Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

In 1801, a grant of Mars Hill was made to certain soldiers of the revolution by a public act of the legislature of the state, which was followed by similar proceedings in favour of others. That the country was not occupied, in conformity to these grants, is to be ascribed to the delays usually attendant upon the settlement of an exposed frontier, and to interruptions growing out of apprehensions of hostilities with the neighbouring province, which were realized by the declaration of war made by the United States against Great Britain in 1812. Not only have many acts of authority in the territory now in dispute been subsequently exercised by the states of Massachusetts and Maine, but in 1820, the enumeration of the settlers on the Madawaska took place under the supreme authority of the United States, and without, as far as can be ascertained, any remon. strance on the part of Great Britain, or of the province of New. Brunswick.

In the case of the land on which his unfortunate fellow citizen, now imprisoned at Fredrickton, was arrested, the undersigned would remark, that though it is situated in a section of country to which the general description of Madawaska is applied, the territory on which Mr. Baker and other Americans have established themselves, is to the west of the ancient settlement of the French Acadians, and it is believed that no part of the country where they reside, that is to say, of the track on the St. John's between the Meriumpticook and St. Francis rivers, has ever been in the possession of persons acknow. ledging allegiance to the British government. It thus appears that,

to justify the unwarranted exercise of power, specially complained of, is wanting even the apology of for. mer usage, unsatisfactory as that would be.

The undersigned is not ignorant of the inconvenience which may arise from the disorder and anarchy to which the inhabitants of the controverted district may be exposed, should no authority be exercised over them, either by the United States or the neighbouring British province. This is, however, an evil, to remedy which does not necessarily demand the interposition of New-Brunswick more than of the state of Maine. It is an inconvenience which the United States cannot consent to remove by subjecting American territory to a foreign jurisdiction. It is believed that, should the settlers be left to themselves, they will insti tute some form of government adapted to their condition, as was done for a long time on the Madawaska; that whether they do or not, it will be competent to the governments of Maine and New. Brunswick, within their respective acknowledged limits, to guard against any disorders. At all events, the government of the United States cannot consent to the exercise of any exclusive British authority within the contested territory, founded on the plea of necessity; and, as many of the settlers are intruders on the soil, they can have no right to complain of any disorders among themselves, resulting from their own unauthorized acts of intrusion.

The undersigned, on this occasion, cannot avoid observing, that the inconveniences which confes. sedly arise from the unsettled state of the boundary between the do.

minions of the United States and Great Britain, constitute a most powerful reason for the adoption of every measure calculated to insure a prompt decision of the main question at issue. A convention, formed with a view of submitting the conflicting decisions of the commissioners under the fifth ar. ticle of the treaty of Ghent to the arbitration of a friendly sovereign or state, having received the assent of both the high contracting parties, become obligatory on them by an exchange of their respective ratifications on the second of April last. In the same official communication in which the undersigned acquainted the earl of Dudley with his authority to exchange the ratification of the president of the United States for that of the king, he announced his haing received iustructions in relation to the further arrangements contemplated by the convention; and no effort on the part of the United States, which could, with propriety, be made, has been wanting to ful. fil, literally, the stipulations by which the contracting parties engaged to proceed in concert to the choice of a friendly sovereign or state, as soon as the ratifications should be exchanged.

The undersigned would fail in obedience to his instructions, were he to conclude this note without declaring to lord Dudley that, while the president hopes that the British government, participating in the desire which he most anxiously feels to avoid all collision on account of the temporary occupation of the territory in contest, will effectually interpose its authority to restrain the provincial govern. ment from the exercise of any jurisdiction over it, such an interpo.

sition alone will supersede those precautionary measures which the government of the United States will otherwise feel itself constrained to adopt.

The undersigned has the honour to renew to lord Dudley the assurance of his highest consideration. W. B. LAWRENCE.

16, Lower Seymour-street, 5th May, 1828.

Mr. Lawrence to Mr. Clay.
Legation of the U. S.

