falling into the St. John it should be made to recede down the northwest branch of the St. John to a point seven miles in a straight line from such summit or crest; thence in a straight line, in a course about south 8 west, to the point where the parallel of latitude of 46° 25' north intersects the southwest branch of the St. John; thence southerly, by that branch, to its source in the highlands at the Metjarmette Portage; thence down along the highlands that divide the waters emptying themselves into the River St. Lawrence from those falling into the Atlantic Ocean, to the head of Hall's Stream; thence down the middle of that stream to the intersection of the old line surveyed and marked by Valentine and Collins, previously to 1774, as the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude, and which had been known as the line of actual division between the States of New York and Vermont on one side and the province of Canada on the other; and from such point of intersection west, along that dividing line, as previously known and understood, to the Iroquois or St. Lawrence River.

Territorial Results to Maine.

In communicating this line to the Maine commissioners for their consideration as the most advantageous that could be obtained, Mr. Webster observed that the territory in dispute contained 12,027 square miles, or 7,697,280 acres; that by the line proposed there would be assigned to the United States 7,015 square miles, or 4,489,600 acres, and to England 5,012 square miles, or 3,207,680 acres; that by the award of the King of the Netherlands there were assigned to the United States 7,908 square miles, or 5,061,120 acres, and to England 4,119 square miles, or 2,636,160 acres; that the territory proposed to be relinquished south of the line of the King of the Netherlands was the mountain range from the upper part of the St. Francis River to the meeting of the two contested lines of boundary at the Metjarmette Portage, in the highlands, near the source of the St. John; that this mountain tract contained 893 square miles, or 571,520 acres; and that of the general division of the territory it might be said that, while the por tion remaining to the United States was in quantity seventwelfths, in value it was at least four-fifths of the whole.

St. John.

On the other hand, said Mr. Webster, if this Navigation of the line should be agreed to on the part of the United States, the British minister would, as an equivalent, stipulate, first, for the use of the St. John for the conveyance of the timber growing on any of its branches

to tide water on the same terms as British timber, and for the surrender to the United States of Rouses Point and the lands formerly supposed to be within the limits of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but really lying to the north of the true forty-fifth parallel. Perhaps, also, the disputed boundary in Lake Superior might be so adjusted as to leave a contested island in the possession of the United States. These territorial cessions would inure partly to the benefit of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but principally of the United States. The consideration however on the part of England for making them would be the manner agreed on for adjusting the eastern boundary. The price of them would therefore in fairness belong to the two States interested in that boundary. Under the influence of these considerations, Mr. Webster said he was authorized to say that, if the commissioners of Maine and Massachusetts would Compensation of assent to the line proposed, the United States Maine and Massa- would undertake to pay to those States the sum of $250,000, to be divided between them in equal moieties, and also to undertake the settlement and payment of the expenses incurred by them in maintaining the civil posse and in prosecuting a survey which they had found it necessary to make.

chusetts.

On these terms, with the addition of $50,000 Signature of Treaty, to the compensation offered to Maine and Massachusetts, a settlement was finally effected with the assent of the commissioners of those States. The treaty was signed on the 9th of August.

By its first article, the northeastern boundary is defined in the manner which has been described.

Provisions of the
Treaty.

By the third article it is provided that the navigation of the St. John, where that river is declared to be the boundary, shall be free and open to both parties; that "all the produce of the forest, in logs, lumber, timber, boards, staves, or shingles, or of agriculture, not being manufactured, grown on any of those parts of the State of Maine watered by the river St. John, or by its tributaries, of which fact reasonable evidence shall, if required, be produced, shall have free access into and through the said river and its tributaries, having their source within the State

Mr. Webster to the Maine commissioners, July 15, 1842. (Webster's Works, VI. 276.)

2 H. Ex. Doc. 2, 27 Cong. 3 sess. 31.

of Maine, to and from the seaport at the mouth of the said river St. John's and to and around the falls of the said river, either by boats, rafts, or other conveyance; that when within the province of New Brunswick, the said produce shall be dealt with as if it were the produce of the said province; that, in like manner, the inhabitants of the territory of the upper St. John, determined by this treaty to belong to Her Britannic Majesty, shall have free access to and through the river, for their produce, in those parts where the said river runs wholly through the State of Maine; Provided, always, that this agreement shall give no right to either party to interfere with any regulations not inconsistent with the terms of this treaty which the governments, respectively, cf Maine or of New Brunswick may make respecting the navigation of the said river, where both banks thereof shall belong to the same party."

By the fourth article provision was made for the confirmation of grants of land previously made by either party in territory which by the treaty falls within the dominion of the other, as well as for the confirmation of all equitable possessory claims, arising from the possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom he claimed, for more than six years before the date of the treaty.

uce.

1 On May 16, 1844, Mr. Calhoun, who was then Secretary of State, instructed Mr. Everett to bring to the attention of Her Majesty's government the fact that the legislature of New Brunswick had imposed an export duty of a shilling a ton on all timber shipped from any port in the province, the authorities of Maine contending that the duty contravened the provision of Article III. of the treaty of 1842 as to “free access” to the port at the mouth of the St. John for Maine lumber and prod Lord Aberdeen on the 9th of December replied that it was no violation of the treaty, as American and Canadian articles were treated alike, the treaty providing that Maine lumber and produce should, when within the province of New Brunswick, be dealt with as if it were the produce of the said province." Great Britain had, said Lord Aberdeen, given a liberal construction to this article by allowing the produce of Maine, when once brought within the province of New Brunswick, to be exported thence, and imported into England and the British Possessions, on payment of the same duties as the produce of the province itself. (Br. and For. State Papers, LI. 934.) By article XXXI. of the treaty of May 8, 1871. Great Britain engaged "to urge upon the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada and the Legislature of New Brunswick, that no export duty, or other duty, shall be levied on lumber or timber of any kind cut on that portion of American territory in the State of Maine watered by the river St. John and its tributaries, and floated down that river to the sea, when the same is shipped to the United States from the province of New Brunswick."

By the fifth article provision was made for the distribution of the "disputed territory fund," which consisted of moneys received by the authorities of New Brunswick from charges for the cutting of timber in the disputed territory, with a view to prevent depredations on the forests, and the proceeds of which it was agreed should subsequently be paid over to the parties interested, in the proportions to be determined by the final settlement of the boundary. It was stipulated that a correct account of all receipts and payments of this fund should be delivered to the United States, and that the proportion of the amount due thereon to Maine and Massachusetts should be paid to the United States. Of this fund the United States agreed to pay over to those States their respective portions, and further to satisfy their claims for expenses incurred by them in protecting the disputed territory and making a survey thereof in 1838. Beyond this the United States agreed "with the States of Maine and Massachusetts to pay them the further sum of three hundred thousand dollars, in equal moieties, on account of their assent to the line of boundary described in this treaty, and in consideration of the conditions and equivalents received therefor from the Government of Her Britannic Majesty." This last stipulation Lord Ashburton was at first disinclined to admit into the treaty, since it was in fact an agreement between the United States and the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Mr. Webster however convinced him of the propriety of retaining it, at the same time expressly declaring that no responsibility on account of it could be incurred by the British Government.'

By the sixth article of the treaty provision was made for the joint establishment by two commissioners, one to be appointed by each government, of the boundary described in the first article.2

On the 11th of August the treaty was comCriticism of Treaty in municated by President Tyler to the Senate,3 where its provisions, not only in respect of the boundary but of the slave trade and the

United States and

Great Britain.

Webster's Works, VI. 289.

The correspondence between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton leading up to the conclusion of the treaty may be found in Webster's Works, VI. 270; Br. and For. State Papers, XXX. 136; H. Ex. Doc. 2, 27 Cong. 3 sess. 31. 3 Webster's Works, VI. 347. As to President Tyler's helpful attitude and influence in the negotiation, see Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 105; Mr. Webster to President Tyler, August 24, 1842, Webster's Private Correspondence, II. 146.

extradition of criminals, were severely criticised. But, in spite of this opposition, the Senate on the 20th of August gave its advice and consent to the exchange of the ratifications by a vote of 39 to 9.1 In England the treaty was assailed as the "Ashburton capitulation."" Lord Palmerston even went so far as to make the fact that Ashburton had an American wife a ground of attack on the negotiations.*

Treaty.

Nevertheless, the treaty was duly carried Execution of the into effect. On the 28th of June 1847 Col. J. Provisions of the Bucknall Estcourt and Mr. Albert Smith, respectively the British and American commissioners to run the line described in the first article of the treaty, signed at Washington their final report, at the conclusion of which they say "that the most perfect harmony has subsisted between the two commissioners from first to last, and that no differences have arisen between the undersigned in the execution of the duties entrusted to them."5

The "Red Line"
Мар.

Any history of the settlement of the northeastern boundary dispute would be incomplete which omitted to mention the question that arose as to maps. As has been seen, the map used by the negotiators of 1782-83 was Mitchell's, but no copy with the lines marked on it was annexed to the treaty. When the conclusion of the provisional articles of peace became known, Count Vergennes, the French minister for foreign affairs, sent to Franklin a copy of a map, with the request that he would mark the boundaries of the United States upon it. By whom the map was made does not appear, nor whether the maker

Webster's Private Correspondence, II. 146. After his return to the Senate, Mr. Webster, on April 6 and 7, 1816, made an elaborate defense of the treaty. (Webster's Works, V. 78.)

2 Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, January 2, 1843, Webster's Private Correspondence, II. 162.

3 Lord Ashburton married a Miss Bingham, of Philadelphia.

4 Sanders's Life of Lord Palmerston, 91; Francis's Opinions and Policy of Lord Palmerston, 443; Lord Palmerston on the Treaty of Washington (a collection of articles published in the London Morning Chronicle from Sept. 19, to Oct. 3, 1842, the authorship of which was popularly ascribed to Lord Palmerston). See Bulwer's Life of Lord Palmerston, III. 61, 113, 118. See, also, as to the reception of the treaty in England, Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 147, 150-152, 155–162.

5 Br. and For. State Papers, LVII. 823, 832; XXXIII. 763-806; Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 204-205.

6 Wharton's Dip. Cor. Am. Rev. VI. 131, 133.