the said water courses, as contended for by each party respectively, and which has accordingly been signed by the above-named Plenipotentiaries at the same time with this convention, shall be annexed to the statements of the contracting parties, and be the only maps that shall be considered as evidence, mutually acknowledged by the contracting parties, of the topography of the country.

"It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex to its respective first statement, for the purposes of general illustration, any one of the maps, surveys, or topographical delineations which were filed with the Commissioners under the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, any engraved map heretofore published, and also a transcript of the abovementioned map A, or of a section thereof, in which transcript each party may lay down the highlands, or other features of the country, as it shall think fit; the water courses, and the boundary lines, as claimed by each party, remaining as laid down in the said map A.

"But this transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical delineations, other than the map A, and Mitchell's map, intended to be thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and shall be subject to such objections and observations as the other contracting party may deem it

expedient to make thereto, and shall annex to his first statement, either in the margin of such transcript, map or maps, or otherwise.

ARTICLE V.

"All the statements, papers, maps, and documents above mentioned, and which shall have been mutually communicated as aforesaid, shall, without any addition, subtraction, or alteration whatever, be jointly and simultaneously delivered in to the arbitrating Sovereign or State, within two years after the exchange of ratifications of this Convention, unless the Arbiter should not, within that time, have consented to act as such; in which case all the said statements, papers, maps, and documents shall be laid before him within six months after the time when he shall have consented so to act. No other statements, papers, maps, or documents shall ever be laid before the Arbiter, except as hereinafter provided.

ARTICLE VI.

"In order to facilitate the attainment of a just and sound decision on the part of the Arbiter, it is agreed that, in case the said Arbiter should desire further elucidation or evidence, in regard to any specific point contained in any of the said statements submitted to him, the requisition for such elucidation or evidence_shall be simultaneously made to both

parties, who shall thereupon be permitted to bring further evidence, if required, and to make each a written reply to the specific questions submitted by the said Arbiter, but no further; and such evidence and replies shall be immediately communicated by each party to the other.

"And in case the Arbiter should find the topographical evidence laid, as aforesaid, before him, insufficient for the purposes of a sound and just decision, he shall have the power of ordering additional surveys to be made of any portions of the disputed boundary line or territory, as he may think fit; which surveys shall be made at the joint expense of the contracting parties, and be considered as conclusive by them.

ARTICLE VII.

"The decision of the Arbiter, when given, shall be taken as final and conclusive; and it shall be carried, without reserve, into immediate effect, by Commissioners appointed, for that purpose, by the contracting parties.

ARTICLE VIII.

"This convention shall be ratified, and the ratifications shall be exchanged in nine months from the date hereof, or sooner, if possible.

"In witness whereof, we, the respective Plenipo

tentiaries, have signed the same, and have affixed thereto the Seals of our Arms.

"Done at London, the twenty-ninth day of September, in the year of our Lord, One thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven.

"(L.S.)

(L.S.)

CHA. GRANT,

HENRY UNWIN ADDINGTON, (L.S.) ALBERT GALLATIN."

On the reference made to the King of the Netherlands, justice could not be done the claim of England without bringing under his consideration the mislocation of the point of departure, and the consequences which would flow from its establishment at the true source of the St. Croix, mentioned in the Treaty of 1783. And here a question arises of deep importance, and which will present itself anew under a somewhat different form hereafter. What was the effect of the compromise under which the point of departure had been taken at the head of the Cheputnaticook, instead of at the head of the St. Croix or Schoodic? Was this assumed point of departure to be taken as the true point of departure to all intents and for all purposes? And was Great Britain estopped from referring to the true point of departure.

To answer these questions fully it would be necesary to have access to the Correspondence and public Acts of the two Governments, in relation to this assumption of a point of departure different

from that in the Treaty of 1783; there is, however, enough in the naked fact, that this point was settled by a compromise, to enable us to reach the conclusion, that Great Britain was not barred from setting up her title to the highlands described in the Treaty of 1783 by the compromise.

The compromise may have operated a surrender of the territory lying between the Schoodic and Cheputnaticook Rivers; but the highlands mentioned in the Treaty of 1783, as an object in nature, remained the same after as before the compromise. The intention of the framers of the Treaty of 1783 was to be sought for and determined without reference to the compromise; and the true line, in this view of the subject, would be the shortest line from the monument at the head of the Cheputnaticook to the highlands described in the Treaty of

..1783.

It does not appear that this part of the subject was brought under the consideration of the King of the Netherlands. I am led to believe, from a perusal of the award of the King of the Netherlands, that if this part of the subject had received proper explanation, that award would have been in favour of Great Britain. The award is as follows:

"WE, WILLIAM, by the Grace of God King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, &c. &c. &c.

"Having accepted the functions of Arbitrator,