Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the River St. Croix, by the said river to its source, and by a line drawn due North Imentions. from thence, to the Southern boundary of our Colony of Quebec; and, to the Northward, by the said boundary, so far as the Western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs." (b)

By the Commissions of the Governors of the Province of Quebec, from 1763 to 1774, the Southern boundary of that Province was described as a line which, “ crossing the River St. Lawrence and the Lake Champlain in forty-five degrees of northern latitude, passes along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said River St. Lawrence from those which full into the sea, and also along the North Coast of the Bay des Chaleurs.And in the Commissions of Governor Carleton, of 27th December, 1774, and of that granted, on the 18th of September, 1777, to Frederick Haldimand, who was still Governor in November, 1782, and September, 1783, the said Province is, in conformity with the Quebec Act of 1774, declared to be “bounded on the South, by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea, to a point in 45 degrees in Northern latitude, on the Eastern bank of the River Connecticut.(c)

The North-west angle of Nova Scotia had thus been determined in express terms, for the twenty next preceding years, and continued to be, at the date of the treaty of peace, at the intersection of a line drawn due North from the source of the River St. Croix, and of the dividing highlands abovementioned.

The said angle. is accordingly in the treaty of 1783 referred to, as a point already determined: it is, as such, made the point of departure in the description of the boundaries of the United States: and the two lines by which it is declared to be formed are those which, by those previous public acts of Great Britain, had been respectively prescribed, and then continued to be the Western boundary of Nova Scotia and the Southern boundary of the Province of Quebec.

That identity of the North-west angle of Nova Scotia, as previously established by the British Government, with the North-west angle described by the treaty of 1783, has heretofore been contended for, in the most strenuous manner, by Great Britain. Referring, in proof, to the several extracts from the arguments of the British Agent, before the Commissioners under the 5th Article of the Treaty of 1794, (d) we will only quote his concluding words. “If we now compare this angle with the North-west angle of Nova Scotia described in the treaty of Peace, can it be believed, ...

that ...

so exact a coincidence could have happened between the actual, real boundaries of the Province of Nova Scotia, and the boundaries of it described in this treaty, if the latter had not been dictated and regulated by the former?”

The British Commissioner under the late commission, though attempting to draw another inference, acknowledges also, that the words “highlands, which divide," &c. used in the treaty, were taken from the Proclamation of 1763, and that the proclamation was the prototype of the treaty. (e)

The Southern boundary of the Province of Quebec was, at the date of the treaty, according to the previous public acts of Great Britain, the Northern boundary both of Nova Scotia and of New England. In defining the boundary between Great Britain and the United States, the North-west angle of Nova Scotia became of course the point of departure along the highlands, instead of the Western extremity of the Bay des

[ocr errors]

(b) Written Evidence, No 15.
(c) Written Evidence, No. 21.

(d) Written Evidence, No. 35.
(c) Written Evidence, No. 53, page 375

Crtentions Chalcurs; and the correction in the Westerly termination of that line on the River

Connecticut has already been adverted to. In other respects, the line along the highLands is described in the same terms, in all the previous public acts of Great Britain, and in the treaty, with no other alteration than the substitution of the words “ Atlantic Ocean," to the word "Sea."

The term “Atlantic Ocean” is more appropriate in this case than that of “Sea," but, as applied to the American shores, both have the same meaning.

It has been demonstrated, by reference to various public acts emanating from Great Britain, that the term “ Atlantic Ocean," in its general and usual acceptation, embraces, as well as that “ Sea,” the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence: and this is the only important point in the discussion.

It has been shewn that that term, in the Commissions of the Governors of the British Provinces, subsequent to 1783, and the term “Sea,” in the similar documents of a date prior to that year, are used, and must necessarily be understood, in the same sense.

Those two terms are used as synonymous, by the British Agent, in a passage of the argument which has just now been referred to, viz: rivers " which fall into the Sea or Atlantic Ocean;" (S) by the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, (T. Carleton) who, when referring to the Quebec Act, where the word Sea is used, uses the words Atlantie Ocean; (8) and in the Proclamation of 1763 itself, as bas already been shewn in the First American Statement. (h)

It may, with great propriety, be added, that admitting the highlands described in the Proclamation of 1763, and the Quebee Act of 1774 to be identic with those now claimed by the United States, had it been the intention of the treaty of 1783 to substitute other highlands, one hundred miles further South, and not dividing from any other rivers those that fall into the River St. Lawrence, it is preposterous to suppose that the mode resorted to, for effecting that purpose, would have been simply to substitute the term " Atlantic Ocean” to the term “ Sea.”

From this identity of the Northern boundary line of the United States, with the Southern boundary of the Province of Quebec, important inferences are deduced, which leave no doubt as to the true intentions of the parties.

