Imágenes de páginas

most head of Con

Thus all the information that Mr. Tiarks could collect, in support of the British pretension, was, that the Lake Branch was called Connecticut, or the Main Connecticut River. necticut River, as early as the year 1790, that is to say, seven years subsequent to the date of the treaty of 1783.

The information was received from those persons who, as hunters, are the earliest explorators of the unsettled parts of the United States. And what renders Mr. Tiarks' account decisive, to prove that the Lake Branch had not been explored by the Americans, or at least was not called the Main Connecticut River, prior to the date to which he refers, (1790) is that he had no difficulty in finding, and that he states the name of Hall's Stream to be derived from a hunter of the name of Enoch Hall, that it had been generally known at least ever since the year 1780 by this name, and that a gentleman had informed him that he heard the name in the year 1772.

This last information was perfectly correct. In a letter from John Collins, the Surveyor appointed on the part of the Province of Quebec, to survey the division line between that Province and that of New York, dated “ Boundary on the Connecticut, October 1st, 1772,” he informs the Surveyor General of New York, that the line terminated (on Connecticut River) two miles and five-eighths of a mile above the mouth of Halil's Brook, ninety miles froin Lake Champlain. (9)

Dr. Tiarks' silence, with respect to the time when the other streams, viz: Indian Stream and Perry's Stream, first received their “particular well known names,” is a decisive proof that these names are of a later origin than the date of the Treaty. They are all English, and could only have been given by American settlers.

Governor Pownall, who wrote in 1775, states the highest settlement up the river, to be four miles above the Amanuseag, and about thirty miles South of the 45th parallel of North latitude. (r) The war with Great Britain, and, above all, the Indian hostilities, necessarily prevented the progress of settlement, till after the restoration of peace; and it is only subsequent to that epoch, that the upper branches of the river could have been settled, explored, or distinguished, by specitic names.

There is not a single map, published prior to the Treaty of 1783, in which those branches are laid down correctly. There is not a single one in which any trace can be found of the Connecticut Lakes, which particularly characterize the branch pretended to have been known at that time by the name of “Main Connecticut River.

C. R. Sauthier, one of the Surveyors who surveyed the boundary line between the Provinces of Quebec and New York, published, in the year 1779, a large map of the Province of New York, dedicated to Governor Tryon. In that map, which is compiled from authentic documents, the Northern boundary of the Province is laid down in exact conformity with the official survey of the line. (s) It will appear evident, on an inspection of the map, that the river had not been explored North of that boundary; and that the stream there represented as the principal upper branch, is Indian Stream. It is not improbable that this name was derived from the branch being the usual Indian path to the River St. Lawrence, and that, on that account, its position was better known than that of any of the other branches. Another remarkable circumstance is, that the branch itself is, on the map, designated by the name of • Head of Connecticut River.” If this map, therefore, was consulted, either by Congress in the year 1779, or by the framers of the Treaty of 1783, the inference seems unavoidable, that it was thence that that expression was borrowed, and that no branch, East of Indian Stream, was the head of Connecticut River contemplated in the instructions of Congress of August, 1779, or in the treaty.

The result of this inquiry, therefore, is, not only that no proof has been adduced,

(9) Written Evidence, No. 26, page 218.

(-) British Evidence, No. 40, page 294.
(8) Topographical Evidence Surveys, No. 30, and Engrared Map, No. 56.

North vestem that the Lake branch, or any other, was, at the time of the Treaty of 1783, exclusivenecticut River. ly distinguished by the name of Connecticut River, but that there is a strong proba

bility, that another than the Lake branch was contemplated as the North-westernmost head of Connecticut River.

The framers of the treaty could not, of course, have been acquainted with any distinctive name which was not in use, even in that part of the country, at the date of the treaty. But it must be observed, that the special objection to Hall's Stream rests on the supposition, that they knew that the main branch of the Connecticut River was already then distinguished by that name, at a place more than two miles above the mouth of that stream. And it is extremely improbable, that they should have been acquainted with that particular fact, the only proof of which was to be found in Sauthier's Map, (t) and in the unpublished Reports of the Surveyors, who had surveyed the boundary line, along the 45th parallel of North latitude, between the Provinces of New York and Quebec.

If reference is had to Mitchell's Map, as the proper test of the intentions of the framers of the treaty, it will be seen, that it only exhibits two main upper branches of the Connecticut, without any distinctive name; neither of which, either from its size, or from any other indication on the map, can be considered as exclusively entitled to the designation of the Connecticut River;" and that the negotiators, therefore, must have intended, as the North-westernmost head of that river, that source which would be found to lie North-west of any other, without any reference whatever to either of the branches, to the exclusion of the other.

There has never been any doubt on the question in America. The State of New Hampshire had the boundary surveyed in the year 1789, in conformity with the treaty; (u) and it is laid down accordingly in Carrigan's Map, published in 1816, (v) as well as in that of Hale, of a subsequent date; both of which have been adduced as evidence on the part of Great Britain. It could not indeed have been expected, that either the source of the main branch of the river, as such, or the North-easternmost head would ever be claimed as being the North-westernmost head of Connecticut River intended by the treaty.



& 11. Boundary Line The British Statement, on this branch of difference, calls only for two observafrom the Connecticut to the sc. tions. Lawrence.

1. The Astronomer of the United States thought it his duty to suggest every scientific consideration that appeared connected with the case: And their Agent, under the late commission, performed his, in submitting to the board all the observations which had thus been communicated to him.

The American Commissioner, for the reasons stated in his report, did not think it proper to express, at that time, any opinion on the questions relating to the surveys of any part of the boundary. The Government of the United States, without inquiring for what purposes and in what cases the figure of the earth renders a correction of the observed latitude necessary, concurs in the opinion, that the “geocentric latitude” having never been admitted in geography, the observed latitude, according to

(t) Engraved Maps, No. 56. In this Map, Hall's is called Elm Stream.
(u) Written Evidence, No. 52.
(v) Topographical Evidence. Surveys, No. 28.

which the latitude of places has been universally laid down in every map, and inserted Boundaty Line

. in every usual table heretofore published, can alone be appealed to in a question relating fence the St.Law. to the construction of a treaty.

2. There will be no practical difficulty in ascertaining the ancient boundary line if confirmed. It was surveyed as correctly as any of the other boundaries between the different States, and as can generally be done with the compass through a forest. It is known though its whole extent, having been for near sixty years the acknowledged boundary between the Province, or State of New York, and Canada; and the line which separates, from each other, the grants of land made in that quarter by the two Governments, from the Connecticut to the River St. Lawrence.

All which is respectfully submitted by the Undersigned, Agents of the United States in the negotiation, and upon the umpirage relating to the North-easter boundary of the said States.


[ocr errors]




Notes to the State It has been stated, that the Madawaska Fief appears much larger on the British Tran

ment. Madawaska Fier.

script of Map A, than it really is. This error has its origin in the terms of the first concession of the Fief, in the year 1683; (British Evidence, No. 13,) in which the Grant is for three leagues, along each of the two banks of the River Madawaska, near the River St. John, together with the lake called Cecemiscouata, and two leagues depth inland: whence it has been concluded, that there were also two leagues depth granted, around the Lake Temiscouata. But the Fief was sold, by virtue of a judgment in 1755, (British Evidence, No. 17.) And according to the sale, the adjudication was for the Fief of Madawaska, as containing three leagues in front, on each side of the river of the same name, by two leagues in depth, together with the whole extent of the Lake Cetemiscouata. In the Act of Faith and Homage, by P. Claverie, for the said Fief, in 1756, it is described as being on the river of the same name, situated near the River St. John, together with the Lake Cecemiscouata, adjacent thereto, (ensemble le Lac Cecemiskouta y joignant,) and as containing three leagues front, on each side of the said river of the same name, by two leagues in depth, not being able to state the extent of the said Lake Cecemiskouta. (British Evidence, No. 18.) The same expressions had been already used, in the Aveu et Denombrement of the year 1723. (British Evidence, No. 16.) Again, in the receipt for the domains and dues of the year 1756, the Fief is described as being on the river of the same name, together with the Lake Cecemiskouta, adjacent to the said Fief of Madawaska, and containing, &c. as in No. 18. (British Evidence, No. 19.) Finally, the Fief is described precisely in the same manner, in the Deed of Sale to James Murray, by the Representatives of P. Claverie, of 20th July,1763. (British Evidence, No. 20.) Wnatever then may have been the intent of the original concession of 1683, it is clear, that neither P. Claverie, nor James Murray, nor the present owner who claims under him, can claim more than was sold to the said Claverie, by the judicial sale of 1755, and by his representatives to J. Murray; that is to say, three leagues front by two leagues depth, on each side of the River Madawaska, and the Lake Temiscouata, adjacent thereto, but without any land around the said lake.



Governor Pow Speaking of the height of land between the Rivers Kennebec and Chaudiere (page 17), nall.

he declares himself to be totally uninformed “ of the nature and course of this highlaud in these parts;” ineaning clearly of the highland beyond that specified point, which he designates with great precision.

The source of the Kennebec, with which he was acquainted, he states (page 22) to be in “ the height of the land in North latitude 45° 20';" and the route which he had investigated to be that of Arnold and his people. The map A will shew that the branch of Kennebec to which he alludes, is the “ Dead River," the source of which is in the above mentioned latitude, and opposite to that branch of the Chaudiere, now called "6 Arnold River," from


Governor Poir.

his inarch. With the main north branch of the Kennebec, Governor Pownall was unac. Notes to the Statequainted : speaking of it, he says, “ The North Branch is said (I speak not here from the same degree of authority) to arise in and issue from a little pond,” &c. And he does not nall. even mention the largest and most remarkable lake of the whole country, viz: the Moose Head, or Moose Lake. His information, therefore, did not extend north of the Dead River, which, through its whole course, as will be seen by Map A, is more than 50 miles south of any part of the British line.

In relation to the Penobscot, he describes it correctly as high up as themouth of the Passadumkug River, (page 21.) With the same precision he states, the fork of two Branches, two miles and a half above the south-east branch, being that called on Map A, the Piscataquis River. With respect to the main or north branch, he only alludes to the Madawamkeag Indian town, as being six miles higher up, and speaks of the river as coming to this place, south-east about 16 miles from some ponds, whence it takes its source. This must be the Matawamkeg River ; and his information went no farther. He was entirely unacquainted with even the existence of the Main Penobscot, which extends thence, near ninety miles to its north-westernmost source, and with its main east branch, which runs northerly near 50 miles.

[ocr errors]


SURVEYS UNDER THE LATE COMMISSION. The line, drawn due north from the source of the River St. Croix, was surveyed during the years 1817 and 1818; viz: the first 99 miles as far as the River Ristigouche, in 1817, by the British Surveyor, Mr. Bouchette, and the American Surveyor, Mr. Johnson; the late Commis

Surveys under and the remainder to its termination on Beaver Stream, a tributary of the River St. Lawrence, 146 miles from its commencement, in 1818, by Mr. Johnson and the British Surveyor, Mr. Odell. (Reports—British Appendix, No. 10, pages 51, 54, 72, 77. American Appendix, No. 56, pages 404, 405, 406. Surveys, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 27.)

The northern extremity of the due north line, was again examined in 1820, by the British Astronomer, Dr. Tiarks, and the American Surveyor, Mr. Burnham. (ReportsBritish Appendix, pages 121 and 135.) And Mars' Hill, on the line, was again visited in 1819. by Mr. Odell, and by the American Surveyor, Mr. Partridge. (Reports—British Appendix, pages 88 and 96. American Appendix, pages 410 and 413. Survey, No. 5.)

Mr. Johnson visited, also, in 1818, Green Mountain, west of the due north line, and the Temiscouata Portage; which last place was also examined by Mr. Partridge, in 1819. (Reports-British Appendix, pages 77 and 95. American Appendix, pages 406 and 413. Surveys, Nos. 3 and 5.)

In the year 1819, Mr. Partridge and Mr. Odell ascended the River Ristook as high as its forks, and returned without having accomplished their object, which was to penetrate to the British line. (Reports-British Appendix, pages 97 and 89. American Appendix, page 410. Surveys, Nos. 6 and 7.)

In the same year, the American Surveyor, Mr. Hunter, ascended the River Aliguash to its source, crossed the British line at the Umbazucksus Portage, ascended the northwest branch of the Penobscot, from the Chesumcook Lake to its source, and descended the River to its confluence with the Matawamkeag. (Reports—British Appendix, page 106. American Appendix, page 414. Surveys, Nos. 8, 9, and 10.)

In the same year, the British Surveyor, Mr. Campbell, from the Schoodic proceeded to the Matawamkeag, thence, some distance up the Penobscot, and visited Mount Cathadin. (Reports-British Appendix, page 90. American Appendix, page 411.) Mr. Odell, and the American Surveyor, Mr. Loring, visited the same mountain, in 1820, and, proceeding up

the Penubscot, crossed the British line at the Umbazucksus Portage, but went no further than the Aphmoogene Lake, on the River Aliguash. The same portage was again visited, the same year, by Mr. Campbell, who, thence, descended the Aliguash to its mouth. (Reports—British Appendix, pages 113, 146, and 119. American Appendix, pages 416, 423, and 417. No Survey but that of Mr. Loring, Nos. 16 and 17.)


« AnteriorContinuar »