been anticipated had been taken by the British agent, he said, but because reference had been made to documents not before the commissioners previously, and particularly papers which were understood by the agents to have been withdrawn at the request of his Britannic Majesty.'

Other memorials followed, and on August 14, 1821, the board. adjourned to the 20th of September, when more memorials were presented and read. On September 27th there were added arguments, and also on the 29th. At the meeting on October 2nd, the commissioners passed an order that all the reports and plans alluded to in the memorials of September 26th, 27th, and 29th, should be filed by the secretary except the two general maps, and it was added: "On the subject of the said general maps no order allowing them to be filed is made as the commissioners differ in opinion, Commissioner Barclay being in favor of allowing the general map presented by his Majesty's agent to be filed and of excluding that presented by the agent of the United States; and Commissioner Van Ness being of the opinion that both of said general maps ought to be filed, or neither of them. On the ques

tion of going into an examination at this time of the surveyors, under oath, the commissioners differ in opinion, Commissioner Barclay being in favor of that course and Commissioner Van Ness against it.""

2

This record in the journal foreshadowed the hopelessness of any agreement on the part of the commissioners of the two governments. With only a deadlock in prospect, argument had become a weariness. Under these circumstances the board adjourned October 4, 1821, to meet in the city of New York on the first Monday in April, 1822.

At this adjourned meeting some time was spent in examining accounts, etc. On April 13th the commissioners filed notes in 1Manuscript Journal of Proceedings, State Library, 239, 240.

2 Ib., 304.

3 Ib., State Library, 309.

which October 21, 1821, they had recorded their differing opinions, and which were now placed in the journal of the proceedings of the commission. Colonel Barclay, on the question as to the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, took the position that the point ought to be established at or near Mars Hill, about forty miles on a due north line from the source of the St. Croix River and about thirty-seven miles south of the river St. John. On the question as to the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River be was of the opinion that it is at the northwesternmost stream which empties into the third lake of the Connecticut River, north of the forty-fifth degree of north latitude. Mr. Van Ness was of the opinion that the northwest angle of Nova Scotia ought to be fixed at a place one hundred and forty-four miles due north from the source of the river St. Croix and about sixty-six miles north of the river St. John. On the question as to the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut River, he was of the opinion that the head should be established at the head of the west branch of Indian Stream.

On the same day the commissioners, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of Ghent, delivered to the agents of the respective governments duplicates of their reports, accounts and proceedings, and these were transmitted to the two governments interested.

It was in order that the commissioners might have time for the preparation of these reports that the board adjourned October 4, 1821. The reports are on file in the office of the secretary of state in Washington, but as yet they have not been published in full. The disagreement of the commissioners was not unexpected, but it was disappointing. Mr. Adams regarded it as unfortunate, as it made a settlement of the boundary controversy more difficult than ever. The report of the British commissioner, he said, was a labored attempt to support the position taken by the British agent, "in which ingenuity maintains an endless argument against common sense." Mr. Gallatin, who had occasion 1 American State Papers, V, 526.

1

to examine the reports carefully, considered that of Mr. Van Ness as "conclusive and remarkably well-drawn," while he characterized that of Colonel Barclay as "scandalous." Mr. Gallatin's mention of the argument of the British agent, Mr. Chipman, was even more severe, declaring it "a tissue of unfounded assertions and glaring sophistry." Ganong, admitting the rightfulness of the American claim as based on the description of the boundary in the treaty of 1783, and therefore finding no ground for identifying Mars Hill with the highlands of the treaty, objects to Mr. Gallatin's use of the words "unfounded assertions" as too harsh, Mr. Chipman being considered as very careful in his "statement of fact." As to the "sophistries," however, he frankly says the judgment is correct. "Chipman did indulge in sophistries, but it was that or nothing. He was an advocate with a very weak case to defend." He had no case whatever, and was using his "wits," allowing "his imagination free play" in the endeavor to make a case.1

With the filing of the reports of the commissioners, the long, laborious and expensive work of the commission came to an end, and the commissioners, having entered upon the journal their failure to agree, voted to adjourn, subject, however, "to the pleasure of the two governments whether in any event to hold any further meetings or perform any further services."2 Further services were not requested.

1Boundaries of New Brunswick, Proceedings of Royal Society of Canada, 1901-1902, 330.

2 Manuscript Journal of Proceedings, State Library, 315-320.

M

CHAPTER VI.

MAINE ENTERS THE BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY.

AINE became a member of the Federal Union March 15, 1820, in accordance with an act of Congress passed on March 3rd. Next to the general government, Massachusetts hitherto had manifested the deepest interest of any of the states in the boundary controversy. This was because of her geographical position, and her vigilance in matters pertaining to her territorial rights. Maine, now, took the place of Massachusetts, exhibiting soon even a keener interest in the contest than the old commonwealth.

While Maine was still a part of Massachusetts something already had been accomplished in bringing American settlers into the Madawaska region. September 5, 1818, a French resident at Madawaska informed the New Brunswick authorities that several American families from the Kennebec River had made their way thither and established themselves, claiming that they were within the jurisdiction of the United States and not that of New Brunswick. This letter came into the hands of the lieutenant governor of the province, who directed the attorney general to obtain more particular information. Accordingly, January 9, 1819, the informant was asked to obtain the names of American citizens, who during the past eight months had taken up their residence in the Madawaska settlement, or anywhere near it, "westward of the line of experiment lately run across the river St. John, and the particular places where they may have set themselves down." The reply under date of February 20, 1819, was as follows: "Captain Nathan Baker' came to Madawaska twelve months ago. 1American State Papers, VI, 849.

2 John Baker, another American who was to become more prominently identified with the beginnings of the American settlement in the Madawaska region, was a brother of Nathan Baker, and in 1820 followed him into that country and was connected with him in lumbering.

At that time he wished to introduce the laws of the States; brought a magistrate along with him from the States to form a corporation, and desired my concurrence. I told him I would have nothing to do with such matters before the line was settled between the British government and the States. I likewise told the rest of the French settlers to have nothing to do with him about such matters, which they did. In August last he brought his wife and family from Kennebec river, and took up his residence in the upper settlement of Madawaska, and built a house. In the beginning of October he began to lumber, and with five men took a range for wood through ten lots, on all of which there are settlers, and some of them established fifteen years ago, and have made considerable improvements. Some of the inhabitants forbade him to cut wood upon their lots; he said it did not belong to them, but to the States. He has already about ten or twelve hundred tons of timber, a great part of which I saw on the 19th of February, upon the banks of the river St. John on the north side. He appears to me to be a man who takes much upon him. In August last Captain Flecher came from the States and entered into partnership with him in the lumber trade. John Herford [Harford] came from the States with his wife and family at the same time, took up his residence in the upper settlement of Madawaska, built a house, and is carrying on improvements on his land. Likewise his son, George Herford, with his wife and family. . . . . In the last of September, Esquire Johnson's son, one of the American surveyors, made a survey upon the north side of the river St. John, beginning at the mouth of the Madawaska river, up to the river St. Francis; he measured the French settlement at the same time."'1

The first governor of Maine, William King,' lost no time in calling the attention of the members of the first Legislature of the state to boundary considerations. In his message opening the 1American State Papers, VI, 849, 850.

2 He was the third son of Richard King, of Scarborough, Maine, and was born in that town February 9, 1768. Early devoting himself to large business interests, he made his residence in Bath. During the war of 1812-15, without