The line prescribed by the treaty, was a confirmation of that established in 1763, at which time the natural object must have been, to assign to the new Province that portion of territory, till then claimed by Great Britain, as part of the provinces of Massachusetts' Bay and Nova Scotia, which lies on the South side of the River St. Lawrence, and is watered by its tributary streams. The object could not have been, at that time, when Massachusetts was part of the British dominions, to secure, without passing through it, a direct communication between Quebec and Nova Scotia. And this again affords a peremptory answer to the observation in the British Statement, that it is incredible that Great Britain should have “consented to place the United States in entire possession of the only practicable line of communication between her two Provinces.”

As the Bay of Fundy is not mentioned in either the Proclamation of 1763, or the Quebec Act of 1774, there is not even a pretence, on the ground assumed on the part of Great Britain, that the River St. John was, in those public acts, excepted from the rivers falling into the sea, intended to be divided by the highlands from those which fall into the River St. Lawrence. And such an exception, therefore, could not have been intended by the framers of the treaty of 1783, who did not define a new line,

(f) Written Evidence, No.35, page 271.
(8) Written Evidence, No. 59, and British Evidence, No. 32.

k) Written Evidence, No. 17, page 167.

but only confirmed and established the boundary already designated by the Proclama- Intenti »n«. tion and the Quebec Act.

The mention made of the Bay des Chaleurs in the public acts of 1763 and 1774, and of its Western extremity, in the Commissions of the Governors of Nova Scotia, as being the Eastern extremity of the Southern boundary of the Province of Quebec, determines beyond doubt the position and course of the dividing highlands, which form that boundary. And the situation of the Western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs, as laid down in Mitchell's Map, determines also that of the North-west angle of Nova Scotia on the North side of the River St. John, since it renders it mathematically impossible that that angle should be at any point, South of that river, of the line drawn due North from the source of the River St. Croix.

The description of the dividing highlands is, in those acts of the British Government, as well as in the treaty of 1783, expressed in terms so clear, that, at a time when there was no motive for distorting their natural meaning, there was no doubt on the subject; and they uniformly received that construction of which alone they are susceptible.

In all the maps, accordingly, published in Great Britain, between the years 1763 and 1783, on which the Southern boundary of the Province of. Quebec is laid down, the North-west angle of Nova Scotia is placed at a point on the North line from the source of the River St. Croix, North of the River St. John; and the Southern boundary of that Province, from that point to the Connecticut River (i) divides 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..

Several observations in the British Statement, and those in No. 44 of the Appendix, render it necessary to give some further explanations of the inferences which may be drawn from that universal understanding, with respect to the intentions of the framers of the treaty of 1783.

Since Mitchell's Map is declared, by the convention of 1827, and must be held as conclusive evidence of the topography of the country, as understood by the nego-tiators in 1783, other maps, though of a subsequent date, cannot be adduced as evidence of the intentions of those negotiators, in opposition to the topographical features of the country as laid down in that map; and those in question are not brought forward, even for the purpose of illustrating any feature whatever of the topography of the country.

Greenleaf's Statistical Account and map, and Pownall's Topographical Description, have been resorted to, on the part of Great Britain, for the express purpose of throwing light on an important topographical feature, viz: “ the intended highlands.” Hale's map has also been offered, to elucidate the position of a certain grant of land, in order thereby to prove that, in the year 1789, the Lake branch of the River Connecticut was acknowledged by the State of New Hampshire to be “the Connecticut River.”

It is for a purpose similar to this last instance that the above mentioned maps have been produced. The boundary of the Province of Quebec, defined for the first time in 1763, could not be delineated on a map published in 1755. A boundary line, designated by a public act, is not a topographical feature of the country; and the maps in question are adduced only in order to shew what had been, between the years 1763 and 1783, the general understanding respecting the position, in reference to the rivers as they are laid down in Mitchell's Map, of a boundary established subsequent to the date of that map. For that purpose they are clearly admissible, in conformity with the convention of 1827; and it will not be denied, that, in the total absence of any

(1) There may be, in some of those maps, occasional and trifling discrepancies, evidently crrors of the oopier or engraver, which do not affect their general scope.

Intentions.

evidence whatever to the contrary, they are a conclusive proof of the universal understanding on that point, at least of the geographers and of the American negotiators, who, it is proved, did consult some of those maps.

The inferences to be thence deduced may, if she thinks it proper, be controverted on the part of Great Britain. They are submitted as necessarily flowing from the undeniable fact, that all the above mentioned maps, coincide with respect to the position of the North-west angle of Nova Scotia, and of the Southern boundary of the Province of Quebec.

It has been asserted in the First American Statement, and it is now repeated, Ist, that it is morally impossible that the British Government and negotiators should haye been unacquainted with all the maps of America published during the twenty next preceding years, and ignorant of their universal coincidence on the subject of the boundary in question; 2dly, that thus knowing the manner in which the boundary defined by the Proclamation of 1763 was understood, it is equally impossible to suppose that they should, in the description of the boundary contemplated by the treaty, have adopted precisely the same terms which had been used in the Proclamation and the Quebec Act, had it been their intention to designate a boundary essentially different from that so universally understood as having been intended by those public acts of Great Britain.

