satisfactory settlement was to be obtained it must be in the nature of a compromise, with a suitable indemnity for Maine's sacrifices and with obvious international advantages. Having recently entered the Senate, Mr. Evans did not participate in the debate. At a dinner given to Lord Ashburton in the city of New York, September 1, 1842, however, replying to a toast in honor of Daniel Webster, Mr. Evans gave strong expression to his own convictions as to the services of the secretary of state in connection with the treaty, making mention of him as one who had "borne up the national honor and character and interests, in the laborious and arduous task assigned to him, in a manner of which I trust every American citizen will be proud."

A

CHAPTER XX.

THE TREATY IN MAINE.

S the treaty negotiations drew to a close, anxious interest was manifested in Maine with reference to the results reached. The Eastern Argus (Portland), July 8, 1842, mentioned a New York rumor "entitled to credit," that the boundary question had been settled. "It looks rather improbable," the Argus added. In the same paper, July 11th, reference was made to other rumors. It had been confidently stated, the Argus remarked, that a satisfactory arrangement had been made; and just as confidently, upon apparently as good authority, the reader was told that the statement had been denied. Preliminaries, it was suggested, had probably been arranged, which, if carried into effect, would be satisfactory to Maine; but nothing more could be affirmed. "If there should be no settlement, Maine will have done her duty nobly and honorably," was the added statement. It was suggested, however, that if a satisfactory settlement should be made, and the river St. John should become "the substantial line to the mouth, with its free navigation conceded, the arrangement will be worth millions." On July 15th, the Argus was still without more definite information, but it exhorted its readers to be patient, and give little heed to rumors, whether favorable or unfavorable. On the 18th, its faith in the diplomatic ability of the secretary of state was strong, and to strengthen the hearts of its readers these words were addressed to them: "We believe it will turn out that Mr. Webster has conducted our foreign negotiations with skill and industry and especially in the matter of the boundary, in which this State has so deep an interest." After more than a week of added watchful waiting, the 1New York Commercial Advertiser, July 5, 1842.

Argus was able, on July 27th, to inform its readers that the treaty had been signed. "Judge Preble arrived in town this morning, bringing this information," was the announcement. How much information concerning the terms of the treaty was disclosed by the newly arrived commissioner was not stated. "The treaty will now go the Senate," the editor added, "and if approved by twothirds of that body, the question will be settled. But if rejected, we shall have the ground to go over again." Hasty criticisms, based on rumors, were deprecated. Certain congressmen received this needed counsel: "We are sorry to see a premature agitation of the subject in the House of Representatives. The terms of the treaty should not be discussed by the members till acted upon by the Senate. If confirmed and appropriations shall become necessary in order to carry it into effect, as is intimated in well informed circles, the members of the House will then have an opportunity to censure or approve as they may deem proper; but till then they should do neither." The following wise words also were added: "We shall be sorry to see any attempt to make party capital out of this question. It is entirely national."

The Age (Augusta) informed its readers on July 15th that the latest rumors from various quarters concerning the treaty were believed to have no foundation, and the editor added: "We scarcely need repeat our often reiterated opinion that no agreement can be consummated upon the terms and conditions expressed by the Legislature of Maine during their late extra session, which terms and conditions are the only ones Maine can honorably accept." On July 29th, the Age announced that an agreement in relation to the boundary had been agreed upon. Great excitement, it stated, was manifested at Washington on Saturday, when the terms of the treaty were made known. "A letter, under that date, from an intelligent source, characterizes the feeling as amounting to 'exasperation.' Reference was made to the New York Herald

as claiming that the treaty would be rejected by a large vote; and the Age added: "We cannot hesitate to say, that unless it differs greatly from the newspaper accounts of it, it is not such a treaty

as Maine was entitled to or expected. It excites here, so far as we can learn, universal disappointment. . . . . . Momentous interests now hang upon the decision of the Senate. We trust that it will do its duty with a conscientious reference at once to the importance of settling a dangerous and exciting question, and to the honor and dignity of the country. We trust especially that it will yield no point of permanent national security for the sake of a temporary and delusive quiet.''

The Kennebec Journal (Augusta), also on July 29th, announced that the Maine commissioners had assented to an arrangement agreed upon by the negotiators of the treaty, citing the Washington correspondent of the New York Evening Post, who, writing to that paper July 23rd, stated that the commissioners signed the agreement on the evening of the 22nd. "The terms," it was added, "were attacked in the House this morning by Mr. Gwin,' of Mississippi, upon the strength of a mere rumor. He pronounced the treaty, if the rumor was true, disgraceful in the extreme, and he said with a flourish of trumpets that he would sooner go to war than sanction it. Mr. Fessenden,' of Maine, very promptly and very handsomely rebuked this interference from a distant representative, and assured him that Maine, her commissioners and her senators and representatives, could take care of the interests of Maine quite as well as a Mississippi representative.'

The Age (Augusta) continued to express its dissatisfaction with the treaty as reports concerning its provisions reached the state capital. The following appeared on August 5th: "We must still express our decided disapprobation of the terms of the treaty as yet understood, with the advantage of a fuller confidence that we express the opinion of this section of the State. Four-fifths, at

1 William M. Gwin, later United States senator from California.

2 William Pitt Fessenden, who began his congressional career in 1841 as a member of the House of Representatives.

This occurred in a debate on the army bill, and Mr. Black, of Georgia, was inclined to support Mr. Gwin.

least, of those we happen to see, denounce those terms, as they are reported to exist." A week later, August 12th, the Age had given some attention to the many who held other opinions and remarked: "We respect the judgment of that great body of intelligent men who approve the treaty, and we do not underrate the force of the arguments in its favor. But we believe nevertheless, and most conscientiously, that when all the British objects effected by it are understood, it will be universally denounced as a disastrous one."

The Kennebec Journal, on the same date, confirmed its earlier statement that the terms of settlement, made by the negotiators of the treaty, had received the assent of the Maine commissioners, representing equally both political parties in the State; and expressed disapproval of all efforts that had as their end the rejection of the treaty.

But opposition continued. The readers of the Age were asked on August 19th, if in view of all the circumstances the State of Maine had not been "most egregiously humbugged." At a meeting of the citizens of Leeds on August 22nd, resolutions were adopted denying the right of the United States, with or without the consent of Maine, to cede any portion of the State embraced within the boundaries described by the treaty of 1783. Among these resolutions was the following: "That we give our unswerving opposition to all men, of whatever political party, who shall in any way support any treaty purporting to insure peace at the expense of our soil and of our honor." The Kennebec Journal, August 24th, referring to this meeting, deprecated such public agitation. In its view it was no slight gain at least to have "a subject of vexation, excitement and expense to both the state and nation," at length at rest.

The ratification of the treaty by the Senate was known in Portland on August 24th, and on the 26th the treaty was printed in full in the Eastern Argus. It appeared in the Kennebec Journal on September 2nd, and in the Age on September 9th. Public agitation, however, did not cease. The treaty continued to be