitive treaty concluded on the 3d day of September, 1783. During the interval that elapsed between the signing of the preliminaries and of the definitive treaty, four maps of the United States were published in London, one of which, at least, (Bew's,) appears to have been intended as illustrative of the Debates in Parliament on the subject of the Boundaries, viz: No. 19. Sayer and Bennet's United States of America with the British Possessions, &c. London, 9th February, 1783. 20. Bew's North America, &c. (or Rebel Colonies, now United States,) en- 21. J. Wallis' United States of America, &c. London, April, 1783. These maps are an evidence of the contemporaneous understanding of the Boundaries of the United States, according to the preliminaries. In all of them those Boundaries are laid down as now claimed by the United States, and are the same with those delineated in the preceding maps, as the Boundaries of the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia. Seven other maps of the same character, published during the same and the ensuing year, afford additional proof of that understanding; (k) and evidence is not wanting that it continued to prevail in England for many subsequent years. (1) No contradictory evidence has been adduced, unless some lately communicated by the British Government should be intended to shew that the Government of Quebec had been there understood to extend beyond the basin of the River St. Lawrence. It consists, first, of some private sales and leases of two seigneuries or fiefs, formerly granted by the French Government of Canada, one of which is situated on the River St. Lawrence, and the other, on one of the upper branches of the River St. John; 2dly, of a notice in the Quebec Gazette, of the year 1765, respecting the encroachments of inhabitants of Canada on the hunting grounds of the Indians on the River St. John. The total irrelevancy of that evidence might easily be shewn; but it seems more proper to reserve the reply, till after the object of the evidence shall have been fully explained. It is sufficient here to observe, that those obscure transactions, certainly unknown to the framers of the treaty of 1783, could have had no effect on their understanding of the Boundaries of the British Provinces. It is believed that the intentions of the framers of the treaty of 1783, and their understanding, as well of the former limits of the British Provinces as of those agreed on by the treaty, have now been made manifest; and that it has been established in the most satisfactory manner, that the Boundary claimed by the United States is not less in perfect accordance with the intention and spirit, than with the letter of the treaty. 2 5 The British Line inconsistent with, and in direct opposition to the terms of the Treaty. It was not the object of the inquiry, and it has not been attempted, to refute various objections which have been urged on the part of Great Britain, before the late commission under the 5th article of the Treaty of Ghent. It is presumed that those on which the British Government mean to insist, will appear in their first statement; and the answer will find its proper place in the reply of the United States. The acts of the two powers, or of the local governments, and the opinions which may have been expressed by any of their officers, in relation to the contested Territory, since the treaty of 1783, can, at best, be adduced but by way of illustration. They can throw no light on the intentions of the framers of the treaty of 1783; they cannot impair the rights of either party that are derived from the express and explicit provi sions of the treaty. To shew what were, in fact, those intentions, and their perfect agreement with the line claimed by the United States, and to demonstrate that their right to the contested territory is conclusively established by the terms of the treaty, are the sole objects of this statement. From these it is not desirable to divert the attention, to points of very subordinate importance, which, for the present at least, will not be taken into consideration. It remains, therefore, only to examine the Boundary line claimed by Great Britain, and to state the objections to it by the United States. These may, indeed, be easily anticipated, since the arguments in support of the line, contended for by America, were of such nature as to shew, not only that it accorded, but that no other line could be consistent with the treaty. 1. The north-west angle of Nova Scotia is declared, by they treaty, to be formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix River to the Highlands, which said Highlands are declared to divide those rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean; and the treaty further declares the eastern Boundary of the United States to be, a line drawn "from the source of the River St. Croix directly north, to the aforesaid. Highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the River St. Lawrence." The United States accordingly contend, that the north-west angle of Nova Scotia can be found only at some point of the said due north line, and at that point only where the said line intersects the Highlands which divide the rivers aforesaid; that the said north-west angle is, therefore, determined to be at the point of intersection of the said north line, with the Highlands in which the rivers that fall into the River St. Lawrence have their sources; and that the said north-west angle thus determined, is, and can be no where else than at the place on the said north line, about 144 miles due north from the source of the River St. Croix, where the said line intersects the ridge or Highlands, which divide the waters of a tributary stream of the river St. Lawrence, (presumed to be the river Metis,) from the upper branches of the River Ristigouche, which falls into the Atlantic Ocean. On the other hand it is contended, on the part of Great Britain, that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is to be found, at a point on the said north line, about forty |