T A B L E O F CO N T E N T S
.
PA ! E
Introduction
1
P art I The C auses for the T rea t y
The Boundary ! uestion its O rigin and History
Frontier disputes
The ! uestion of t he R i gh t o f Searc h
“
”
“
”
The C reole and the C aroline cases
.
,
2O
23
25
P art II The Making o f t he Treaty
The Appointment o f a Special Mi s sw n
The N egotiations
R atification and Acceptance
O pposition and C riticism
27
.
P art III The Effects o f t he Treaty
I mmediate and Local E fi e c t s
E ff ects on I nternational R elations : Right
tradition
29
33
42
45
53
.
53
of
Search and
Ex
56
Appen di ces
62
Bibliography
82
T HE
T REAT Y O F W ASHI N GT O N
AUGUS T 9
B!
1 842,
,
A ND
D A N I EL
,
C O NC LU D E D
W E B S T ER
L O RD ASHBU R T O N
HU ! H
TA ! L O R
GO RD O N
I N T R O D U C T IO N
.
.
.
The Treaty o f Washington o f Augu st 9t h 1 842 com
mon ly ca l led the Webs t er Ashburton Treaty was described
“
by Mr Webster hi ms elf as something for t h e peace o f the
”
worl d
Th e who l e truth of this characterization was n ot
appreciated at the time it was spoken Webster in tende d
hi s description O f the treaty for its re l ation t o p ast events
for its resu lts in settling question s which had actually been
v erging u pon war
But the same description is equal ly
true o f the far reaching e fie ct s o f the treaty in its sub se
quent relation to international law and the fun damenta l
princip l es of peace b etween nations
The treaty stands b etween t wo long periods of hist o ry
o n e including the events which led to its negotiation
the
other those which res ul ted from it I n its relation t o both
o f these periods the treaty is primarily a security o f inter
national peace
The long histo ry of the Webster Ashburton treaty b e
gins with the boundary question originating in the treaty
o f 1 7 83
Around thi s question a who l e series O f comp l i
c at e d disputes were added during the ten years preceding
,
,
-
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
-
.
,
,
,
.
.
-
.
2
[
1 74
the negotiation o f the treaty in 1 842 I t was the unsettled
boundary which magnified the real importance o f the other
disputes and brought the rel ations o f the United States and
E ngland to the crisis o f a compromise settlement by a S p e
c i a l mission
D uring the negotiations the boundary question was still
the strate gic point in dispute I ts settlement involved the
concur rence o f four p arties Maine and Massachusetts b e
ing added to t h e two nation a l governments and although
this greatly increased its di fficulty the adjustment Of the
The boundaries
d i fie rent claims was finally accomplished
being settled the success O f the negotiation was practically
assured But this assurance does n ot imply that no other
questions O f import ance were settled by the treaty Two
p oints the suppression o f the S lave trade and extradition
were included in its p rovisions and both of these held a
prominent place in the international relation s subsequent to
the treaty The boundary question as a point in interna
t i on a l re l ations wa s ended by the conclusion o f the treaty ;
while the suppression o f the Slave trade and extradition
were fairly launched as international questions by the same
treaty I t is in this way that the treaty marks the close O f
one period o f historic events and the opening o f another
period Of other events I t s relation to both is that o f a
“
security of international comity ; something f o r the pe ace
”
O f the world
I n the writing o f this inquiry into the history of the
Webster Ashburton Treaty the attempt has been made to
draw upon all availab l e primary sources for the facts of the
case Some d ifi c ult y has been encountered in this regard
chiefly because of the incompleteness of the C ongressiona l
R ecords o n the shelves o f the University o f C alifornia
Library for the period between 1 833 and 1 84 1 an d from
an almost total lack o f English documents except the P ar
l ia ment a ry D eb ates and an occasional collection o f extracts
The complete p rivate and diplomatic correspondence O f
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
-
.
,
.
1 75
3]
D aniel Webster drawn from severa l sources h as b een va l
u ab l e in tracing the course Of the negoti a tions of the treaty
”—
“
while the
R ec ueil des Arbitrages I nternationaux
De
Lapradelle et P olitis f u rnished a good working basi s f o r
the history o f the boundary question up t o the Arbitration
in 1 83 1
I n arrangement the inquiry fa ll s naturally into three
main divisions which corres pond with distinct periods in the
history o f the treaty Th e first Of these concerning the
history o f the questions which led to the treaty o f 1 842
subdivides into two sections which deal with the history Of
the boundary question and with the complicating disputes
which arose over questions o f national policy The second
main division S hows the culmination o f the disputed ques
tions in the treaty o f 1 842 under sections dealing with the
negotiations preliminary t o the treaty the making o f the
treaty and it s ratification and acceptance by both countries
I n the final part Of the inquiry the results O f the treaty are
taken up under the sub hea di ngs o f immediat e and loca l
results and e fie c t s upon international law and the p rinci
p l es of peace between nations
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
-
,
.
