Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

ceremonies been necessary, as. suredly the solemn one of making the treaty would have been sufficient; and looking to the fact that the district was then wholly unin. habited, it is difficult to conjecture what other formal surrender could have been conveniently devised.

It is also to be noticed in discussing this point, that the treaty of 1783, which is long prior in date to the present federal constitution, was not made with the national government exclusively, but, as appears by the article already cited, the states were recognised by it as distinct, independent communities. When it is borne in mind that they are all enumerated by their ancient colo. nial names, and that "the northwest angle of Nova Scotia" is also introduced as one of the points of the boundary, it is, without other corroborating considerations, sufficient. ly obvious that the former bounda. ries between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia were intended to be retained. Under these circumstances, it is not immaterial that Nova Scotia (including, of course, the territory in dispute, if it belongs to that province,) was, by a charter of William and Mary, incorporated in the colony of Massachusetts bay. By what other mode of transfer, it may be asked, than that adopted in the case of the U. States, was that ancient possession of Massachusetts divested, either in favour of the separate provincial government af. terwards established there, or of the French to whom it was restored in 1697? If no actual delivery of the uncultivated lands was made on these occasions, according to the reasoning of lord Aberdeen, the former constructive possession of Massachusetts remain at this day in full force.

Conceiving that sufficient has been said to prove that the Americans, supposing them to have a claim of right, either had the constructive possession at the period of the ratification of the treaty of 1783, or that every transfer was made of which the subject matter is susceptible, it only remains, on this head, to speak of the possession subsequent to the peace of 1783.

From the nature of things, a title founded on "immemorial prescription" cannot exist among the descendants of Europeans established in America; but as it is implied even in a title by “ordinary prescription," that "the proprietor cannot allege an invincible ignorance; that he cannot justify his silence by lawful and solid reasons; and that he has neglected his right, or kept silence during a considerable number of years," it would seem that while the officers of the two governments were actually employed in ascertaining the boundary, no new prescriptive title could accrue.

Without, therefore, noticing any establishment founded during the period that the business of surveying and marking out the boundary line was in actual progress, it may be well to consider for a moment the character of the settlement through which the British claim of possession is derived.

The first inhabitants near the Madawaska river were, as was formerly stated, French Acadians, or, in the words of Lord Aberdeen, "descendants of the original French colonists of New-Brunswick;" but as this people had, from the period of their subjugation by the joint arms of England and America, to the formation of their settlement,

uniformly resisted the authority of their conquerors, it is not apparent how they are to be considered "British subjects." The claim which either Maine or New-Bruns. wick has on their obedience is only one founded on local allegiance; and the existence of this right cannot be established in behalf of either party, except by an assumption of the point in controversy. It can, therefore, hardly be seriously contended that such a settlement, aided by the recent attempts of New. Brunswick to introduce its authority by enrolling the militia, and serving process along the frontier, affords evidence of a possession as against claimants under a title confirmed by treaty, not only of the land actually occupied by the individuals in question, but of an extent of country embracing several millions of acres.

The undersigned has already disavowed for his government, any knowledge of, much less acquies. cense in, these irregular intrusions on the soil; and to avoid repetition, he also refers to his former note for an enumeration of the acts

of sovereignty exercised by the American governments.

The objections offered to his allegation, "that New-Brunswick can adduce no claims by which a jurisdiction derived from prescription or first occupancy of the country can be established," have now been met; and in maintaining a position, from the attempt to controvert which Lord Aberdeen has drawn important inferences, the undersigned has treated somewhat at length a topic, which, in his previous communication, was only incidentally noticed. He then conceived that it would prevent protracted discussion, and perhaps

render unnecessary the introduction of principles on which there was danger that the two governments might not agree, to begin the deductions of the rights of the powers from the treaty of partition, by which a separation of their dominions was affected.

