decide; the United States and the King of Great Britain binding themselves to regard his decision as conclusive in regard to all the matters so referred: And by the first article of the Convention of Reference of September 1827, it is declared, not that it is certain geographical points which are to be determined abstractedly, by the King of the Netherlands; but 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;" which terms must be intended to apply to all the points of difference which had arisen since the treaty of 1783; the words" as described in the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent," being solely applicable by every rule of grammar to the word boundary; and therefore, the article left the term used "points of difference," in its most extended signification: while the seventh article of the Convention of arbitration states, that "the decision of the arbiter, when given, shall be taken as final and conclusive;" so that had the King of the Netherlands merely pronounced his arbitration without explanation, in the words, "The boundary line is such as I have drawn on [the map, America must have submitted, or broken faith.

P

Mr. Preble however, who had been sent to the Court of the Netherlands as Minister of the United States, a citizen of the State of Maine, whose boundary was immediately in question, and one, who throughout the whole affair, took an active and decided part in upholding the claims of that State, protested as I have said against the decision of the King, alledging that the only question submitted to arbitration was, what was the boundary prescribed by the treaty of 1783. The government of Great Britain signified to the general Government of the United States, its adhesion to the decision of the King of the Netherlands, but in consideration of the difficulties which were were likely to arise from the protest of Mr. Preble, Lord Palmerston empowered the Representative of Great Britain at Washington, to hold out to the Government of the United States, in a private and informal manner, the prospect of some amicable arrangement of the difficulties on condition of the decision of the King of the Netherlands being absolutely and formally received by the United States.

The President of the United States found himself bound to submit the decision of the King of the Netherlands to the Senate for acceptance or rejection. But he, at the same time, strongly

recommended that the award should be agreed

to.

The question was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations, who recommended that the President's views should be acceded to. Mr. Preble returned to America while the matter was under consideration: a declaration was made by the Senate that not less than twothirds of the votes should be considered as finally decisive of the question, and the award of the King of the Netherlands was consequently rejected.

This result was notified to the British Representative by Mr. Livingston, American Secretary of State, who in his note upon the occasion makes this important acknowledgment regarding the line pointed out by the King of the Netherlands, "If the decision had indicated this line as the boundary designated by the Treaty of 1783, this objection could not have been urged.' He then goes on to propose new negotiations for determining the line, holding out hopes of greater facilities in the arrangements, which could not of course be relied upon by those who had experienced the difficulty of treating with a state, the executive Government of which was so circumscribed in its powers. He also put forth, as an appendage to the question, an object long desired by the State of Maine: namely, the right of navigating the

19

river St. John, which he stated naturally to combine itself with the negotiations he proposed.

In reference to these transactions, Lord Palmerston instructed Sir Charles Vaughan to inform the American Government, that, in the proposal of Mr. Livingston Great Britain saw no probability of settling the question without being certain of what was the principle of the plan contemplated by the American Government, and that without being assured that the President of the United States would be empowered to carry any decision into effect, the proposal could not be at all entertained. At the same time he distinctly refused to suffer the question of the navigation of the river St. John to be mixed up with the discussion of the Boundary question.

Some negotiations then took place through Mr. Vail, American chargé d 'affaires in London, Mr. Livingston, and Sir Charles Vaughan, from which it became evident that no definite basis of negotiation could be obtained, and that instead of the negotiation on a broader footing, which had been first suggested by Mr. Livingston, America was inclined to recur to the original disputed points of the Treaty of 1783.

The American Secretary of State however, proposed a new Commission, accompanied by an

C 2

Mr.

umpire, whose decision upon all the disputed points which might arise between the Commissioners of the two nations, should be final. The Representative of Great Britain gave no encouragement to this idea of a new Commission, which promised equal expense, and no results more favourable than had been obtained by former commissions; and, in the end, shortly before his resignation of office, Mr. Livingston made explanations of the plan he proposed to be pursued, in the hopes of obtaining a more favourable result from a Commission, which explanations present one of the most extraordinary points in the whole negotiation. Livingston therein suggested that a line drawn obliquely WESTWARD from the source of the river St. Croix, might lead to the discovery of Highlands within the terms of the Treaty of 1783, and might thus afford the Boundary. Now what was the pretext upon which the Government of the United States refused to receive the award of the King of the Netherlands ?That that decision was a departure from the terms of the Treaty of 1783. What are the terms of the treaty of 1783, on the very point now proposed by Mr. Livingston ?-That the line shall be drawn 66 DUE-NORTH from the source of the River St. Croix."

This anomaly does not seem to have escaped