I
.
THE C AUSES F O R THE
TREA T !
.
is a S ingu lar piece o f irony that the boundary stip
ul at io n s o f the treaty o f 1 783 b etween the United States
and Great Britain which were proclaimed by their framers
f o r the p articular purpose Of preventing subsequent dis
putes were the very S ource and material of the longest series
of boundary disputes the United States has ever ex p eri
en c e d
The termination o f this much agitated boundary
question was not reached until 1 842 when D aniel Webster
and Lord Ashburton compromised f o r its settlement by a
conventional line
To u nderstand the conditions w h ich
contributed t o its final settlement it is necessary to trace
its history through the fift y nine years which elapsed from
It
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
-
[4
1 76
its origin in 1 7 83 to 1 842 D uring this peri o d there were
many attempts made to so l ve the difficul ties which arose
from the second article o f the treaty o f 1 7 83 describing the
boundaries of the new nation the United States of America
By Jay s t reaty in 1 7 94 and the treaty o f Ghent in 1 81 5
portions of the boundary were settled But the remaining
p arts constituting almost the entire land bo un daries b e
—
tween the United States and Great Britain s N orth Ameri
can provinces remained disputed in spite Of the e flo rt s o f
commissioners diplomatists and arbitrators to secure a s et
.
,
.
,
’
,
.
,
’
,
,
t l e m en t
.
By the second a rticle o f the treaty of peace O f 1 7 83 the
northern and eastern b oundaries o f the United States are
described as follow s :
“
And that all disputes which may arise in the future o n
the subj ect Of the boundaries of the said United States may
be prevented it is hereby agreed and declared that the fo l
l owing are and shal l be their boundaries viz : From the
northwest angle o f Nova Scotia ; viz : that angle which is
formed by a l ine drawn due north from the source Of the
St C roix R iver to the Highlands ; along the said Highlands
which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the
river Saint Lawrence from those which fa ll into the Atlan
tic O cean to the northwesternmost head o f the C onnecticut
R iver ; thence down along the middle of that river to the
forty fift h degree of north latitude ; from thence by a line
due wes t on s aid latitude until it st rikes the river I roquois
o r Cat a ra quy ; thence along the m i ddle o f said river into
Lake O ntario through the middle Of said lake until it strikes
the communi c ation by water between th a t lake and Lake
E rie ; thence along the middle of said communication into
Lake E rie through the middle o f said lake until it arrives at
the water communication between th a t lake and Lake E u
ro n ; thence through the middle o f said water communication
into Lake Huron ; thence through the middle Of said lake t o
the water communication between that lake and Lake Super
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
1 77
5]
ior ; thence through Lake Superior northward o f the Isles
R oyal and P hel ip e a ux t o the Long L a ke ; thence through the
middle o f said Lo ng Lake and the water communication b e
tween it and the Lake of the Woods to the said Lake of the
Woods ; thence through the said lake to the most northwest
ern point thereof
E ast by a li n e to be
d rawn along the middle Of the river St C roix from its
mouth in the Bay O f Fundy t o its source and from its source
directly north t o the aforesaid Highlands which divide the
rivers that fall into the Atl antic O cean from those which
fa ll into the R iver St Lawrence ; comprehending al l the
islands within twenty leagues Of any p art of the S hores o f
the United States and lying between lines to be drawn due
east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between
Nova Scotia o n the o n e part and E as t Florida o n the other
shall respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic
O cean ; excepting such is l ands as now are o r heretofore have
1
been within the limits o f the province of N ova Scotia
I t is admitted that natural boundaries such as rivers
mountain ranges and sea coasts are the best means o f fixing
political boundaries where they al l ow the desired division
o f territory between two countries and there is little doubt
that this was the aim Of the negotiators who laid down the
boundaries of the United States in 1 7 83 But at that time
the country through which t h e boundary lay was for the
most part wild and unsurveyed C onsequently instead O f
the natura l obj ects named in the treaty being accurate and
u nmistakab l e definitions o f the boundary they served chief
ly to raise a number Of ques tions as to the identity O f S ig
n ific an t points in the boundary
I t is to this fact that the
b oun dary disputes rising o ut Of the treaty o f 1 783 are due