This method seemed also the most expedient, as so far as the treaty was applicable, it, from its nature, precluded all reference to pre-existing titles, which became merged in it; and it was believed that the ground which it occupied covered the whole matter in controversy. The undersigned felt that he might then, without entering at all into the facts respecting the settlement of the country, have contented himself with the remark, that "considering the grounds on which the claims of the United States are founded, it is not perceived how arguments, drawn either from the first occupancy, or immemorial possession, can be made to bear on the principal subject in discussion between the two countries, or how they can affect the question of temporary jurisdiction."

The course of reasoning, however, which Lord Aberdeen has adopted, does not now leave the undersigned at liberty to omit the preceding exposition; and he trusts that he has shown that there is no room for the application of the rule of law cited by the British secretary of state, viz. "that where a doubt exists, the party who has once clearly had a right, and who has retained actual possession, shall continue to hold it until the question at issue may be decided."

It is a sufficient reply to the infe. rence deduced from the silence of the treaty of Ghent, and of pre

vious treaties, as to the exercise of jurisdiction by Great Britain, that it is evident from the proceedings on the occasion particularly mentioned, that the impression was entertained" that the greater part of the territory in question was then unoccupied;" nor does it appear that the French settlement, on which the British possession is now supported, was at that time known to the plenipotentiaries of either

power.

The undersigned learns with regret, that the United States must consider themselves mistaken in the opinion which they had formed of the rule of forbearance inculcated on both sides. They had supposed that by it the parties stood pledged to each other to abstain from the performance of any new acts which might be construed into an exercise of the rights of sovereignty or soil over the disputed territory. As explained by lord Aberdeen, the mutual restriction would apply exclusively to the ex. ercise of the presumed rights of the respective parties as proprietors of the soil, not to their pretensions as sovereigns of the territory.

It is difficult to reconcile with the idea now conveyed, the assu rance given early in the last year by the British minister at Washington, "that the lieutenant governor of New-Brunswick cautiously abstains, on his part, from exercising any authority in the disputed territory, which could invite an encroachment as a measure of retaliation." And presuming that no more was intended to be asked from the American government than his majesty's authorities were prepared to grant in return, the undersigned cannot understand on

what principle, consistent with the rule they contended for, complaints were urged by Mr. Vaughan, respecting the laying out of land into townships, and marking out roads, by the agents of Maine and Massachusetts. Had the impression of the government of the United States been the same with that of his majesty's government, as now explained, it is not probable that the disparity in numbers between the American citizens and French Aca. dians, in the disputed territory, relied on by lord Aberdeen as a material fact, would have at this time existed.

But, as the conclusion of lord Aberdeen on the demand of the American government is founded on the opinion "that the circumstances of the two countries are extremely different," and as it is believed that this supposition has been proved to be erroneous, the undersigned still flatters himself that on a fuller examination, all objection will cease to a proposition which has for its motive the prevention of dangerous collisions between neighbouring and friendly powers, and that his majesty's government will admit the propriety of abstain. ing from a jurisdiction, the exercise of which, if persevered in, may lead to consequences for which the undersigned is instructed to declare that the government of the United States cannot hold themselves re. sponsible.

The undersigned takes the liberty of observing, that great as may be the inconveniences of an absence of exclusive jurisdiction on the frontiers, they have not been, on other occasions, deemed, either by the United States or Great Britain, of sufficient magnitude to induce

sacrifices of territorial claims, as is abundantly evinced by conventions entered into by them respecting their territory.

He would also adduce a fact that has fallen within the scope of his official knowledge, which shows that the opinion of the President was, at no very remote period, participated in by one of Lord Aberdeen's predecessors in office, at the time referred to, at the head of his majesty's government. Mr. Gallatin, in a despatch to the Secretary of State of the United States, dated in July, 1827, after speaking of a conference with the First Lord of the Treasury respecting the northeastern boundary, observes, that "Mr. Canning also suggested the propriety of abstaining on both sides, pending the suit, from any act of sovereignty over the con. tested territory."

That such a stipulation was not introduced into the late arbitration convention, is probably to be attributed to the supposed adequacy of the existing understanding between the parties, and to the fact that no collisions of importance, not disavowed, had then occurred.

