on foreign affairs in recommending that the president be advised to express to the arbiter the assent of the United States to the determination reached by him and consent to the execution of the same. He was also of the opinion that the government of the United States, declining to be bound by the king's award, ought to open a negotiation with Great Britain with reference to a settlement of the boundary controversy.'

Mr. Sprague, on the following day, spoke at greater length than Mr. Clay. He contended, as did Mr. Clay, that the king of the Netherlands had given no decision upon the matters submitted to him, and that his opinion and recommendation with reference to the boundary was not binding upon the United States. The report of the committee on foreign affairs, in effect, had made that concession in its report. Referring to the terms of the treaty of 1783, the speaker showed that the arbitrator, without even professing to answer the questions submitted to him, had only recommended the substitution of a new boundary. Against such a new delimitation, the State of Maine had protested; and he proceeded to argue that the government of the United States had no constitutional authority to adopt new lines of demarcation in the disputed territory without the consent of the State of Maine. This, he said, she has never yielded. "Have now considerations of expediency been invoked? Well, as senators, the answer is, Our faith is plighted to the State of Maine to preserve inviolate the integrity of its soil, and to vindicate the sacredness of the persons of its inhabitants. But will not war be the consequence of a refusal to accede to this advisory opinion of the arbitrator?" Mr. Sprague did not believe it. He could not think that Great Britain would go to that extent for a cause so grossly unjust, for a pretension so recent, so utterly baseless. This subject, he said, should not be discussed as presenting a question of peace or war, or even a matter of general expediency. Maine stands modestly, but firmly, upon her rights. She asks nothing more-she can accept nothing less.

1Congressional Debates, 1831-1832, VIII, Part I, 1412-1418.

In this connection Mr. Sprague alluded to the recent resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Maine in secret session as impairing the force of Maine's appeal on the ground of her rights. He was apprehensive, he said, that this action by the Legislature might weaken her cause. Nor did he believe it represented the settled views of the people of Maine. "Let me assure you," he said, "that the change of views and feelings indicated by the secret proceedings of the Legislature, so far from meeting a harmonious response from their constituents, have been received by a general, if not universal, note of popular disapprobation. Sir, the people of Maine have never authorized or assented to any suggestion of a relinquishment of any portion of their soil, or of their fellowcitizens; and from their character, their history, as well as the strong recent demonstrations of their feelings and opinions, I am confident they never will.'1

The resolution under discussion, it will be remembered, was as follows: "That the Senate advise the President to express to his Majesty the King of the Netherlands the assent of the United States to the determination made by him, and consent to the execution of the same." Several amendments were offered during the progress of the debate. The first of these, made by Mr. Holmes on June 12th, proposed to add, after the word "Resolved," the following, "two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein." This amendment was adopted. Again on the 16th, it was moved by Mr. Mangum to amend the resolution offered by the senate committee on foreign relations by striking out all after the word "Resolved," and to insert two resolutions as follows:

"(1) That the Senate advise the President to communicate to his Majesty the King of the Netherlands that the United States decline to 'adopt' the boundary recommended by his Majesty as being 'suitable' between the dominions of his Britannic Majesty and the United States."

"(2) That the Senate advise the President to open a new negotiation with his Britannic Majesty's government for the ascertainment of the boundary

1Congressional Debates, 1831-1832, VIII, Part I, pp. 1399–1412.

between the possessions of the United States and those of the King of Great Britain on the northeastern frontier."

A division of the question was ordered and the amendment to strike out all after the word "Resolved," in the resolution offered by the senate committee on foreign relations, was carried by a vote of 35 to 8, Mr. Tazewell, chairman of the senate committee, being one of the minority. So satisfactory was this action, apparently, that the Senate, on motion of Mr. Holmes, adjourned without proceeding to the question then recurring on inserting the proposed amendment.

No further action was taken until June 21st. Other amendments were then proposed, among them one by Mr. Clayton, adding at the end of the first resolution the words: "Because, in the opinion of the Senate, the King of the Netherlands has not decided the question submitted to him, touching the northern and northeastern boundary of the United States." This amendment was carried by a vote of 24 to 14. Other proposed amendments were defeated. One of these, offered by Mr. Webster, showed that the Massachusetts senator was in agreement with Mr. Clay in reference to the Senate's action. His amendment was as follows: "That having respectfully considered the message of the President of the United States, of December 7, 1831, transmitttng the opinion of the King of the Netherlands in relation to the northeastern boundary of the United States, for the consideration of the Senate, whether it will advise a submission to that opinion, and consent to its execution, the Senate is not of opinion that this is a case in which the Senate is called on to express any opinion, or give any advice to the President." The amendment failed of adoption by a vote of 17 to 26. The question of inserting the first resolution as amended was then decided in the affirmative, yeas 21, nays 20.

On June 23rd, while the second resolution was under consideration, an amendment was adopted, proposed by Senator Sprague, of Maine, adding at the close of the resolution the following words: "according to the treaty of peace of 1783." It was then

h