 |
The authentic Latin copy of the grant to Sir William Alexander, as communicated officially by the British Government, contains no commas, and would read as follows:
"Omnes et singulas terras continentis ac insulas situatas et jacentes in America intra caput seu promontorium communiter Cap de Sable appellat. Jacen. prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa ab equinoctiali linea versus septentrionem a quo promontorio versus littus maris tenden. ad occidentem ad stationem Sanctae Mariae navium vulgo Sanctmareis Bay. Et deinceps versus septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicien. quae excurrit in terrae orientalem plagam inter regiones Suriquorum et Etecheminorum vulgo Suriquois et Etechemines ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae Crucis appellat. Et ad scaturiginem remotissimam sive fontem ex occidentali parte ejusdem qui se primum predicto fluvio immiscet. Unde per imaginariam directam lineam quae pergere per terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur ad proximam navium stationem fluvium vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem. Et ab eo pergendo versus orientem per maris oris littorales ejusdem fluvii de Canada ad fluvium stationem navium portum aut littus communiter nomine de Gathepe vel Gaspee notum et appellatum."
The translation of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh is as follows:
"All and each of the lands of the continent and the islands situated and lying in America within the headland or promontory commonly called Cape Sable, lying near the forty-third degree of latitude from the equinoctial line or thereabout; from which promontory stretching westwardly toward the north by the seashore to the naval station of St. Mary, commonly called St. Marys Bay; from thence passing toward the north by a straight line, the entrance or mouth of that great naval station which penetrates the interior of the eastern shore betwixt the countries of the Suriquois and Etchemins, to the river commonly called the St. Croix, and to the most remote source or spring of the same on the western side which first mingles itself with the aforesaid river; from whence, by an imaginary straight line, which may be supposed (concipietur) to advance into the country or to run toward the north to the nearest naval station, river, or spring discharging itself into the great river of Canada and from thence advancing toward the east by the gulf shores of the said river of Canada to the river, naval station, port, or shore commonly known or called by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe."
The only American translations which have ever been presented in argument are as follows:
[Translation of Messrs. Gallatin and Preble, who were employed to prepare the statement laid before the King of the Netherlands.]
"Beginning at Cape Sable, in 43 deg. north latitude or thereabout; extending thence westwardly along the seashore to the road commonly called St. Marys Bay; thence toward the north by a direct line, crossing the entrance or mouth of that great ship road which runs into the eastern tract of land between the territories of the Souriquois and of the Etchemins (Bay of Fundy), to the river commonly called St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or source which from the western part thereof first mingles itself with the river aforesaid; and from thence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to stretch through the land or to run toward the north, to the nearest road, river, or spring emptying itself into the great river de Canada (river St. Lawrence); and from thence, proceeding eastwardly along the seashores of the said river de Canada, to the river, road, port, or shore commonly known and called by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe."
[Translation of Mr. Bradley, the American agent under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent.]
"By the tenor of this our present charter we do give, grant, and convey to the said Sir William Alexander, his heirs or assigns, all and singular the lands of the continent and islands situated and lying in America within the headland or promontory commonly called Cape Sable, lying near the latitude of 43 deg. or thereabout, from the equinoctial line toward the north; from which promontory stretching toward the shore of the sea to the west to the road of ships commonly called St. Marys Bay, and then toward the north by a direct line, crossing the entrance or mouth of that great road of ships which runs into the eastern tract of land between the territories of the Souriquois and the Etchemins, to the river called by the name of St. Croix, and to the most remote spring or fountain from the western part thereof which first mingles itself with the river aforesaid; whence, by an imaginary direct line, which may be conceived to go through or run toward the north, to the nearest road of ships, river, or spring emptying itself into the great river of Canada; and from thence proceeding toward the east by the shores of the sea of the said river of Canada to the river, road of ships, or shore commonly known and called by the name of Gachepe or Gaspe."
But the translations of the Americans were merely for form's sake, as the original Latin, in a copy furnished from a British public office, was laid before the King of the Netherlands; and no fear need have been felt that the umpire would not have been able to judge whether the translations were true or not. It was rather to be inferred that he, in examining a question submitted in a language foreign to him, would have found the Latin quite as intelligible as the English. This examination, however, is wholly superfluous.
From whatever source the negotiators of the treaty of 1783 derived their view of the boundary, that instrument directs that it shall be a due north line from the source of the river St. Croix. This expression is too definite to require explanation or illustration, and it is only for those purposes that any other instrument can be permitted to be quoted.
In the passages referred to the words "versus septentrionem" occur three times, and in two of the instances are qualified by the context in such manner as to leave no possible doubt as to the meaning. The first time they occur the words of the passage are, "prope latitudinem quadraginta trium graduum aut eo circa versus septentrionem." The free translation into modern idiom is beyond doubt, "near the forty-third degree of north latitude or thereabout;" and the direction toward the north must be along a meridian line on which latitude is measured, or due north. Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, instead of connecting in their translation the words "versus septentrionem" with the words "prope latitudinem," etc., with which they stand in juxtaposition in the Latin text which they quote, connect them with the words "ad occidentem tendentem," which occur in the next clause of the sentence, even according to their own punctuation. We note this as a false translation, although it does not touch the point in dispute. They have, indeed, attempted to use it in their argument; but even if the use they make of it had been successful their inferences fall, because drawn from erroneous premises.
The second clause in which the words occur is as follows: "Ad stationem navium Sanctae Mariae vulgo St. Marys Bay, et deinceps versus septentrionem per directam lineam introitum sive ostium magnae illius stationis navium trajicientem," etc., "ad fluvium vulgo nomine Sanctae Crucis appellatum." Here the line, although directed to be drawn toward the north, is also directed to be drawn between two given points, and it is clear that under the double direction, if they should differ from each other, the position of the given points must govern, and the line be traced from one of them to the other, no matter what may be their bearings.
The last time the words occur is after the direction that the line shall pass up the St. Croix and to the most remote western spring or fountain of that stream, "unde per imaginariam lineam directam quae pergere per terram seu currere versus septentrionem concipietur." Here alone can any doubt exist as to the meaning of the terms, and that is easily solved.
The boundary pointed out in the instrument is "such as may be conceived to go or run toward the north by (per) a direct (directam) line." Now a direct line toward the north can be no other than a meridian line. Had it been merely a straight line of vague northerly direction which was meant, rectum, the usual expression for a mathematical straight line, would have been used instead of directam. It is, moreover, to be considered that the Romans had names both for the northeast and northwest points of the compass, and that the expression "versus septentrionem" in its most vague application could not possibly have admitted of a deviation of more than two points on either hand. Had the direction intended deviated more than that amount from the true north, the Latin term corresponding to northeast or northwest must have been used. Nor is this a matter of mere surmise, for in a passage immediately following that which has been quoted the direction through the Gulf of St. Lawrence toward Cape Breton is denoted by the term "versus Euronotum," leaving no possibility of doubt that had the line directed to be drawn from the source of the St. Croix been intended to have a northwestern bearing the appropriate Latin words would have been employed.
It is, besides, to be recollected that the instrument was drawn by a person using habitually and thinking in a modern idiom, and that in translating the English words due north into Latin no other possible expression could suggest itself than the one employed. Such, then, was the sense appropriately given to the Latin words, first in the commission of Governor Wilmot and his successors, governors of Nova Scotia, and subsequently in the commission of all the governors of New Brunswick from the time that it was erected into a province until the question was referred to the King of the Netherlands. In this reference, although a translation was given in the American argument, it was not as quoted by Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, but was in the words which have already been cited.
Connected with this subject, although, like it, wholly irrelevant, is another conclusion which Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh attempt to draw from the same grant to Sir William Alexander. That charter directs the line "versus septentrionem" to be produced "ad proximam navium stationem, fluvium, vel scaturiginem in magno fluvio de Canada sese exonerantem." It can hardly be credited that, although a literal translation of this passage is given, including the whole of the three terms naval station, river, or spring, that it is attempted to limit the meaning to the first expression only, and to infer that as Quebec, in their opinion, is the first naval station above Gaspe on the St. Lawrence, the line "versus septentrionem" was intended to be drawn toward that place, but that as "spring" is also mentioned the line must stop at the source of the Chaudiere. Now it has been uniformly maintained by British authorities, and most strongly in the discussion which preceded the War of 1756, that Nova Scotia extended to the St. Lawrence. The boundary of Sir William Alexander's grant was therefore to be changed from a geographical line to a water course as soon as it met with one, and the apparently useless verbiage was introduced to meet every possible contingency. Supposing, however, that it did not extend so far, the northwest angle of his Nova Scotia will be where the meridian line of the St. Croix crosses the Beaver Stream running into Lake Johnson, only a mile to the north of the point maintained by the American claim to be such.
The map of L'Escarbot, quoted by Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh, illustrates both this point and the second instance in which the term "versus septentrionem" is employed. On that map, due north of the Bay of St. Marys, a deep inlet of the Bay of Fundy is represented, and, continuing in the same direction, a deep inlet of the St. Lawrence is figured. The latter does not exist, but this map shows that it was believed to exist at the time of the grant, and must be the "statio navium" of that instrument.
This inlet of the Bay of Fundy occupies the position of the St. John, which is almost due north by the most recent determination from St. Marys Bay, and is so represented on their own map. That the St. John was by mistake arising from this cause taken for the St. Croix in the charter to Alexander is obvious from its being described as lying between the territories of the Etchemin and Souriquois. Now Etchemin, or canoe men, is the name given by the Micmac Indians to the race of the Abenakis, from their skill in the management of the canoe; and this race has always inhabited the river, whence one of their tribes is still called St. John's Indians. The language of this tribe, although they have lived apart for many years, is still perfectly intelligible by the Indians of the Penobscot, and those in the service of the commission conversed with perfect ease with the Indians of Tobique. Massachusetts, then, was right in claiming to the St. John as the eastern limit of the grant to Sir William Alexander, being the stream understood and described in it under the name of St. Croix, and wholly different from the river known to the French under that name. If, therefore, Great Britain should insist that the question in relation to the St. Croix shall be reopened, the United States would be able to maintain in the very terms of the original grant to Alexander (on which the British argument in 1797 rested) that the St. John is the St. Croix, and the boundary will be that river to its most northwestern source, the Asherbish, which flows into the upper end of Lake Temiscouata. Nova Scotia will then have recovered her lost northwest angle, which can not be found in any of the many shapes under which the British argument has been presented, although it forms the place of beginning of what is called a grant to the United States.
Note VI.
The fact that a line drawn from the source of the Kennebec to the mouth of the Chaudiere or thereabout must be one of the boundary lines of the grant to the Duke of York has not escaped the notice of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge; but they have not derived the true result from this discovery. The Kennebec being the western limit of the grant, the line in question bounds the territory on the southwest, while they infer that it bounds it on the northeast. In making this inference they appear to have forgotten that the St. Croix is the eastern boundary of the grant. By their argument the grant to the Duke of York is blotted wholly from the map, or, rather, becomes a mathematical line which is absurd.
Note VII.
No name which has ever been applied to any part of North America is as vague as that of Acadie. The charter to De Monts in 1604 extended from the fortieth to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude; that is to say, from Sandy Hook, at the mouth of the Hudson, to the peninsula of Nova Scotia. It therefore included New York, parts of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and all the New England States, but excluded the disputed territory. His settlement was at the mouth of the St. Croix, but was speedily removed to Port Royal. The latter place was soon after destroyed by an expedition from Virginia under Argall. Under the title derived from this conquest it would appear probable that the celebrated grant to Sir William Stirling was made; but when his agents attempted to make settlements in the country they found that the French had preoccupied it. Although the son of Alexander succeeded in conquering the country granted to his father, and even beyond it to the Penobscot, it was restored to France by the treaty of St. Germains in 1634, and the Alexanders were indemnified for the loss by the Crown of England.
In the subsequent cessions to France after its occupations by the arms of Massachusetts, and in its final cession to Great Britain by the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, the country ceded is described as Acadie or Nova Scotia, with its ancient bounds (cum finibus antiquis). The uncertainty arising from this vague description became in 1750 a subject of controversy between France and England, and was one of the causes which led to the war of 1756. In this discussion both parties admitted that the names Acadie and Nova Scotia were convertible terms. England maintained that the territory thus named extended to the St. Lawrence; the French, on the other hand, insisted that their Acadie had never extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy; while by geographers, as quoted by the British commissioners, the name was limited to the peninsula which forms the present Province of Nova Scotia.[62] If Acadie had been limited to the north by the forty-sixth degree of north latitude, as expressed in the charter of De Monts, that parallel is to the south of Mars Hill. The British Government, therefore, derives no title to the disputed territory from this source, as the title of Massachusetts and of Maine as her successor is admitted to all country south of that parallel.[63]
[Footnote 62: Report of Featherstonhaugh and Mudge, p. 8.]
[Footnote 63: It can not be seriously pretended that when by the treaty of St. Germains, in 1632, Acadie was restored to France the intention was to cede to her the colonies already settled in New England. Yet the language of the British commissioners would imply that this was the case were it not that they evidently consider the forty-sixth parallel as the southern boundary of the grant to De Monts, whereas it is the northern.]
It is very easy to tell what country was actually settled by the French as Acadie. Its chief town was Port Royal, now Annapolis, at the head of the Bay of Fundy. Nearly all the settlements of the Acadians were in that vicinity, and for the most part within the peninsula.
From these seats they were removed in 1756 by Great Britain, and to them a remnant was permitted to return. The most western settlement of Acadians was on the St. John River near the present site of Fredericton, and no permanent occupation was ever made by them of country west of the St. Croix. It is even doubtful whether the settlement near Fredericton was a part of French Acadie, for it seems to have been formed by persons who escaped from the general seizure and transportation of their countrymen.
This settlement was broken up in 1783, and its inhabitants sought refuge at Madawaska; but it can not be pretended that this forced removal of Acadians subsequent to the treaty of 1783 was an extension of the name of their country. The whole argument in favor of the British claim founded on the limits of ancient Acadie therefore fails:
First. Because of the inherent vagueness of the term, on which no settled understanding was ever had, although England held it to be synonymous with Nova Scotia and France denied that it extended more than 10 leagues from the Bay of Fundy.
Second. Because by its original definition in the grant to De Monts it excludes the whole disputed territory on the one side; and
Third. Because in its practical sense, as a real settlement, it is wholly to the east of the meridian of the St. Croix, and this excludes the whole of the disputed territory on the other.
The portion of the territory granted to the Duke of York, and which is now the subject of dispute, therefore can not be claimed as a part of Acadie, as it never fell within its limits either by charter or by occupation.
Note VIII.
[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]
Considering that in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 1782 it was established that Nova Scotia should be bounded at the north as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs by the southern boundary of the Province of Quebec; that this delimitation is again found with respect to the Province of Quebec in the commission of the Governor-General of Quebec of 1786, wherein the language of the proclamation of 1763 and of the Quebec act of 1774 has been used, as also in the commissions of 1786 and others of subsequent dates of the governors of New Brunswick, with respect to the last-mentioned Province, as well as in a great number of maps anterior and posterior to the treaty of 1783; and that the first article of the said treaty specifies by name the States whose independence is acknowledged; but that this mention does not imply (implique) the entire coincidence of the boundaries between the two powers, as settled by the following article, with the ancient delimitation of the British Provinces, whose preservation is not mentioned in the treaty of 1783, and which, owing to its continual changes and the uncertainty which continued to exist respecting it, created from time to time differences between the provincial authorities.
Note IX.
[Article IV of the convention of 1827.]
The map called Mitchell's map, by which the framers of the treaty of 1783 are acknowledged to have regulated their joint and official proceedings, and the Map A, which has been agreed on by the contracting parties as a delineation of the water courses, and of the boundary lines in reference to the said water courses, as contended for by each party, respectively, and which has accordingly been signed by the above-named plenipotentiaries at the same time with this convention, shall be annexed to the statements of the contracting parties and be the only maps that shall be considered as evidence mutually acknowledged by the contracting parties of the topography of the country.
It shall, however, be lawful for either party to annex to its respective first statement, for the purposes of general illustration, any of the maps, surveys, or topographical delineations which were filed with the commissioners under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, any engraved map heretofore published, and also a transcript of the above-mentioned Map A or of a section thereof, in which transcript each party may lay down the highlands or other features of the country as it shall think fit, the water courses and the boundary lines as claimed by each party remaining as laid down in the said Map A. But this transcript, as well as all the other maps, surveys, or topographical delineations, other than the Map A and Mitchell's map, intended to be thus annexed by either party to the respective statements, shall be communicated to the other party, in the same manner as aforesaid, within nine months after the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, and shall be subject to such objections and observations as the other contracting party may deem it expedient to make thereto, and shall annex to his first statement, either in the margin of such transcript, map or maps, or otherwise.
Note X.
[Extract from the award of the King of the Netherlands.]
Considering that, according to the instances alleged, the term highlands applies not only to a hilly or elevated country, but also to land which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing in different directions, and that thus the character, more or less hilly and elevated, of the country through which are drawn the two lines respectively claimed at the north and at the south of the river St. John can not form the basis of a choice between them.
Note XI.
The reason of the double delineation of the Restigouche on the map of Mitchell and several others of ancient date is obvious. A mistake was common to them all by which the Bay of Chaleurs was laid down too far to the north. The main branch, or Grande Fourche, of Restigouche (Katawamkedgwick) has been reached by parties setting out from the banks of the St. Lawrence at Metis, and was known to fall into the Bay of Chaleurs, while the united stream had also been visited by persons crossing the wagansis of Grand River and descending the Southwestern Branch. The map makers could not, in consequence of the error in latitude, make their plat meet, and therefore considered the part of the united streams reached in the two different directions as different bodies of water, and without authority sought an outlet for that which they laid down as the southernmost of the two in another bay of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. On many of the maps, however, the small stream which modern geographers improperly call Restigouche is readily distinguishable under the name of Chacodi.
Note XII.
In the argument of the British commissioners under Jay's treaty the following points were maintained, and, being sanctioned by the decision of the umpire, became the grounds of an award acceded to by both Governments:
First. That the limits of Nova Scotia had been altered from the southern bank of the St. Lawrence to the highlands described in the treaty of peace.
Second. That if the river Schoodiac were the true St. Croix the northwest angle of Nova Scotia could be formed by the western and northern boundaries (the meridian line and the highlands).
Third. That the territory of Acadie, or Nova Scotia, was, the same territory granted to Sir William Alexander.
Fourth. That the sea and Atlantic Ocean were used as convertible terms.
Fifth. That from the date of the treaty of Utrecht the boundary between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia was that of the patent to Sir William Alexander.
Sixth. That the Provinces of Quebec and Nova Scotia belonged to and were in possession of His Britannic Majesty in 1783, and that he had an undoubted right to cede to the United States such part of them as he might think fit.
Seventh. That the due north line from the source of the St. Croix must of necessity cross the St. John.
It has since been maintained on the part of Great Britain:
First. That the limits of Nova Scotia never did extend to the St. Lawrence.
Second. That the northwest angle of Nova Scotia was unknown in 1783.
Third. That Acadie extended south to the forty-sixth degree of north latitude, and was not the same with Nova Scotia.
Fourth. That the sea and the Atlantic Ocean were different things.
Fifth. That the claims and rights of Massachusetts did not extend to the western bounds of the grant to Sir William Alexander.
Sixth. That this being the case the cession of territory not included within her limits is void.
Seventh. That it could never have been intended that the meridian line should cross the St. John.
Note XIII.
It has been pretended that the grant of the fief of Madawaska in 1683 can be urged as a bar to the claim of Massachusetts. That fief, indeed, was among the early grants of the French governors of Canada, but it is not included in the claim which the French themselves set up. It was therefore covered by the Massachusetts charter, because the grant had never been acted upon. Even up to the present day this fief can hardly be said to be settled or occupied except by the retainers of the garrison of Fort Ingall, and from all the evidence which could be found on the spot it appeared that no settlement had ever been made upon it until the establishment of a posthouse some time between the date of the treaties of 1783 and 1794. It therefore was not at the time the charter of Massachusetts was granted (1691) "actually possessed or inhabited by any other Christian prince or state."
An argument has also been attempted to be drawn from the limits given on Greenleaf's map to a purchase made from the State of Massachusetts by Watkins and Flint. This purchase is, however, by the patent extended to the highlands, and the surveyors who laid it out crossed the Walloostook in search of them. Here they met, at a short distance from that stream, with waters running to the north, which they conceived to be waters of the St. Lawrence, and they terminated their survey. The lines traced on Greenleaf's map are therefore incorrect, either as compared with the grant or the actual survey, and although from a want of knowledge of the country the surveyors stopped at waters running into Lake Temiscouata instead of the St. Lawrence, the very error shows the understanding they had of the true design of the patent, and this transaction, so far from being an available argument against the American claim, is an act of possession at an early date within the limits of the disputed territory.
WASHINGTON, April 8, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 31st March, 1842, I have the honor to submit the accompanying document and report[64] from the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 64: Relating to surveys and sales of the public lands during 1841 and 1842, etc.]
WASHINGTON, April 9, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the House of Representatives a report from the Secretary of State, with a copy of the correspondence[65] requested by their resolution of the 7th instant.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 65: With Great Britain relative to an international copyright law.]
WASHINGTON, April 11, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit a memorial[66] which I have received from the Choctaw tribe of Indians and citizens of the State of Mississippi, with a request that I should communicate the same to Congress. This I do not feel myself at liberty to decline, inasmuch as I think that some action by Congress is called for by justice to the memorialists and in compliance with the plighted national faith.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 66: Relating to an alleged violation by the United States of the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek.]
WASHINGTON, April 12, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In further compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 2d of February last, requesting information touching the demarcation of the boundary line between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 13, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 24th of July last, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[67] which contains the information called for by that resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 67: Of the diplomatic agent and minister of the United States at the Court of Austria relative to the commercial interests of the United States.]
WASHINGTON, April 13, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 29th July last, I communicate to that body a report from the Secretary of State, conveying copies of the correspondence[68] which contains the information called for by said resolution.
In communicating these papers to the Senate I call their particular attention to that portion of the report of the Secretary of State in which he suggests the propriety of not making public certain parts of the correspondence which accompanied it.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 68: Between the Department of State and Belgium relative to the rejection by that Government of the treaty ratified by the Senate February 9, 1833, and the causes of the delay in exchanging the ratifications of the treaty ratified by the Senate December 31, 1840.]
WASHINGTON, April 18, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the honor to transmit herewith the report[69] of the Secretary of State, in compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 18th February, 1842.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 69: Transmitting names of agents employed by the State Department without express provision of law.]
WASHINGTON, April 19, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, in part compliance with a resolution of the Senate of February 18, a report from the Secretary of War, inclosing a list of all officers, agents, and commissioners employed under the War Department who are not such by express provision of law, with other information required by the resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 19, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I transmit herewith a report from the Secretary of War, containing a list of appointments to office made in that Department since the 4th day of April, 1841, in part compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 20, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I submit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, accompanied by documents relating to an application by the captain and owners of the Spanish ship Sabina,[70] which is recommended to their favorable consideration.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 70: For compensation for rescuing and supporting the captain, supercargo, and 17 officers and men of the American ship Courier, of New York, which foundered at sea, and landing them safely at the Cape of Good Hope.]
WASHINGTON, April 28, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a treaty concluded on the 11th day of August last with the Minda Wankanton bands of the Dakota or Sioux Nation of Indians, with the papers necessary to an understanding of the subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 28, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit to the Senate, for the constitutional action of that body, a treaty concluded with the half-breeds of the Dakota or Sioux Nation on the 3ist day of July last, together with the papers referred to in the accompanying communication from the Secretary of War as necessary to a full view of the whole subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, April 30, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 29th instant, I have the honor to transmit the reports of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart, two of the commissioners originally appointed, along with Mr. Poindexter, to investigate the affairs of the custom-house of New York, together with all the correspondence and testimony accompanying the same, and also the report of Mr. Poindexter, to which is annexed two letters, subscribed by Mr. Poindexter and Mr. Bradley. The last-named gentleman was substituted in the place of Mr. Kelley, whose inclinations and duties called him to his residence in Ohio after the return of the commissioners to this city, about the last of August. One of the letters just mentioned was addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and bears date the 12th of April instant, and the other to myself, dated the 20th of this month. From the former you will learn that a most interesting portion of the inquiry instituted by this Department (viz, that relating to light-houses, buoys, beacons, revenue cutters, and revenue boats) is proposed to be made the subject of a further report by Messrs. Bradley and Poindexter. You will also learn, through the accompanying letter from Mr. Steuart, the reasons which have delayed him in making a supplemental and additional report to that already made by himself and Mr. Kelley, embracing his views and opinions upon the developments made subsequent to the withdrawal of Mr. Kelley from the commission and the substitution of Mr. Bradley in his place. I also transmit two documents furnished by Mr. Steuart, and which were handed by him to the Secretary of the Treasury on the 7th instant, the one being "memoranda of proceedings," etc., marked No. 1, and the other "letters accompanying memoranda," etc., marked No. 2.
The commission was instituted for the purpose of ascertaining existing defects in the custom-house regulations, to trace to their true causes past errors, to detect abuses, and by wholesome reforms to guard in future not only against fraud and peculation, but error and mismanagement. For these purposes a selection was made of persons of acknowledged intelligence and industry, and upon this task they have been engaged for almost an entire year, and their labors remain yet to be completed. The character of those labors may be estimated by the extent of Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, embracing about 100 pages of closely written manuscript, the voluminous memoranda and correspondence of Mr. Steuart, the great mass of evidence accompanying Messrs. Kelley and Steuart's report, and the report of Mr. Poindexter, extending over 394 pages, comprised in the volume accompanying this, and additional reports still remaining to be made, as before stated.
I should be better pleased to have it in my power to communicate the entire mass of reports made and contemplated to be made at one and the same time, and still more should I have been gratified if time could have been allowed me, consistently with the apparent desire of the House of Representatives to be put into immediate possession of these papers, to have compared or even to have read with deliberation the views presented by the commissioners as to proposed reforms in the revenue laws, together with the mass of documentary evidence and information by which they have been explained and enforced and which do not admit of a satisfactory comparison until the whole circle of reports be completed. Charges of malfeasance against some of those now in office will devolve upon the Executive a rigid investigation into their extent and character, and will in due season claim my attention. The readiness, however, with which the House proposes to enter upon the grave and difficult subjects which these papers suggest having anticipated that consideration of them by the Executive which their importance demands, it only remains for me, in lieu of specific recommendations, which under other circumstances it would have been my duty to make, to urge upon Congress the importance and necessity of introducing the earliest reforms in existing laws and usages, so as to guard the country in future against frauds in the collection of the revenues and the Treasury against peculation, to relieve trade and commerce from oppressive regulations, and to guard law and morality against violation and abuse.
As from their great volume it has been necessary to transmit the original papers to the House, I have to suggest the propriety of the House taking order for their restoration to the Treasury Department at such time as may comport with its pleasure.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 2, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I have this day received and now transmit to the House of Representatives the accompanying communication from Benjamin F. Butler, having relation to the reports of the commissioners appointed by me to examine into the affairs connected with the New York custom-house. As the whole subject is in possession of the House, I deem it also proper to communicate Mr. Butler's letter.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 10, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
The season for active hostilities in Florida having nearly terminated, my attention has necessarily been directed to the course of measures to be pursued hereafter in relation to the few Indians yet remaining in that Territory. Their number is believed not to exceed 240, of whom there are supposed to be about 80 warriors, or males capable of bearing arms. The further pursuit of these miserable beings by a large military force seems to be as injudicious as it is unavailing. The history of the last year's campaign in Florida has satisfactorily shown that notwithstanding the vigorous and incessant operations of our troops (which can not be exceeded), the Indian mode of warfare, their dispersed condition, and the very smallness of their number (which increases the difficulty of finding them in the abundant and almost inaccessible hiding places of the Territory) render any further attempt to secure them by force impracticable except by the employment of the most expensive means. The exhibition of force and the constant efforts to capture or destroy them of course places them beyond the reach of overtures to surrender. It is believed by the distinguished officer in command there that a different system should now be pursued to attain the entire removal of all the Indians in Florida, and he recommends that hostilities should cease unless the renewal of them be rendered necessary by new aggressions; that communications should be opened by means of the Indians with him to insure them a peaceful and voluntary surrender, and that the military operations should hereafter be directed to the protection of the inhabitants.
These views are strengthened and corroborated by the governor of the Territory, by many of its most intelligent citizens, and by numerous officers of the Army who have served and are still serving in that region. Mature reflection has satisfied me that these recommendations are sound and just; and I rejoice that consistently with duty to Florida I may indulge my desire to promote the great interests of humanity and extend the reign of peace and good will by terminating the unhappy warfare that has so long been carried on there, and at the same time gratify my anxiety to reduce the demands upon the Treasury by curtailing the extraordinary expenses which have attended the contest. I have therefore authorized the colonel in command there as soon as he shall deem it expedient to declare that hostilities against the Indians have ceased, and that they will not be renewed unless provoked and rendered indispensable by new outrages on their part, but that neither citizens nor troops are to be restrained from any necessary and proper acts of self-defense against any attempts to molest them. He is instructed to open communications with those yet remaining, and endeavor by all peaceable means to persuade them to consult their true interests by joining their brethren at the West; and directions have been given for establishing a cordon or line of protection for the inhabitants by the necessary number of troops.
But to render this system of protection effectual it is essential that settlements of our citizens should be made within the line so established, and that they should be armed, so as to be ready to repel any attack. In order to afford inducements to such settlements, I submit to the consideration of Congress the propriety of allowing a reasonable quantity of land to the head of each family that shall permanently occupy it, and of extending the existing provisions on that subject so as to permit the issue of rations for the subsistence of the settlers for one year; and as few of them will probably be provided with arms, it would be expedient to authorize the loan of muskets and the delivery of a proper quantity of cartridges or of powder and balls. By such means it is to be hoped that a hardy population will soon occupy the rich soil of the frontiers of Florida, who will be as capable as willing to defend themselves and their houses, and thus relieve the Government from further anxiety or expense for their protection.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, May 13, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
I transmit herewith a report[71] from the Postmaster-General, made in pursuance of the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st of March last, together with the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 71: Transmitting lists of postmasters and others appointed by the President and Post-Office Department from April 4, 1841, to March 21, 1842.]
WASHINGTON, May 16, 1842.
To the Senate:
Having directed hostilities in Florida to cease, the time seems to have arrived for distinguishing with appropriate honors the brave army that have so long encountered the perils of savage warfare in a country presenting every imaginable difficulty and in seasons and under a climate fruitful of disease. The history of the hardships which our soldiers have endured, of the patience and perseverance which have enabled them to triumph over obstacles altogether unexampled, and of the gallantry which they have exhibited on every occasion which a subtle and skulking foe would allow them to improve is so familiar as not to require repetition at my hands. But justice to the officers and men now in Florida demands that their privations, sufferings, and dauntless exertions during a summer's campaign in such a climate, which for the first time was witnessed during the last year, should be specially commended. The foe has not been allowed opportunity either to plant or to cultivate or to reap. The season, which to him has usually been one of repose and preparation for renewed conflict, has been vigorously occupied by incessant and harassing pursuit, by penetrating his hiding places and laying waste his rude dwellings, and by driving him from swamp to swamp and from everglade to everglade. True, disease and death have been encountered at the same time and in the same pursuit, but they have been disregarded by a brave and gallant army, determined on fulfilling to the uttermost the duties assigned them, however inglorious they might esteem the particular service in which they were engaged.
To all who have been thus engaged the executive department, responding to the universal sentiment of the country, has already awarded the meed of approbation. There must, however, in all such cases be some who, availing themselves of the occasions which fortune afforded, have distinguished themselves for "gallant actions and meritorious conduct" beyond the usual high gallantry and great merit which an intelligent public opinion concedes to the whole Army. To express to these the sense which their Government cherishes of their public conduct and to hold up to their fellow-citizens the bright example of their courage, constancy, and patriotic devotion would seem to be but the performance of the very duty contemplated by that provision of our laws which authorizes the issuing of brevet commissions.
Fortunately for the country, a long peace, interrupted only by difficulties with Indians at particular points, has afforded few occasions for the exercise of this power, and it may be regarded as favorable to the encouragement of a proper military spirit throughout the Army that an opportunity is now given to evince the readiness of the Government to reward unusual merit with a peculiar and lasting distinction.
I therefore nominate to the Senate the persons whose names are contained in the accompanying list[72] for brevet commissions for services in Florida. That the number is large is evidence only of the value of the services rendered during a contest that has continued nearly as long as the War of the Revolution. The difficulty has been to reduce the number as much as possible without injustice to any, and to accomplish this great and mature consideration has been bestowed on the case of every officer who has served in Florida.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 72: Omitted.]
WASHINGTON, May 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the Senate a treaty recently concluded with the Wyandott tribe of Indians, and request the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification of the same as proposed to be modified by the War Department.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 1, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I herewith transmit a report from the Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office and the documents accompanying the same (from No. 1 to No. 7), in relation to the conduct of N.P. Taylor, present register and former clerk in the land office at St. Louis, in compliance with your resolution of the 9th May.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 10, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I submit herewith a treaty concluded at Buffalo Creek on the 20th day of May last between the United States and the Seneca Nation of Indians, for your advice and consent to its ratification, together with a report on the subject from the War Department.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 13, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 2d of March last, requesting information touching proceedings under the convention of the 11th of April, 1839, between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 15, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 29th of March last, calling for information touching the relations between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.[73]
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 73: Correspondence respecting certain citizens of the United States captured with the Texan expedition to Santa Fe, and held in confinement in Mexico.]
WASHINGTON, June 17, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I herewith transmit a report from the Secretary of the Treasury, which, accompanied by copies of certain letters of Mr. Ewing, late Secretary of the Treasury, and a statement[74] from the Treasury Department, completes the answer, a part of which has heretofore been furnished, to your resolution of the 7th of February last, and complies also with your resolution of the 3d instant.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 74: Of expenses of the commission to investigate the New York custom-house, etc.]
WASHINGTON, June 20, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
A resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant has been communicated to me, requesting, "so far as may be compatible with the public interest, a copy of the quintuple treaty between the five powers of Europe for the suppression of the African slave trade, and also copies of any remonstrance or protest addressed by Lewis Cass, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at the Court of France, to that Government, against the ratification by France of the said treaty, and of all correspondence between the Governments of the United States and of France, and of all communications from the said Lewis Cass to his own Government and from this Government to him relating thereto."
In answer to this request I have to say that the treaty mentioned therein has not been officially communicated to the Government of the United States, and no authentic copy of it, therefore, can be furnished. In regard to the other papers requested, although it is my hope and expectation that it will be proper and convenient at an early day to lay them before Congress, together with others connected with the same subjects, yet in my opinion a communication of them to the House of Representatives at this time would not be compatible with the public interest.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, June 22, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 15th of April last, I communicate to the Senate a report from the Secretary of State, accompanying copies of the correspondence[75] called for by said resolution.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 75: Relating to the conduct and character of William B. Hodgson (nominated to be consul at Tunis) while dragoman at Constantinople.]
WASHINGTON, June 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith to the Senate the translation of a letter[76] addressed by the minister of France at Washington to the Secretary of State of the United States and a copy of the answer given thereto by my direction, and invite to the subject of the minister's letter all the consideration due to its importance and to a proposition originating in a desire to promote mutual convenience and emanating from a Government with which it is both our interest and our desire to maintain the most amicable relations.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 76: Relating to the establishment of a line of steamers between Havre and New York.]
[The same message was sent to the House of Representatives.]
WASHINGTON, June 24, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 16th of February last, I herewith transmit a letter[77] from the Secretary of State and the papers in that Department called for by the resolution aforesaid.
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 77: Transmitting names and compensation of employees and witnesses in connection with the commission of inquiry relative to the public buildings in Washington, D.C.]
WASHINGTON, June 25, 1842.
To the House of Representatives:
I have this day approved and signed an act, which originated in the House of Representatives, entitled "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the Sixth Census," and have caused the same to be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, accompanied by an exposition of my reasons for giving to it my sanction.
JOHN TYLER.
[Transmitted to the House of Representatives by the Secretary of State in compliance with a resolution of that body.]
WASHINGTON, June 25,1842.
A BILL entitled "An act for an apportionment of Representatives among the several States according to the Sixth Census," approved June 25, 1842.
In approving this bill I feel it due to myself to say, as well that my motives for signing it may be rightly understood as that my opinions may not be liable to be misconstrued or quoted hereafter erroneously as a precedent, that I have not proceeded so much upon a clear and decided opinion of my own respecting the constitutionality or policy of the entire act as from respect to the declared will of the two Houses of Congress.
In yielding my doubts to the matured opinion of Congress I have followed the advice of the first Secretary of State to the first President of the United States and the example set by that illustrious citizen upon a memorable occasion.
When I was a member of either House of Congress I acted under the conviction that to doubt as to the constitutionality of a law was sufficient to induce me to give my vote against it; but I have not been able to bring myself to believe that a doubtful opinion of the Chief Magistrate ought to outweigh the solemnly pronounced opinion of the representatives of the people and of the States.
One of the prominent features of the bill is that which purports to be mandatory on the States to form districts for the choice of Representatives to Congress, in single districts. That Congress itself has power by law to alter State regulations respecting the manner of holding elections for Representatives is clear, but its power to command the States to make new regulations or alter their existing regulations is the question upon which I have felt deep and strong doubts. I have yielded those doubts, however, to the opinion of the Legislature, giving effect to their enactment as far as depends on my approbation, and leaving questions which may arise hereafter, if unhappily such should arise, to be settled by full consideration of the several provisions of the Constitution and the laws and the authority of each House to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.
Similar considerations have operated with me in regard to the representation of fractions above a moiety of the representative number, and where such moiety exceeds 30,000—a question on which a diversity of opinion has existed from the foundation of the Government. The provision recommends itself from its nearer approximation to equality than would be found in the application of a common and simple divisor to the entire population of each State, and corrects in a great degree those inequalities which are destined at the recurrence of each succeeding census so greatly to augment.
In approving the bill I flatter myself that a disposition will be perceived on my part to concede to the opinions of Congress in a matter which may conduce to the good of the country and the stability of its institutions, upon which my own opinion is not clear and decided. But it seemed to me due to the respectability of opinion against the constitutionality of the bill, as well as to the real difficulties of the subject, which no one feels more sensibly than I do, that the reasons which have determined me should be left on record.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 1, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In pursuance of the suggestions contained in the accompanying letter from the Secretary of the Navy and of my own convictions of their propriety, I transmit to the Senate the report made by Lieutenant Wilkes, commander of the exploring expedition, relative to the Oregon Territory. Having due regard to the negotiations now pending between this Government and the Government of Great Britain through its special envoy, I have thought it proper to communicate the report confidentially to the Senate.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 2, 1842.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States:
I submit to Congress the printed copy of certain resolutions of the legislature of the State of Louisiana, accompanied by a letter from the Senators and Representatives from that State, and also a letter from the Solicitor of the Treasury and Commissioner of the General Land Office, requesting and recommending that a suit in ejectment may be authorized and directed in order to test the validity of a grant made on the 20th of June, 1797, by the Baron de Carondelet, Governor-General of Louisiana, to the Marquis de Maison Rouge.
The magnitude of this claim renders it highly desirable that a speedy termination should be put to all contest concerning it, and I therefore recommend that Congress shall authorize such proceedings as may be best calculated to bring it to a close.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 9, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 21st ultimo, requesting information relative to proceedings of this Government in the case of George Johnson, a citizen of the United States aggrieved by acts of authorities of the Republic of Uruguay, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State with the accompanying Papers.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 14, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 12th instant, requesting copies of papers upon the subject of the relations between the United States and the Mexican Republic, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State and the documents by which it was accompanied.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 14, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with the resolution of the Senate of the 11th instant, calling for the recent correspondence between the Republic of Mexico and this Government in relation to Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, with the accompanying documents.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 20, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In further compliance with the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 29th of April last, I transmit herewith a supplemental and additional report of William M. Steuart, one of the commissioners appointed to investigate the affairs of the New York custom-house, which has recently been received, and which, like the reports of the commissioners heretofore communicated to the House, I have not had an opportunity to examine. For the reason stated in my message to the House of the 30th of April last, I shall abstain, as I have done hitherto, from recommending any specific measures which might be suggested by an examination of the various reports on the subject.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, July 22, 1842.
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 13th instant, upon the subject of the relations between the United States and the Republic of Texas, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State. My last communication to Congress relating to that Republic was my message of the 30th of March last, suggesting the expediency of legislative provisions for improving the trade and facilitating the intercourse by post between the United States and Texas. The report of the Secretary of State is accompanied by a copy of all the correspondence between the two Governments since that period which it would be compatible with the public interest to communicate to the House of Representatives at this time.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 8, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In the communication made to the Senate on the 13th of June, in answer to its resolution of the 2d of March last, there appears to have been, among other papers, sundry letters addressed to the Department of State by certain claimants or their agents containing reflections upon the character of the umpire appointed by His Prussian Majesty pursuant to the convention between the United States and the Mexican Republic of the 11th of April, 1839. As the call was for all communications which had been addressed to the Department of State by any of the claimants under that convention relative to the proceedings and progress of the mixed commission, the copies were prepared and submitted without attracting the attention either of the head of the Department or myself. If those letters had been noticed, their transmission to the Senate, if transmitted at all, would have been accompanied by a disclaimer on the part of the Executive of any intention to approve such charges. The Executive has no complaint to make against the conduct or decisions of the highly respectable person appointed by his sovereign umpire between the American and Mexican commissioners.
JOHN TYLER.
WASHINGTON, August 10, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
In compliance with your resolution of the 18th July, I herewith transmit a letter from the Acting Secretary of the Treasury and a report from the Commissioner of Public Buildings, together with the accompanying documents.[78]
JOHN TYLER.
[Footnote 78: Relating to the macadamizing of Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington D.C.]
WASHINGTON, August 11, 1842.
To the Senate of the United States:
I have the satisfaction to communicate to the Senate the results of the negotiations recently had in this city with the British minister, special and extraordinary.
These results comprise—
First. A treaty to settle and define the boundaries between the territories of the United States and the possessions of Her Britannic Majesty in North America, for the suppression of the African slave trade, and the surrender of criminals fugitive from justice in certain cases.
Second. A correspondence on the subject of the interference of the colonial authorities of the British West Indies with American merchant vessels driven by stress of weather or carried by violence into the ports of those colonies.
Third. A correspondence upon the subject of the attack and destruction of the steamboat Caroline.
Fourth. A correspondence on the subject of impressment.
If this treaty shall receive the approbation of the Senate, it will terminate a difference respecting boundary which has long subsisted between the two Governments, has been the subject of several ineffectual attempts at settlement, and has sometimes led to great irritation, not without danger of disturbing the existing peace. Both the United States and the States more immediately concerned have entertained no doubt of the validity of the American title to all the territory which has been in dispute, but that title was controverted and the Government of the United States had agreed to make the dispute a subject of arbitration. One arbitration had been actually had, but had failed to settle the controversy, and it was found at the commencement of last year that a correspondence had been in progress between the two Governments for a joint commission, with an ultimate reference to an umpire or arbitrator with authority to make a final decision. That correspondence, however, had been retarded by various occurrences, and had come to no definite result when the special mission of Lord Ashburton was announced. This movement on the part of England afforded in the judgment of the Executive a favorable opportunity for making an attempt to settle this long-existing controversy by some agreement or treaty without further reference to arbitration.
It seemed entirely proper that if this purpose were entertained consultation should be had with the authorities of the States of Maine and Massachusetts. Letters, therefore, of which copies are herewith communicated, were addressed to the governors of those States, suggesting that commissioners should be appointed by each of them, respectively, to repair to this city and confer with the authorities of this Government on a line by agreement or compromise, with its equivalents and compensations. This suggestion was met by both States in a spirit of candor and patriotism and promptly complied with. Four commissioners on the part of Maine and three on the part of Massachusetts, all persons of distinction and high character, were duly appointed and commissioned and lost no time in presenting themselves at the seat of the Government of the United States. These commissioners have been in correspondence with this Government during the period of the discussions; have enjoyed its confidence and freest communications; have aided the general object with their counsel and advice, and in the end have unanimously signified their assent to the line proposed in the treaty.
Ordinarily it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself difficult and perplexed, but the efforts of the Government in attempting to accomplish this desirable object have been seconded and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation on the part of the States concerned, to which much of the success of these efforts is to be ascribed.
Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeastern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the highlands to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River. Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to this character has been matter of controversy and of some interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hampshire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the highlands to the head of Halls Stream and thence down that river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire and establishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she would have had by the decision of the King of the Netherlands.
By the treaty of 1783 the line is to proceed down the Connecticut River to the forty-fifth degree of north latitude, and thence west by that parallel till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line of latitude between those points was erroneous, and that the correction of this error would not only leave on the British side a considerable tract of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and New York, but also Rouses Point, the site of a military work of the United States, it has been regarded as an object of importance not only to establish the rights and jurisdiction of those States up to the line to which they have been considered to extend, but also to comprehend Rouses Point within the territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the British Government of all the territory south of the line heretofore considered to be the true line has been obtained, and the consideration for this relinquishment is to inure by the provisions of the treaty to the States of Maine and Massachusetts.
The line of boundary, then, from the source of the St. Croix to the St. Lawrence, so far as Maine and Massachusetts are concerned, is fixed by their own consent and for considerations satisfactory to them, the chief of these considerations being the privilege of transporting the lumber and agricultural products grown and raised in Maine on the waters of the St. Johns and its tributaries down that river to the ocean free from imposition or disability. The importance of this privilege, perpetual in its terms, to a country covered at present by pine forests of great value, and much of it capable hereafter of agricultural improvement, is not a matter upon which the opinion of intelligent men is likely to be divided.
So far as New Hampshire is concerned, the treaty secures all that she requires, and New York and Vermont are quieted to the extent of their claim and occupation. The difference which would be made in the northern boundary of these two States by correcting the parallel of latitude may be seen on Tanner's maps (1836), new atlas, maps Nos. 6 and 9.
From the intersection of the forty-fifth degree of north latitude with the St. Lawrence and along that river and the lakes to the water communication between Lake Huron and Lake Superior the line was definitively agreed on by the commissioners of the two Governments under the sixth article of the treaty of Ghent; but between this last-mentioned point and the Lake of the Woods the commissioners acting under the seventh article of that treaty found several matters of disagreement, and therefore made no joint report to their respective Governments. The first of these was Sugar Island, or St. Georges Island, lying in St. Marys River, or the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior. By the present treaty this island is embraced in the territories of the United States. Both from soil and position it is regarded as of much value.
Another matter of difference was the manner of extending the line from the point at which the commissioners arrived, north of Isle Royale, in Lake Superior, to the Lake of the Woods. The British commissioner insisted on proceeding to Fond du Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence by the river St. Louis to the Rainy Lake. The American commissioner supposed the true course to be to proceed by way of the Dog River. Attempts were made to compromise this difference, but without success. The details of these proceedings are found at length in the printed separate reports of the commissioners.
From the imperfect knowledge of this remote country at the date of the treaty of peace, some of the descriptions in that treaty do not harmonize with its natural features as now ascertained. "Long Lake" is nowhere to be found under that name. There is reason for supposing, however, that the sheet of water intended by that name is the estuary at the mouth of Pigeon River. The present treaty therefore adopts that estuary and river, and afterwards pursues the usual route across the height of land by the various portages and small lakes till the line reaches Rainy Lake, from which the commissioners agreed on the extension of it to its termination in the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods. The region of country on and near the shore of the lake between Pigeon River on the north and Fond du Lac and the river St. Louis on the south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is thus included within the United States. It embraces a territory of 4,000,000 acres northward of the claim set up by the British commissioner under the treaty of Ghent. From the height of land at the head of Pigeon River westerly to the Rainy Lake the country is understood to be of little value, being described by surveyors and marked on the map as a region of rock and water.
From the northwest angle of the Lake of the Woods, which is found to be in latitude 45 deg. 23' 55" north, existing treaties require the line to be run due south to its intersection with the forty-fifth parallel, and thence along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains.
After sundry informal communications with the British minister upon the subject of the claims of the two countries to territory west of the Rocky Mountains, so little probability was found to exist of coming to any agreement on that subject at present that it was not thought expedient to make it one of the subjects of formal negotiation to be entered upon between this Government and the British minister as part of his duties under his special mission.
By the treaty of 1783 the line of division along the rivers and lakes from the place where the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude strikes the St. Lawrence to the outlet of Lake Superior is invariably to be drawn through the middle of such waters, and not through the middle of their main channels. Such a line, if extended according to the literal terms of the treaty, would, it is obvious, occasionally intersect islands. The manner in which the commissioners of the two Governments dealt with this difficult subject may be seen in their reports. But where the line thus following the middle of the river or water course did not meet with islands, yet it was liable sometimes to leave the only practicable navigable channel altogether on one side. The treaty made no provision for the common use of the waters by the citizens and subjects of both countries.
It has happened, therefore, in a few instances that the use of the river in particular places would be greatly diminished to one party or the other if in fact there was not a choice in the use of channels and passages. Thus at the Long Sault, in the St. Lawrence—a dangerous passage, practicable only for boats—the only safe run is between the Long Sault Islands and Barnharts Island (all which belong to the United States) on one side and the American shore on the other. On the other hand, by far the best passage for vessels of any depth of water from Lake Erie into the Detroit River is between Bois Blanc, a British island, and the Canadian shore. So again, there are several channels or passages, of different degrees of facility and usefulness, between the several islands in the river St. Clair at or near its entry into the lake of that name. In these three cases the treaty provides that all the several passages and channels shall be free and open to the use of the citizens and subjects of both parties.
The treaty obligations subsisting between the two countries for the suppression of the African slave trade and the complaints made to this Government within the last three or four years, many of them but too well founded, of the visitation, seizure, and detention of American vessels on that coast by British cruisers could not but form a delicate and highly important part of the negotiations which have now been held.
The early and prominent part which the Government of the United States has taken for the abolition of this unlawful and inhuman traffic is well known. By the tenth article of the treaty of Ghent it is declared that the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice, and that both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition; and it is thereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. The Government of the United States has by law declared the African slave trade piracy, and at its suggestion other nations have made similar enactments. It has not been wanting in honest and zealous efforts, made in conformity with the wishes of the whole country, to accomplish the entire abolition of the traffic in slaves upon the African coast, but these efforts and those of other countries directed to the same end have proved to a considerable degree unsuccessful. Treaties are known to have been entered into some years ago between England and France by which the former power, which usually maintains a large naval force on the African station, was authorized to seize and bring in for adjudication vessels found engaged in the slave trade under the French flag.
It is known that in December last a treaty was signed in London by the representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria having for its professed object a strong and united effort of the five powers to put an end to the traffic. This treaty was not officially communicated to the Government of the United States, but its provisions and stipulations are supposed to be accurately known to the public. It is understood to be not yet ratified on the part of France.
No application or request has been made to this Government to become party to this treaty, but the course it might take in regard to it has excited no small degree of attention and discussion in Europe, as the principle upon which it is founded and the stipulations which it contains have caused warm animadversions and great political excitement.
In my message at the commencement of the present session of Congress I endeavored to state the principles which this Government supports respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. Desirous of maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfilled, I have thought it most consistent with the honor and dignity of the country that it should execute its own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own power.
The examination or visitation of the merchant vessels of one nation by the cruisers of another for any purpose except those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. It is far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity or any motive for such examination or visit. Interference with a merchant vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of national honor as well as to affect the interests of individuals. It has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of Ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the American flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the Senate.
The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply that each of the two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to enforce separately and respectively the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade.
Another consideration of great importance has recommended this mode of fulfilling the duties and obligations of the country. Our commerce along the western coast of Africa is extensive, and supposed to be increasing. There is reason to think that in many cases those engaged in it have met with interruptions and annoyances caused by the jealousy and instigation of rivals engaged in the same trade. Many complaints on this subject have reached the Government. A respectable naval force on the coast is the natural resort and security against further occurrences of this kind.
The surrender to justice of persons who, having committed high crimes, seek an asylum in the territories of a neighboring nation would seem to be an act due to the cause of general justice and properly belonging to the present state of civilization and intercourse. The British Provinces of North America are separated from the States of the Union by a line of several thousand miles, and along portions of this line the amount of population on either side is quite considerable, while the passage of the boundary is always easy.
Offenders against the law on the one side transfer themselves to the other. Sometimes, with great difficulty, they are brought to justice, but very often they wholly escape. A consciousness of immunity from the power of avoiding justice in this way instigates the unprincipled and reckless to the commission of offenses, and the peace and good neighborhood of the border are consequently often disturbed.
In the case of offenders fleeing from Canada into the United States, the governors of States are often applied to for their surrender, and questions of a very embarrassing nature arise from these applications. It has been thought highly important, therefore, to provide for the whole case by a proper treaty stipulation. The article on the subject in the proposed treaty is carefully confined to such offenses as all mankind agree to regard as heinous and destructive of the security of life and property. In this careful and specific enumeration of crimes the object has been to exclude all political offenses or criminal charges arising from wars or intestine commotions. Treason, misprision of treason, libels, desertion from military service, and other offenses of similar character are excluded.
And lest some unforeseen inconvenience or unexpected abuse should arise from the stipulation rendering its continuance in the opinion of one or both of the parties not longer desirable, it is left in the power of either to put an end to it at will.
The destruction of the steamboat Caroline at Schlosser four or five years ago occasioned no small degree of excitement at the time, and became the subject of correspondence between the two Governments. That correspondence, having been suspended for a considerable period, was renewed in the spring of the last year, but no satisfactory result having been arrived at, it was thought proper, though the occurrence had ceased to be fresh and recent, not to omit attention to it on the present occasion. It has only been so far discussed in the correspondence now submitted as it was accomplished by a violation of the territory of the United States. The letter of the British minister, while he attempts to justify that violation upon the ground of a pressing and overruling necessity, admitting, nevertheless, that even if justifiable an apology was due for it, and accompanying this acknowledgment with assurances of the sacred regard of his Government for the inviolability of national territory, has seemed to me sufficient to warrant forbearance from any further remonstrance against what took place as an aggression on the soil and territory of the country. On the subject of the interference of the British authorities in the West Indies, a confident hope is entertained that the correspondence which has taken place, showing the grounds taken by this Government and the engagements entered into by the British minister, will be found such as to satisfy the just expectation of the people of the United States.
The impressment of seamen from merchant vessels of this country by British cruisers, although not practiced in time of peace, and therefore not at present a productive cause of difference and irritation, has, nevertheless, hitherto been so prominent a topic of controversy and is so likely to bring on renewed contentions at the first breaking out of a European war that it has been thought the part of wisdom now to take it into serious and earnest consideration. The letter from the Secretary of State to the British minister explains the ground which the Government has assumed and the principles which it means to uphold. For the defense of these grounds and the maintenance of these principles the most perfect reliance is placed on the intelligence of the American people and on their firmness and patriotism in whatever touches the honor of the country or its great and essential interests.
JOHN TYLER.
[The following are inserted because they pertain to the treaty transmitted with the message of President Tyler immediately preceding.]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, August 3, 1848.
To the Senate of the United States:
The Secretary of State has the honor to transmit to the Senate, in compliance with a resolution adopted by it on the 29th ultimo, a copy of joint report of the commissioners under the treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842, together with a copy of the report of the American commissioner transmitting the same to the State Department.
JAMES BUCHANAN.
Mr. Smith to Mr. Buchanan.
WASHINGTON, April 20, 1848.
SIR: In presenting to you the joint report of the commissioners appointed under the treaty of Washington of August 9, 1842, to survey and mark the line of boundary between the United States and the British Provinces, which I have the honor herewith most respectfully to submit, I have to perform the painful duty of informing you that the maps of that line and of the adjacent country, which had been elaborately constructed by the scientific corps on the part of the United States, and contained upon 100 sheets of drawing paper of the largest size, together with the tables of the survey, have been destroyed by the conflagration of the building in which they were contained. This house had been occupied by Major James D. Graham, the head of the scientific corps and principal astronomer of the American commission, as his office until his departure for Mexico. All the maps, drawings, and tables had been completed and duly authenticated by the joint commissioners, and were ready to be deposited with their joint report under their hands and seals in the archives of this Government. Of this I had the honor to inform you in my letter of the 24th ultimo.
I can hardly express the pain which this unfortunate event has occasioned me. But I can not perceive that any imputation of blame can properly be attached to any officer of the commission. The care and custody of all the work of the United States scientific corps were properly placed in charge of Major Graham, as the head of that corps, who had had the immediate direction and superintendence of it from the first organization of the commission. He required the maps and tables at his office for reference and revision in the progress of the astronomical work. Upon his departure for Mexico he placed Lieutenant A.W. Whipple in his rooms with an injunction to guard with the utmost care the valuable property of the commission. On the day after he left the city, and when for the first time informed of the fact, I called upon Lieutenant Whipple and requested him to have all the maps, drawings, and tables ready to be turned over to the State Department on the following day. On the 24th ultimo I acquainted you with that fact. |
|