But if, after having adduced maps in support of the British claim, it has been found expedient, on discovering the uniform tenor of those produced by the United States, peremptorily to declare that “Great Britain altogether denies the authority of maps as proof in a case of contested limits,” (k) she cannot reject the authority of that of Mitchell, by which the framers of the treaty are acknowledged, by the convention of 1827, to have regulated their joint and official proceedings. This was the only map, published in England prior to the treaty, which had an official character. It appears, from the certificate on the face of it, to have been undertaken with the ap-. probation and at the request of the Board of Trade, and to have been chiefly composed from official documents in that office: for which reason, it was probably selected in preference to others of more modern date. (1) It is not in any respect, now that the question respecting the true St. Croix has been decided, more favorable to the American claim than any other. But, if it be recollected that it has been asserted, in the British Statement, “that the extreme obscurity and confusion,”' &c., in relation to the boundaries, “added to the very imperfect topographical knowledge then had of the interior of the country, .

rendered it absolutely impossible for the framers of the treaty of 1783” to lay down the several points and lines of the boundary with” sufficient accuracy; the vast advantage will immediately be perceived of having at least one map, mutually acknowledged to be conclusive evidence of the topography of the country, as it was understood by the framers of the treaty, and by which, comparing it with the terms of that instrument, the true intentions of those ministers may be ascertained; and to this map alone, independent of any subsequently published, and even setting aside every other evidence that may elucidate the subject, we will now appeal, as the proper test of those intentions.

The boundaries of Nova Scotia and of New England are, on that map, extended to the North as far as the River St. Lawrence; and a line drawn due North to that river, from the source of the River St. Croix, is distinctly delineated as the boundary between Nova Scotia and New England, under which last denomination are included the old Province of Main, and Sagadahoc, or the territory lying between that Province and Nova Scotia. This has already been adduced as one of the proofs

.

(k) British Appendix, No. 44. (l; It is in proof that the map was, for the purposes of the treaty, brought from England by the Commissioners. --Written Evidence, No. 23.

of the manner in which the chartered boundaries of Massachusetts’ Bay, were, prior Intentiom. to the cession of Canada, understood by Great Britain; of her total disregard of the French claims South of the St. Lawrence, and of the consequent irrelevancy of the Canadian origin of the Fief of Madawaska to any question of boundary between her and the United States.

With respect to the intentions of the framers of the treaty, this map has also enabled us to shew:

Ist. That it was known to them that the due North line must; within a short distance from the source of the River St. Croix, cross branches of the River St. John, and leave within the United States the territory West of the said line, which is watered by those branches..

2dly. That the territory which the United States would have gained, if the River St. John had been the boundary line of the two nations, is, according to that map, larger than the territory which they now claim beyond that river..

Sdly. That, by the highlands, at which the said due North line was to terminate, they could not have meant any hill, considerable elevation, or mountain, situated South of the River St. John ; since there is no trace on the map, on or near that line, of any hill or mountain ; and they could not, by any other means within their reach, have known whether any would be found on or near the said North line, South of the River St. John.

4thly. That they could not, by the said highlands, at which the due North line must terminate, have meant a “generally mountainous country;" since no such country is laid down on the map along or within forty miles East or West of the said line; whilst a mountainous country, commencing forty miles West of it, and extending thence Westwardly, is distinctly delineated; and, if it had been intended that the line drawn from the source of the River St. Croix should meet that country, it must necessarily have been defined in the treaty, as a West, and not as a due North line.

But the important fact indisputably established by Mitchell's Map is, that the framers of the treaty had a knowledge of the topography of the country, amply sufficient, whatever their intentions might be with respect to the boundary, to enable them to describe it with great correctness, in reference to the rivers..

The great River St. John, which is the principal feature of the interior and least explored portion of the country, is laid down by Mitchell with considerable accuracy, both as to course and distance, from the place where it is intersected by the due North line, to its Northernmost and Westernmost sources. And the boundaries respectively claimed by the two parties, if traced on his, would not materially differ from those delineated on Map A.

It was, therefore, perfectly well known to the negotiators, that the River St. John penetrated one hundred and twenty miles West of the due North line, and that, for the whole of that distance, the territory watered by that river and its several branches, lay between the sources of the tributary streams of the River St. Lawrence, and those of the Rivers Penobscot and Kennebec;. so as to render it absolutely impossible for any line, drawn from any point of the due North line South of the River St. John, to divide for that distance, from any other river whatever, any river: emptying itself into the River St. Lawrence.

As it was likewise manifest, by Mitchell's Map, and, therefore, also well known to the framers of the treaty, that any such line drawn, from any point of the due North line, towards the sources of the River Connecticut, must necessarily, through threefifths of its course, either intersect branches of the River St. John, or divide them at their sources from some other rivers; it is, in the first place, altogether incomprehensible, that, in describing such line, that is to say, the boundary extending from the ter-.

« AnteriorContinuar »