Considering the protracted discussion on the case of Mr. Baker, and the several other grievances alluded to in the note of the 5th of May, or brought into view by the correspondence at Washington, the undersigned cannot account for the conclusion to which Lord Aberdeen has arrived, "that no practical inconvenience has been alledged by Mr. Lawrence to exist." He would observe, on the remark which Lord Aberdeen founds on this allegation, that, if British jurisdiction has been heretofore occasionally exercised in cases pre

judicial to the rights of the United States, their omitting to notice these occurrences in a remote section of their dominions, and of which they were ignorant, is wholly different from their acquiescing in a transaction where their authority, ap. pealed to by an American citizen, has been openly set at defiance.

The undersigned doubts not that the government of the United States will do full justice to the spirit in which Lord Aberdeen disclaims, by command of his sovereign, all intention of influencing the decision of the arbitrator by any exercise of jurisdiction over the disputed territory; and he takes this opportunity to remark, that it has not been his intention, either on the present or other occasions, by any designation which he may, for convenience, or for the purpose of expressing the conviction of his government on that subject, have given to the district, to assume as uncontroverted any of the points in dispute. He is fully aware that, in the face of a solemn instrument, to which his country is a party, setting forth that differences as to the settlement of the boundary in question do exist, and agreeing to refer them to the decision of a friendly sovereign or state, such an attempt, if made, would be worse than useless.

He has, moreover, endeavoured, as far as practicable, to abstain from any investigation of the question of right-the true province of the arbiter. He can only now add his regret, that there is not the same accordance of views between their respective governments on the subject to which this note relates, as was on a recent occasion happily found to exist on a more

important business, affecting the same territory, which the undersigned had the satisfaction to ar. range with Lord Aberdeen. The undersigned renews to Lord

Aberdeen the assurances of his highest consideration.

W. B. LAWRENCE. 16, Lower Seymour-street, August 22, 1928.

INUNDATED LANDS ON THE MISSISSIPPI.

S

Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting to congress the information required by a resolution of the house of the 24th December last, in relation to lands on the Mississippi, in the state of Louisiana, which are rendered unfit for cultivation by the inundations of said river. GENERAL LAnd Office, January 12, 1829. Sir, In compliance with a resolution of the house of representatives, "directing the Secretary of the Treasury to communicate to this house any information in his possession, showing the quantity and quality of the public lands in the state of Louisiana which are rendered unfit for cultivation from the inundations of the Mississippi, and the value of said lands when reclaimed, and the probable cost of reclaiming them," I have the honour to report, that the Mississippi, in its course between the 33d degree of north latitude, the northern boundary of Louisiana, and the Gulf of Mexico, inundates, when at its greatest height, a tract of country, the superficial area of which may be estimated at 5,429,260 acres : that portion of the country thus inundated which lies below the 31st degree of lati. tude may be estimated at 3,183,580 acres; and that portion above the

31st degree of north latitude may be estimated at 2,245,680 acres, of which 398,000 acres lie in the state of Mississippi. This estimate includes the whole of the country which is subject to inundation by the Mississippi and the waters of the gulf. A portion of this area, however, including both banks of the Mississippi, from some distance below New-Orleans to Baton Rouge, and the west bank nearly up to the 31st degree of latitude, and both sides of the Lafourche for about fifty miles from the Mississippi, has, by means of levees or embankments, been reclaimed at the expense of individuals. The strips of lands thus reclaimed are of limited extent; and, estimating their amount as equal to the depth of forty acres on each side of the Mississippi and Lafourche for the distance above stated, they will amount to about 500,000 acres, which, deducted from 3,183,580 acres, will leave the quantity of 2,683,580 acres below the 31st degree of latitude, which is now subject to annual or occasional inun. dations; this added to the quantity of inundated lands above the 31st degree of latitude, makes the whole quantity of lands within the area stated, and not protected by embankments, equal to 4,929,160

acres.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »