Lord Ashburton arrived in the United States on the 4th of April, 1842, when Mr. Webster commenced his great task, by addressing notes to the governors of Maine and Massachu setts, asking a joint commission, on the part of the two states interested in the north-eastern boundary, to act definitively and in concert with himself and the British special minister. Both states immediately con plied with the request of Mr. Webster; and their commissioners reached Washington in the early part of June, when the work of settlement was at once begun. That the commissioners might not be detained longer than necessary, the first topic introduced was the north-eastern boundary question, the peculiar intricacies and difficulties of which have been clearly and succinctly stated by Mr. Webster. In his speech to the senate, delivered on the 6th and 7th of April, 1846, he says: “In the treaty of peace of September, 1783, the northern and eastern, or perhaps, more properly speaking, the north-eastern boundary of the United States, is described as follows: From the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, namely, that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix river to the highlands; along the said highlands, which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean, to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river; thence, along the middle of that river, to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude; from thence by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the river Iroquois, or Cateraquy. East, by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the bay of Fundy, to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands.

"Such is the description of the north-eastern boundary of the United States, according to the treaty of peace of 1783. And it is quite remarkable that so many embarrassing questions should have arisen from these few lines, and have been matters of controversy for more than half a century.

NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY.

337

"The first question disputed was, 'Which of the several riv ers running into the bay of Fundy, is the St. Croix, mentioned in the treaty?' It is singular that this should be matter of dispute, but so it was. England insisted that the true St. Croix was one river. The United States insisted that it was another.

“The second controverted question was, 'Where is the northwest angle of Nova Scotia to be found?'

"The third, 'What and where are the highlands, along which the line is to run, from the north-west angle of Nova Scotia to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river?'

“The fourth, ‘Of the several streams, which, flowing to gether, make up the Connecticut river, which is that stream which ought to be regarded as its north-westernmost head?'

"The fifth was, 'Are the rivers which discharge their waters into the bay of Fundy, rivers "which fall into the Atlantic ocean," in the sense of the terms used in the treaty ?'

"The fifth article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, of the 19th of November, 1794, after reciting, that doubt had 'arisen what river was truly intended under the name of the river St. Croix,' proceeds to provide for the decision of that question, by creating three commissioners, one to be appointed by each government, and these two to choose a third; or, if they could not agree, then each to make his nomination, and decide the choice by lot. The two commissioners agreed on a third; the three executed the duty assigned them, decided what river was the true St. Croix, traced it to its source, and there established a monument. So much, then, on the eastern line was settled; and all the other questions remained wholly unsettled down to the year 1842."

Mr. Webster then goes on to show what had been attempted, by the successive administrations of our government, during the present century. On the 12th of May, 1803, a convention was ratified by Lord Hawksbury and Rufus King, providing

for the appointment of three commissioners, in the manner be fore mentioned, who should have power “to run and mark the line from the monument, at the source of the St. Croix, to that north-west angle of Nova Scotia; and also to determine the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river; and then to run and mark the boundary line between the north-west angle of Nova Scotia and the said north-westernmost head of Connec ticut river; and the decision and proceedings of the said commissioners were to be final and conclusive.

"No objection," continues Mr. Webster, "was made by either government to this agreement and stipulation; but an incident arose to prevent the final ratification of the treaty; and it arose in this way. Its fifth article contained an agree ment between the parties, settling the line of boundary between them beyond the Lake of the Woods. In coming to this agreement, they proceeded, exclusively, on the grounds of their respective rights under the treaty of 1783; but it so happened, that, twelve days before the convention was signed in London, France, by a treaty signed in Paris, had ceded Louisiana to the United States. This cession was at once regarded as giving to the United States new rights, or new limits, in this part of the continent. The senate, therefore, struck this fifth article out of the convention; and, as England did not incline to agree to this alteration, the whole convention fell.”

The whole subject rested till revived, in 1814, by the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, which provided for the appointment of two commissioners, who should examine and run the line, from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence, according to the treaty of 1783; but the commissioners, if they could not agree, were to state their points of difference, which were afterwards to be submitted, by the two governments, to the arbitration of some friendly power. The commissioners did not agree; and the matter was finally committed to the king of the Netherlands, who, in 1831, made a decision to

FORMER NEGOTIATIONS.

66

339

General Jackson was

which neither country would consent. now president; and the president took it upon him, as a special task, to bring this great question to a final settlement. Nothing, however, was accomplished during his entire administration of the government; and in his last annual message he admitted, that, after toiling for five years upon the subject, he had not proceeded so far as to know what the views of England were in relation to the settlement: I regret to say," says the president, "that many questions of an interesting nature, at issue with other powers, are yet unadjusted; among the most prominent of these is that of the north-eastern boundary. With an undiminished confidence in the sincere desire of his Britanic majesty's government to adjust that question, I am not yet in possession of the precise grounds upon which it proposes a satisfactory adjustment."

Such was the condition of the question on the elevation of Mr. Van Buren to the presidency; and, in his first annual message, he expresses his deep regret, which, no doubt, bordered upon mortification, that, for a period of about half a century, nothing had been done by our government in the settlement of this difficulty: "Of pending questions," says the message, "the most important is that which exists with the government of Great Britain in respect to our north-eastern boundary. It is with unfeigned regret, that the people of the United States must look back upon the abortive efforts made by the execuive for a period of more than half a century, to determine what no nation should suffer long to remain in dispute, the true line which divides its possessions from those of other powers." When publishing this opinion, Mr. Van Buren no doubt felt confidence, that he should have the merit of settling this great question; but his efforts, on this matter, were as abortive as the efforts of his predecessors. He left it, in fact, in a worse condition than that in which he found it: "And now, sir," said Mr. Webster, in the speech before mentioned, and in ref

erence to the tacit and premature assurance but ultimate fail ure of Mr. Van Buren, "what did he accomplish? What progress did he make? What step forward did he take, in the whole course of his administration? Seeing the full impor tance of the subject, addressing himself to it, and not doubting the just disposition of England, I ask again, what did he do? What advance did he make? Sir, not one step in his whole four years. Or rather, if he made any advance at all, it was an advance backward; for, undoubtedly, he left the question in a much worse condition than he found it, not only on account of the disturbances and outbreaks which had taken place on the border, for the want of an adjustment, and which disturbances themselves had raised new and difficult questions, but on account of the intricacies and complexities, and perplexities, in which the correspondence had become involved. The subject was entangled in meshes, which rendered it far more difficult to proceed with the question, than if it had been fresh and unembarrassed."

This closing allegation of Mr. Webster is entirely correct. Border troubles of a very serious nature had sprung up between Maine and the authorities of New Brunswick. The American settlements on the Madawaska had been threatened with hostilities; a general panic had thus spread among them; and the gov ernor of Maine, Mr. Fairfield, had ordered a large body of militia to the disputed territory for the defence of the soil and the protection of the inhabitants. The whole country was excited upon the subject; and when Mr. Webster, Lord Ashburton and the joint commissioners began their negotiations, they had every reason to believe, indeed there could be no doubt, that a failure now would result in immediate war between the two countries.

Happily for both, however, the wisdom and friendship of the two ministers, aided by the intelligence and patriotisın of the commissioners, prevailed over every disturbing influence. The