reached by Messrs. Clark, Wilson and Gilmer, but by a somewhat different course of reasoning. Mr. Washburne stated that the constitution of the State provided for three representatives, while the Act of Congress restricted the number to two; therefore, he continued, if the constitution is valid, all three are elected, if invalid, none is elected. He further stated that to allow candidates to decide who shall retire is to transfer the election from the people to the candidates. After a discussion in which the signers of the various reports were the principal participants, the report of the majority was adopted, and Messrs. Cavanaugh and Phelps were sworn in, May 22, 1858. Thus was the North Star State, after a struggle extending from December 24, 1856, to May 22, 1858, enrolled among the American Commonwealths and duly represented in both branches of Congress. VII. THE SEAT OF THE DELEGATE. There was a difference of opinion as to who should represent in the House that part of the Territory of Minnesota not included in the new State. W. W. Kingsbury and Alpheus G. Fuller contended for that honor. On May 27, 1858, Mr. Cavanaugh presented a resolution reading as follows: "Resolved, That the Committee of Elections be authorized to inquire into and report upon the right of W. W. Kingsbury to a seat upon this floor as Delegate from that part of the Territory of Minnesota outside the State limits." Mr. Harris of Illinois presented the credentials of Alpheus G. Fuller as del egate from the same Territory. The whole matter was referred to the Committee on Elections. On June 2, 1858, Mr. Harris of Illinois, chairman of that committee, submitted the majority report, holding that Mr. Kingsbury was legally elected delegate on October 13, 1857, and that the admission of a State formed out of part of the Territory did not annul that election. The case of H. H. Sibley was cited. Mr. Sibley was elected delegate from the Territory of Wisconsin after the State of Wisconsin was adCong. Globe, vol. 46, p. 2428. mitted. He was elected from that portion of the Territory not included in the State, and was allowed to take his seat by a vote of 124 to 62. In conclusion, the report recommended that Mr. Kingsbury be allowed to retain his seat, and that the memorials of Mr. Fuller be given no further consideration. A minority report, signed by Messrs. Wilson, Clark, and Gilmer, decided in favor of Mr. Fuller. This report stated that Mr. Kingsbury was elected by the voters of the territory now comprising the State, and that those living in that part of the Territory not included in the State were not allowed to vote; but this was denied "upon good authority" in the majority report. It was also held that Mr. Kingsbury lived in the State of Minnesota, not in the part of the former territory left outside the State. Mr. Fuller, in the course of a long letter said that he came "without form of law, but on the inherent principle of self government and protection." Mr. Harris contended that it was not necessary for the delegate to live in the Territory which he represented. Israel Washburne of Maine supported Mr. Harris, declaring that there was both a State and a Territory of Minnesota. Mr. Jones of Tennessee held that there was no Territory of Minnesota, and hence that no one was entitled to a seat as delegate. After considerable discussion, the majority report was adopted, and Mr. Kingsbury retained his seat until March 3, 1859. MINNESOTA'S NORTHERN BOUNDARY.* BY ALEXANDER N. WINCHELL. CONTENTS. I. Boundaries in Colonial Times. Hudson Bay Company. II. First Boundary of the United States, 1783. 1. Instructions of Congress. 2. First proposed boundary. 3. Second proposed boundary. 4. Third proposition, finally adopted. a. Its errors. 1st. That the Lake of the Woods empties into Lake Superior. 2nd. That the Mississippi river rises north of the Lake of the Woods. III. Unexecuted article of treaty of 1794. a. Shortest line from the Lake of the Woods to the Mississippi river to be the boundary. b. Commissioners to find and mark the line. V. Negotiations of 1807. VI. Treaty of Ghent, 1814. 1. Various proposals. 2. Final provisions. a. Commissioners to agree upon and mark the line from Lake Huron to the Lake of the Woods. b. Boundary west of the Lake of the Woods omitted. VII. Convention of 1818. 1. The forty-ninth parallel adopted. *Read at the University of Minnesota October 12, 1895; awarded "The '89 Memorial Prize in History" at the twenty-fourth annual commencement, June 4, 1806; accepted by the Publication Committee, July 16, 1896. VIII. Work of the Commission under the Treaty of Ghent. 1. They map and define two parts of the line. 2. They disagree as to the line from Lake Superior to Rainy Lake. a. Claims of each party. IX. Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842. A compromise measure. X. Present condition of the boundary. 1. Not in accordance with the spirit of the treaty of 1783. 2. Loss to the United States. 3. The actual boundary not yet known. BOOKS OF REFERENCE. American State Papers, Foreign Relations. Life and Works of John Adams. C. F. Adams. Works of Franklin. Jared Sparks. Treaties and Conventions of the United States. Journal of the House of Representatives. Congressional Globe. Narrative and Critical History of America. Justin Winsor. Minnesota Historical Society Collections, vol. vii., pp. 305-352, "How the Mississippi river and the Lake of the Woods became instrumental in the establishment of the Northwestern Boundary of the United States," Alfred J. Hill; vol. viii., pp. 1-10, "The International Boundary between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods," Ulysses Sherman Grant. NOTE. Mr. Hill's article in volume VII. of the Minnesota Historical Society Collections will be found to cover much of the earlier history of this subject qulte fully. In such parts, where I have been obliged to parallel Mr. Hill, I have condensed the account; and I would refer the reader who desires more details of that period to his article. I am indebted to the same article for several references of value. INTRODUCTION. On September 4, 1895, there appeared in the Minneapolis Times a special telegram from Tower, Minn., entitled, "Where is the Boundary?" and reading as follows: Tower, Minn., Sept. 3. (Special.) The trouble between the Arion Fish Company, of Crane Lake, and the Canadian authorities, over the seizure of their nets said to have been in Canadian waters, threatens to result in an international difficulty and revive a long-disputed question. By the last treaty with Great Britain the boundary line between northeastern Minnesota and Canada was established in the navigable channel or deepest water in the chain of lakes and rivers between the two countries. Several times disputes have arisen, and good authorities claim that if the line were properly adjusted it would give the valuable tract known as Hunter's island to the United States. Minnesota parties have found extensive and valuable deposits of iron ore on the island, and were it within the United States it would become a flourishing and prosperous district. The island comprises several thousand square miles of territory, and many locations for iron have been taken on it by Minnesota capitalists. While the statements in this clipping have no more truth than the average newspaper report, they are a good indication of the importance of the subject. I. BOUNDARIES IN COLONIAL TIMES. To find the origin of this boundary it is necessary to go back to colonial times. The Hudson Bay Company gradually enlarged its territorial claims until in the eighteenth century it claimed the whole watershed of the Bay of Hudson as far south as the forty-ninth parallel. This claim was recognized in the Treaty of Utrecht, and it is this recognition, misunderstood to refer to a boundary line of Canada, that is the prototype of our present northern boundary. II. FIRST BOUNDARY OF THE UNITED STATES, 1783. When Canada was ceded to Great Britain in 1763, this line naturally became of no importance. But within twenty |