London, 26th June, 1828. Sir,-After having, at our conference on the 19th instant, dispo. sed of the business in relation to the arbiter, lord Aberdeen directed the conversation to the subject of the jurisdiction to be exercised over the disputed territory pending the suit. He seemed to consider an exclusive authority derived from a regular government to be indispensable; and subsequently proceeded to maintain that to Great Britain this jurisdiction belonged, at least till his majesty was dives. ted of it by the decision of the arbiter.

In replying to the observations on the first point, I had little more to do than to repeat the explanations with which you had furnished me, and of which I had availed myself in my official note to lord Dudley. I cited the government which the settlers on the Madawaska had established, in order to point out how the evils of a temporary anarchy might be, in a great degree, obviated, without the interposition of either Maine or New. Brunswick. I referred, as I had done in conversation with his lordship's predecessor, to the opinion expressed last summer by Mr. Canning, in an interview with Mr.

Gallatin, and to the convention respecting the territory west of the Rocky Mountains. Lord Aberdeen here inquired whether I could enter into a similar arrangement with regard to the country now under consideration. I observed that my remark had been made merely by way of illustration; that I had, by order of the president, made a demand for the redress of a specific injury committed on an American citizen, and had further required that this country should abstain from the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction in a territory which we maintained belonged to the United States; that no answer had been returned to my reclamations; and that, therefore, in no event, could a new proposition be expected from me; that it would be compe. tent for him, in replying to my note, to make any offer or suggestion he might think fit as to the best mode of obviating inconveniences from a disputed title, till the judgment of the king of the Netherlands is obtained; and that his proposals, if it should not be in my power to accept them, would be transmitted to my government, who would undoubtedly give them a respectful consideration.

The other topic on which lord Aberdeen touched, gave rise to a more extended discussion. Taking the same view as Mr. Vaughan had done in his correspondence with you, he maintained that, whatever might be the true boundary, the jurisdiction over the disputed territory remained with Great Britain, till our title was completed by an absolute delivery of possession; observing, that this was the rule of the law of nations in all cases of cession.

I answered, that the principle for

which he contended, and with which I was acquainted, was adopted for the regulation of a third power, or of individuals, in order to prevent the inconvenience which would result in an established community, from doubts existing as to the period when a transfer of authority took place, and a new set of duties and obligations commenced; that in no case could one of the contracting parties reply to the complaint of the exercise of jurisdiction in the territory, which the other regarded as ceded to it, the fact that it had never delivered up the possession. If it has a claim of right, on that right, and not on the possession, must it support itself. If otherwise, as the withholding of the possession after its being demanded, is per se, a continued injury, to adduce it, would be to rely on one's own wrong. I further remarked that, even considering the treaty of 1783 as one of cession, every delivery has taken place of which the subject matter was susceptible. now disputed was never held by Great Britain like a town or fortress. The possession in the crown, anterior to the revolution, was only Constructive, of which, assuredly, the renunciation in the treaty was fully competent to divest it; that there had been no uninterrupted exercise of any authority by the province of Nova Scotia or NewBrunswick, since the independence of the United States; but that, on the contrary, as had been elsewhere stated, as much at least had been done on our side as on theirs, towards obtaining a title by occupancy.

The territory

I then proceeded to say, that I had thought proper to show that, even on the principle assumed by

this government, its claim of exclusive jurisdiction was untenable; but that I totally denied that we held any portion of the territory embraced within the original states as a "grant" or "cession" from a foreign power, in the sense which had been attributed to those terms. After assimilating the state of things resulting from our revolution, as was done in my official note, to a division of the empire, I remarked that there was nothing in the form of the treaty of peace, or in the circumstances under which it was negotiated, to lead to the conelusion that on it depended our claims to territorial sovereignty. Even anterior to our separation from the mother country, though we acknowledged the authority of the king of Great Britain, we had not acquiesced in a parliamentary right to interfere with our internal regulations; an attempt to assume this power having been, indeed, one of the causes of the war. From the declaration of independence, and long before its recognition by England, we concluded treaties with foreign states, and exercised all the other prerogatives of an established government. I also adverted to the terms, as well of the provisional articles of 1782 as of the definitive treaty of the succeeding year, in both of which the contracting parties treated on the footing of the most perfect equality; the United States being considered in the full possession of the usual attributes of national sovereignty. A reference to the treaties with France and Spain, with respect to Louisiana and Florida, will show that, where real cessions were made, a different language was employed than in that of 1783, where the terms "re.

linquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights," imply a renunciation of what is no longer in possession. Lord Aberdeen here interrupted me, and said that the treaty was in the nature of a grant or cession, because England gave every thing and received nothing. To this I replied, that it was not permited to open a solemn instrument, by which an agreement had been fairly and honestly affected between indivi- · duals; much less could it be done in the transactions between states in order to inquire into the conside. ration mutually given and receiv. ed, with a view to change its legal character; and that it was, therefore, unnecessary for me to say any thing as to the object which England had in view in saving fur. ther war expenditure, securing her remaining provinces, and obtaining the other benefits of peace; and I would only refer to the face of the instrument itself to ascertain its nature. If, I added, by tracing the boundaries in the treaty, England ceded to us the territory on one side of the line, as described in the second article, we ceded to her the territory on the other side, on which, indeed, we had, at different periods of the war, more or less pretension. The most correct way, how. ever, of viewing the subject was not to consider that the treaty made grants or cessions to either party, but that the line was indicated, as is expressed in the article itself, to prevent future disputes, a motive which frequently has led to a convention of limits between two governments of equal antiquity.

As, however, lord Aberdeen still intimated that, whatever view other nations might take of the question, it could not be expected that Great

Britain would consider the sovereignty of the United States as existing anterior to 1783, or regard the recognition of independence, so far as territory was concerned, in any other light than a cession, I observed, that, the main question in dispute between the countries hav. ing been disposed of, it was desira. ble that difficulties as to temporary jurisdiction should not be occasioned by the discussion of an abstract proposition. In the inference which it had been attempted to draw from the principle of cession, connected as it was with the character which had been ascribed to the treaty of 1783, I felt confident that my government could not acquiesce. If admitted, it might be construed so as to involve the most monstrous consequences, and perhaps be applied in other cases than in the one under consideration. There was, however, another view of the subject, which I would suggest. The independence of the United States, in general, is not only acknowledged by the treaty, but also that of each state, by name, Massachusetts being enumerated with the others. If we divest the question of its national character, and regard it as a dispute between Maine and New-Brunswick, succeeding to the respective rights of Massachusetts and Nova Scotia, the argument from the principle of cession would operate altogether in our favour; for it can hardly be pretended that, when Nova Scotia, after having been annexed to Mas sachusetts under the charter of William and Mary, was transferred to a separate provincial government, and subsequently to the French, there was, in either case, any other delivery of possession of the unsettled territory than took

place on the conclusion of our revolutionary war.

I cannot flatter myself that I have been able to change the views of lord Aberdeen, but it is proper for me to add, that he said that he would give to my observa tions a full consideration, and requested me not to regard what had fallen from him as the final opinion of the British government.

I have the honour to be, with the greatest respect, sir, your most obe. dient servant,

W. B. LAWRENCE.
HON. HENRY CLAY,
Secretary of State, Washington.

LORD ABERDEEN TO MR. LAWRENCE.

Foreign Office, Aug. 14, 1828. The undersigned, his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note which Mr. Lawrence, chargé d'affairs of the United States of America, addressed to his majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs on the 5th of May, containing representations upon certain occurrences in that district on the north-eastern frontier of the United States, the right of possession of which is now, by mutual agreement of the two countries, and in compliance with the provi. sions of the treaty of Ghent, referred to the arbitration of a friendly power.

Mr. Lawrence's representations, and the demands founded upon them, may be conveniently divided into two heads.

1st. The representations against the arrest of John Baker, a citizen of the United States, and residing within the said territory, and his removal by the provincial authorities of New-Brunswick to the capital

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »