« AnteriorContinuar »
considered as unsettled, he should in that case be compelled to require that BoundaryLine the parallel of 45° north latitude should be laid down according to what he Connecticut ta termed the principles of “ geocentric latitude,” as contra-distinguished from the Rivor St. the generally received, or “ observed latitude.” *
along the Pas Thus the whole preceding part of the astronomical observations having been rallel of 45° performed according to the universally adopted rules of geographical latitude, the American Agent threatened to require that it should all be executed over again according to a scheme never heard of as applied to practical geography,
It may be sufficient to state cursorily in this place, that the practical effect of the substitution of geocentric for observed latitude, as demanded by the American Agent, would be to throw the parallel of 45° north latitude about thirteen miles farther to the north than the true parallel.
In proof of the accuracy of the above statement, we annex hereto the Appendix, account of this proceeding, such as it is stated in the Report of the No. 12, p. 293 British Commissioner.
An explanatory letter, written by the British Astronomer, is also annexed, Appendix, in order to elucidate scientifically the question of geocentric latitude.
No. 43, p. 303 With regard to the argument adduced on the part of the United States in support of the partial, instead of the total, rectification of the Boundary Line on the parallel of 45° north latitude, which is asserted by them to have been intended by the Treaties, it will be sufficient to observe, that however practicable the partial rectification of a Boundary Line described in general terms may be, that of a Boundary Line traced along a parallel of latitude is impossible. The rectification of such a line can be effected only by reducing all the defective portions thereof into the line which forms the true parallel of latitude. If, therefore, the parts already laid down are to be abided by, being defective, that rectification cannot be effected so as to produce one continuous Boundary Line. The following illustration, assisted by an inspection of the map, will put this matter in a clear light.
At the point at which the Line of Boundary along the parallel of 45° north latitude sets out from the Connecticut River, the old parallel is erroneous. At St. Regis, on the St. Lawrence, it is correct. If, therefore, these two parts of the line be prolonged indefinitely in opposite directions, they can never meet; and a chasm must exist between the two where they ought to join. But in the Treaties there is no provision for filling up this chasm. They simply provide for one coutinuous line; consequently, if the American construction of the intent of the Treaties were adopted, there would be no means of connecting some portions of the line with the others,--the rectified with the
unrectified; and the general Line of Boundary from the Connecticut to the St. Lawrence, instead of presenting one continuous line, would be but a series of unconnected links of a chain, which, as far as existing Treaties are concerned, must ever remain dissevered.
Upon all the grounds above stated, Great Britain founds her present claim relative to this branch of difference between her and the United States, which is
That the Line of Boundary along the parallel of 45° north latitude between the River Connecticut and the St. Lawrence, be, as provided by Treaty, now surveyed and marked out, and, having been so laid down afresh, that it henceforward form the true Boundary Line between the British and American Pos, sessions in that quarter.
* It is not a little singular, that the American Commissioner has not thought fit in his Report to enter upon the subject above discussed.
The contingent claim, however, to the adjustment of the Boundary Line in question, on the principles of Geocentric Latitude, which was put forth, ex officio, by the American Agent, never having been disavowed, or retracted, must be considered as still advanced, and in force,
No. 1. CONVENTION between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of Appendix.
America, relative to the Reference to arbitration of the Disputed Points Convenunder the Fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent.--Signed at London, September 29, 1827.
WHEREAS it is provided by the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, that in case the Commissioners appointed under that Article, for the settlement of the Boundary Line, therein described, should not be able to agree upon such Boundary Line, the Report or Reports of those Commissioners, stating the points on which they had differed, should be submitted to some friendly Sovereign or State; and that the decision given by such Sovereign or State on such points of difference should be considered by the Contracting Parties as final and conclusive. That case having now arisen, and it having therefore become expedient to proceed to and regulate the reference as above described, His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, have, for that purpose, named their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:
His Majesty, on His part, has appointed the Right Honourable Charles Grant, a Member of Parliament, a Member of His said Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, and President of the Committee of the Privy Council for Affairs of Trade and Foreign Plantations ; and Henry Unwin Addington, Esquire :
And the President of the United States has appointed Albert Gallatin, their Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of His Britannic Majesty :
Who, after having exchanged their respective Full Powers, found to be in due and proper form, have agreed to and concluded the following Articles :
It is agreed that the points of difference which have arisen in the settlement of the Boundary between the British and American Dominions, as described in the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, shall be referred, as therein provided, to some friendly Sovereign or State, who shall be invited to investigate, and make a decision upon, such points of difference.
The two Contracting Powers engage to proceed in concert to the choice of such friendly Sovereign or State, as soon as the Ratifications of this Convenvention shall have been exchanged, and to use their best endeavours to obtain a decision, if practicable, within two years after the Arbiter shall have signified his consent to act as such.
ARTICLE II. The Reports, and Documents thereunto annexed, of the Commissioners appointed to carry into execution the fifth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, being so voluminous and complicated, as to render it improbable that any Sovereign