Page images
PDF
EPUB

rence, called in the Treaties, Iroquois or Cataraguy,
or only the completion of the ancient provincial
surveys:
“ Considering,

“ That the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent of 1814 does not stipulate that such portion of the Boundaries as has not been surveyed already, shall be surveyed, but declares, that the Boundaries have not been surveyed, and determines that they shall

be so:

“ That in fact that survey from the Connecticut to the River St. Lawrence, called in the Treaties, Iroquois or Cataraguy, is to be considered as not having taken place between the two Powers; seeing that the ancient survey is found to be inaccurate, and that it had been ordered, not by the two Powers by common agreement, but by the ancient provincial authorities :

“ That in fixing a latitude, it is usual to follow the principle of observed latitude :

" And that the Government of the United States of America has raised certain fortifications at a spot called Rouse's Point, under the persuasion that the ground formed a portion of their territory, a persuasion sufficiently justified by the line reputed up to that time to correspond with the parallel of the 45th degree of north latitude: “ We are of opinion,

“ That it will be proper to proceed to new operations for the measurement of the observed latitude,

[ocr errors]

in order to trace the Boundary of the Connecticut
River along the parallel of the 45th degree of north
latitude, to the River St. Lawrence, called in the
Treaties, Iroquois or Cataraguy; in such manner,
however, as that in any case, at the spot called
Rouse's Point, the territory of the United States of
America shall extend to the fort there raised, and
shall comprise that fort, and a circle round it of one
kilometer radius (son rayon kilométrique).
“ Thus done, and given under our Royal Seal,

at the Hague, this tenth day of January,
in the year of our Lord One Thousand
Eight Hundred and Thirty-one, and the
Eighteenth of our Reign.
(Signed)

WILLIAM.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs,
(Signed) VERSTOLK DE SOELEN.”

On receiving this award the Minister or Chargé d'Affaires for the United States of America, at the Court of the King of the Netherlands, in his letter to the Baron Verstolk de Soelen, bearing date the 12th day of January, 1831 (See “Correspondence relating to the Boundary between the British Possessions in North America and the United States of America, under the Treaty of 1783, subsequently to the reference to Arbitration of the disputed points of Boundary under the Convention of the 29th September, 1827; and the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, with an Ap

H

66

pendix, presented to both Houses of Parliament, by command of Her Majesty, 1838,” pp. 1, 2, 3), protested against it on the ground that the Arbitrator had exceeded the power conferred upon him by abandoning altogether the Boundaries of the Treaty of 1783, and substituting for them a distinct and different line of demarcation.

As by the Constitution of the United States of America, the President has power only “by and ” with the advice and consent of the Senate to “make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators

present concur (Constitution of the United States of America, Art. 2, Sect. 2), he was under the necessity of referring this matter to the Senate, and the Senate refused to sanction the acquiescence, on the part of the President of the United States of America, to the award of the King of the Netherlands on the disputed territory (Correspondence, &c., No. 15). It will be superfluous to enquire how far the Senate was justifiable in coming to this conclusion. To account for the King of the Netherlands having taken upon himself the powers of a Mediator, it may be observed that, in the continental

systems of law, they have no term corresponding to the English term Arbitrator. The Arbitre of the French law is as strictly bound by the rules of law, even in forms of proceeding, as the public Judge is; whilst the Arbitrateur or Arbitrateur et Amiable Compositeur, as he is sometimes called, performs the functions of a Mediator, and his decision is final and conclusive between the parties upon the subject referred to him, without reference to legal forms or legal rights, The King of the Netherlands, doubtless, considered himself as vested with the powers of an Arbitrateur.

But, at the same time that the Senate of the United States determined to consider the decision referred to as not obligatory on the part of the United States, and refused to advise and consent to its being carried into effect, that body passed a resolution advising the Executive to open a new negociation with the British Government, for the purpose of determining the Boundary in question. This new negociation forms the next head of the present enquiry.

Before proceeding to the history of this negociation, it will be proper to examine the proceedings had by the Legislatures of Maine and Massachusetts relating to the Boundary in question, between the period of the making of the foregoing Convention of 1827, and the ultimate rejection of the award of the King of the Netherlands.

NEGOCIATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF GREAT

BRITAIN AND THAT OF THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA RESPECTING THE BOUNDARY IN QUES

TION.- PROPOSAL OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A

CONVENTIONAL LINE OF BOUNDARY.-NEGOCIA

TION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA WITH THE STATE OF MAINE, -FINAL

RESULT THEREOF.

At the same time that Mr. Livingston, the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his letter of the 21st July, 1832 (Correspondence, &c., No. 16), informed the British Minister at Washington of the determination, on the part of the Senate, not to consider the decision of the King of the Netherlands as obligatory, and of the resolution of that body advising the President to open a new negociation with his Britannic Majesty's Government for the ascertainment of the Boundary between the possessions of the United States and those of Great Britain, on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783, he intimated to the British Minister that even if the negociators of the two parties should be unable to

« PreviousContinue »