Th e first of these was in regard to the St C roi x R iver
The treaty had identified this river merely as having its
mouth in the Bay of Fundy
But it happened that there
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
’ ’
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
“
Treaties and conventions between U S and oth er powers Since
July 4
p 3 7 6 John H Haswell C ompiler
1
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
[6
1 78
were several streams which had been called at on e time or
another the St C roix R iver and three O f these emptied into
the B ay o f Fun dy Advers e claims were set up by the two
2
governments as to which of these was intended
A de
ta iled history o f this particular question is not required f o r
o u r purpose S ince it was settled by the treaty Of N ovember
1 9 1 7 94 commonly known as Jay s treaty
I t i s impo rtant
to note however that in deciding this point not only the
territory immediate ly between the t wo streams was a ff ected
but the position Of the boundary f ormed by a line drawn
due north from the source o f the St C roix R iver was there
by determined Under the fifth article o f Jay s treaty and
an explanatory article Of the same added in 1 7 98 a com
mission definitely identified the S t C roix R iver givi n g the
l ongitude and latitude o f its mouth a n d erecting at its source
a monument to be maintained by the joint measures o f the
3
two governments
This monument was made the starting
point O f all subsequent attempts to trace the u n settled
boundary
Another di fference had arisen about the same time that
the commission ers were investigating the identity of the St
C roix prior to the negotiations Of 1 7 94 but its settlement
4
was not included in that treaty
I t concerned the course
Of the boundary a mong the isla n ds in the Bay o f Fass am a
quoddy at the mouth Of the St C roi x and the ownership o f
the large is land O f Grand Menan in the Bay Of Fundy
Upon this point the treaty of 1 783 had been very indefinite
merely stating that the line S hould be drawn due east from
the mouth of the St C roix and should include within the
United States all the isla n ds within twenty l eagues o f the
main l and that were n o t and had not been hitherto under
the jurisdiction Of the province O f N ova Scotia But N ova
.
.
'
.
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
Message o f the P resident Feb 9 1 790 with correspondence an d
papers relating to the northeast boundary Am erican State P apers
Foreign R elations V ol I pp 9 1 9 9
3 Treaties and C onventions J H Haswell pp
3 82 3 9 6
4 Ameri can State P apers
F R Vo l I pp 9 1 99
2
.
,
,
,
.
,
-
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
1 79
7]
Scotia claimed j urisdiction over al l the islands in the Bay
o f Fundy which was more than the United States was will
ing to concede especially since the American town o f East
port was S ituated o n o n e of them Settlement o f this ques
tion was again deferred by the rej ection of t he treaty n e
1
by
ing
and
Hawkesbury
in
803 which contained
i
a
d
K
o
t
e
t
g
an article defining this portion o f the boundary Before any
further negotiation resulted other events intervened to take
the attention of both countries from this quart er
With the return o f peace after the war o f 1 81 2 another
attempt was made t o settle the boundary question A rticles
four t o eight inclusive o f the Treaty of Ghent provided
for the appointment of commissioners to decide upon the
ownership o f the is lands in the B ay O f Fundy and to s ur
vey and determine the entire boundary f rom the S ource o f
the St C roix river to the northwesternmost point of the
Lake of the Woods in conformity with the provisions of the
treaty of
The work was divided among four c om
missions The first o f these as p rovided in the f ourth ar
t ic l e was to decide upon the ownership o f the isla n ds near
the mouth o f the St C roix Article five allotted to another
commission the determination o f the boundary from the
head o f the St C roix to the intersection o f the line o f the
forty fift h parallel with the St Lawrence Article S ix p ro
v i d e d f o r two more commissioners to run the boundary from
the last named point on the St Lawrence to the outlet o f
Lake Superior and having completed that work the same
commissioners were authorized by article seven to continue
the line from the outlet o f Lake Superior to the northwest
point in the Lake o f the Woods I t was f urther stipulated
that should the commissioners fail to a gree in any case
statements o f their points o f di ff erence and the grounds
for their disagreement Should b e referred to some friendly
Sovereign o r State f o r arbitration
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
5
Treaties and C onventions J H Haswell p
,
.
.
,
.
3 99
.
1 80
[8
The commissioners a p p oint e d un der the fourth article
d eclared their work successfully comp l eted and de l ivered
their decis ion N ovember 24 1 81 7 They awarded to the
United States Moose I sland D udley I sland and Frederick
I s l and
Great B ritain received al l other islands in the B ay
o f P assamaquoddy also the large island Grand Menan in
the Bay o f Fun dy proper
The commissioners o f article s ix accomplish ed the settle
ment o f the boundary described in that article t e from
the intersection o f the line o f the forty fift h p ara l le l with
the St Lawrence to the outlet of Lake Superior
But
when they attempted t o continue this line westward into
and through Lake Superior and the water commun i cations
to the Lake Of the Woods they were unable to reach an
agreement
Two points o f di ff erence were encountered
Th e first was in regard to which channel should be fol
l owed around St George s I sland o r Sugar I sland situated
in the water comm u nication between Lake Huron and Lake
Superior The ownership o f this island was involved and
as it was o f considerable extent and value neither side
would make the conce s sion The second question was as to
the course o f t h e boundary fr o m Lake Superior to the Lake
The treaty o f 1 7 83 had said it should go by
o f the Woods
way o f Long Lake but the commissioners di ff ered as t o the
exact location o f Long Lake as intended by the negotiato rs
Of the treaty o f 1 7 83 The Am erican C ommissioners main
t ain e d that the most northern route was intended ; going by
way o f D og R iver and Sturgeon Lake to Lac la Pluie and
from there to Lake o f the Woods The English C ommis
s i on ers claimed the line sho ul d run t o the most southwestern
point Of Lake Superior and from there reach Lac la P luie
by Fond du Lac and the St Louis R iver The two lines
agreed from Lac la P luie t o Lake of the Woo ds Neither
claim S O the
o f the commissioners would relin quish h is
whole attempt t o fix the boundary from the outlet O f Lake
Superior to the Lake Of the Woods came to nothing
'
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
-
.
.
,
.
.
’
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
'
1 81
9]
The most difficu lt p art Of a l l the boundary fe l l t o the
commiss ioners under the fifth article This was that p or
tion lying between the monument at the source o f the St
C roix R iver and the point where the forty fif th p aralle l
intersects the St Lawrence at St R egis A s defined by the
treaty o f 1 7 83 this part o f the boundary was to be deter
mined by a line extending due north from the source of
t h e St C roix to its intersection with the Highlands which
formed with that line the northwest angle of N ov a Scotia
“
Furthermore these Highlands were d efined as those whi ch
divide those rivers which empty the mselves into the river
St Lawrence from those which fal l into the Atl antic
”
O cean
Along their crest the l ine was to run unti l the
northwesternmost head o f the C onnecticut R iver was
reached ; whence it followed the middle o f that stream to
the forty fift h degree of north latitude and from that point
extended along the line of the forty fift h p arallel t o the
St Lawrence The treaty o f 1 7 83 had as we have already
observed defined a boundary through an unsurveyed coun
try by naming rivers and heights o f uncertain l ocation
This was a fau l t p artic ul arly applicab l e to the High l and
frontier just described
The northwe st angle O f N ov a
Scotia had never been accurately defined b efore the treaty
of 1 7 83 n o r was it known at that time just where a due
north line from the source o f the St C roix would strike the
Highlands C onsequently when the commis sioners of the
fifth artic l e of t h e treaty of Ghent started to run the line
from the head o f the St C ro ix to the St L awrence the
fi rst question they encountered was that o f determining the
point where the due north l ine strikes the Highl ands to
form the northwest angle of N ova Scoti a With nothing
—
in the treaty of 1 783 which they were trying to inte rpret
—
to prove this point they were involved in the terri t oria l
history o f Mass achusetts C anada and N ova Scotia and
each decided on a different point to which the north line
should be run
.
.
-
.
.
.
,
.
‘
.
,
.
,
.
-
,
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
1 82
[10
The United States commissioner claimed the High l ands
named in the treaty were those which the due north line
encountered near the source o f the Meti s a small tributary
o f the St
Lawrence and separated its waters from the
headwaters o f the R ist a gouc h e and the St John
The
boundary if it followed the crest of the Highland s from
this point gave to the United States the entire territ o ry
drained by the St John and its tributaries I t also inter
c e p t e d the roads o f communication between ! uebec and
Halifax and brought the Un ited States frontier within a
few miles o f Montreal and the St Lawrence This c on s id
e ra t i o n was much more important to England than the loss
I t was not diffi
o f the territory f o r its agricultural value
cult t o find a valid Obj ection to such an interpretation o f
the treaty o f 1 7 83 The Highlands were first mentioned in
the treaty b etween F ra n ce and England in 1 7 63 when they
“
were described as those which divide the rivers which
empty themselves into the river St Lawrence from those
”
which fall into the Sea
They were similarly described in
the P roclamation creating the P rovi n ce o f ! uebec in 1 7 63
“
and in the ! uebec act o f 1 7
but in 1 7 83 instead o f the
”
” “
the Atlantic O cean was named
O therwise the
s ea
two descriptions coincided
But in this di ff erence the
E nglish saw more than a di fference between cont rovertible
“
”
ter ms They contended that the s e a was a general term
including all the bays and gulfs along the shore but when
“
”
Atlantic O cean was specified it was clearl y intended by
the negotiators to express a distinction between the open
seacoast and a gu lf o r bay Hence any Highlands which
divided stream s flowing into the Bay o f C haleurs o r the
B ay of Fundy were no t within the meaning of the words
This was their ground o f Objection to the
o f the treaty
A merican claim
The English commissioner contended that the due north
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
6
pp
.
C ollections
6 1 , 64
.
of
the Maine H i storical Soc i ety ;
2n d
Ser V ol VIII
.
.
,
1 83
11]
line was never intended to go b eyond the St John R iver
but should terminate at Mars Hill situated about midway
between the source o f the St C roix and the intersection of
the due north line with the St John F ro m this point the
boundary was run westward along the heights separat ing
the headwate rs o f the Aroostook and other streams flowing
no rthward into the St John from the sources o f the P en
nobscot flowing southward into the Atlantic O cean This
line struck the High l ands followed by the Ame rican com
missioner at Met a m a rj et t e P ortage the two lines concur
ring from that point t o the northwest source of the
C onnecticut R iver
Th e obj ections which the American
commiss ioner raised to thi s line were quite as valid as those
raised by the E nglish against the United States claim
I nstead o f separating the wate rs o f the St Lawrence from
those of the Atlantic the Highlands claimed by the English
divided streams flowing into the St John from thos e empty
in g into the Atlantic O cean which was directly contrary
to the words of the treaty Furthermore these Highlands
were not distinct mountainous ranges like those north o f
the St John
Apparently neither side p res ented a claim w hi ch com
plied strictly with the words o f the treaty o f 1 783 But
both commissioners insisted that their claim was entirely
just and in accord with the intentio ns o f the negotiators
There was n o alternative but t o abandon this attempt to
settle the boundary The commissioners Thomas Barclay
for England and V an N es s for the United States a n
n o un c e d their failure to their respective gove rnments O c
tober 9
Besides the boundary dispute on the ques
tion o f the Highlands t wo ques tion s o f minor importance
remained unsettled
I n regard to the northwesternmost
head o f the C onnecticut the American commissioner
claimed I ndian Stream supposed to be the most wes terly
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
D e Lapradelle
”
aux p 3 5 5
7
,
.
.
et
P olitis
“
,
R ecueil des Arbitrages I nternation
1 84
1
2
[
Of the four c onfluents forming the sou rces o f the C onnec
ti out The English claim was f or the western source o f
C onnecticut Lake a p art o f the headwaters o f the most
east er ly o f the four c onflu ent s which they said was the
northwesternmost head Of the C onnecticut proper
The
difieren c e between the two c l aims here a ff ected the owner
ship of a considerab l e tract o f v ery fertile land lying a l ong
these streams The second Of the questions arose from the
discovery by an accurate survey in 1 81 8 that the line of
the forty fift h p arallel as it had been generally accepted
since the sur vey of V alentine and C ollins 1 7 64
as the
northern boundary o f N ew York and Vermont was three
quarters of a mile north o f the true line of the forty fif t h
para l le l where that l ine intercepted the C onnecticut R iv er
The two l ines converged as they approached the St Law
rence including a long narrow strip o f territory across
the northern end o f N ew York and Ve rmont The English
comm issioner claimed that the true line shou l d be adopted
while the American held that the ol d line was well recog
n iz e d as the boundary and should be confirmed
An im
p ortant feature o f this question was that it a fiect ed the
ownership o f Rouse 8 P oint a military position command
ing the entrance o f Lake C hamplain S ituated between the
two l ines and hitherto supposed to belong to the United
States
The resu l t o f the treaty o f Ghent came far short of
settling the boundary The portion s allotted to the com
missioners under artic l es four and six had been determined
but the part described by artic l es five and seven greater
both in extent o f boundary and difficu l ty of settlement
remained in dispute
The p rovisions in the treaty for
arbitration o ff ered no immediate so l ution of the di fficulties
since nothing in the way o f a definite set o f ru l es was laid
down by which the questions could be fairly presented to
8
an arbiter
Until such necessary rules were agreed upon
.
,
,
.
‘
.
,
,
-
,
,
-
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
D e Lapradelle
”
aux
p 3 56
8
,
.
.
et
P olitis
,
“ R ecueil
des Arbitrages I nternati on
1 86
1
[ 4
emphatic resolutions o f the Maine Legislature p as sed Feb
ru a ry 1 8 1 828 in which the Governor was requested to use
his p ower to st op new aggressions if they were n ot pre
1 2
vented by the national government
Th e conditions o n
the frontier clearly demanded that an early attempt b e
made to settle the question o f j uri sdiction over the disputed
territory Albert Gallatin was intrusted with the work o f
negotiating a settlement of the boundary question and to
this end was appointed minister to England and empowered
to treat f o r and S ign a convention for the United States
with England on this subj ect I t was hoped by Gallatin
that a settlement could be success f ully made by direct
negotiations with the English ministry but this hop e was
doome d to failure Both p arties remained Obdurate in their
cl aims based upon divergent interpretations Of the treaty
After several weeks O f unsuccessfu l conferences
o f 1 7 83
Gallatin was obliged to submit to a recour s e t o arbitration
which was taken as the last means of bridging the dif
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
fic ul t y
,
1 3
.
“
A convention p roviding for the arbitration o f the dis
”
pute concerning the N ortheastern Boundary
was con
cluded September 29 1 827 by the negotiators Albert Gal
latin f o r the United States and C harles Grant and Hen ry
R a t ific at io n s were ex
Unwin Addington f o r England
changed April 2 1 828 and the convention proclaimed May
1 5 1 828
This convention framed the rules f o r arbitration
which had not been provided by the treaty o f Ghent and
agreed that the di ffere n ces which had arisen under the fifth
article o f that treaty S hould b e submitted t o the decision
E ach S ide was a llowed
o f a friendly Sovereign o r State
to prep a re a statement of their claims and a counter st ate
ment t o the points offered by the opposing side Upon
these statements and such other necessary topographical
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
Maine Historical Society Vol VIII p 27 0
1 3 Gallatin to J Brown U
S Minister at P aris February
Gallatin s Writings II p 3 60
1 2
,
.
,
.
.
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
2, 1 827
.
1 87
1 5]
evidence maps and surveys as the co n tracting parties mu
t u a ll y supplied the arbiter was to decide f o r the claims Of
one or the other
His decision to b e given if possible
with in two years after he cons ented to act should b e fin al
and binding upon both p arties
I n drawing up their statements the claims o f the com
mission ers O f the fif th article o f the treaty of Ghent were
rea ffirmed in all but o n e particular The American claim
regarding the northwesternmost head of the C onnecticut
R iver was changed from I ndian Stream to Hall s Stream
since discovered to b e the mos t wes terly Of the four con
The statements were full and complete each side
flu e nt s
contending to prove that its claim met the intentions Of the
negotiators o f 1 7 83 Eng l and s statement was drawn up
by the f oreign office while that o f the United States was
prepared by Albert Gallatin assisted by Mr W P P reble
a Maine man then Un ited States Minister at the Hagu e
The arbiter chosen was William I King of the N ether
lands and his decision was announced January 1 0
through the United States Minister at the Hague Mr
“
”
P reble This decis ion known as the D utch Award
now
became the center o f interest between the two countries
Upon two of the points submitted the northwest source o f
the C onnecticut and the l ine o f the forty fift h p arallel
England s claim wa s upheld with the special provis ion that
R ouse S point should b elong t o the United States But on
the question of the Highlands and the northwest angle of
Nova Scotia the arbiter decided th at the claim o f neither
party could be taken as a just and true interpretation of
the treaty o f 1 783 The boundary he said could not be
determi n ed by its description in that treaty
Hence he
recommended a middle line which would give an equitable
divi sion of the disputed territory The due north line from
the source of the St C roix was terminated at the St John
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
-
,
’
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
D e Lapradelle
”
aux p 3 6 1
1 4
,
.
.
et
P olitis
“
,
Recueil des Arbitrages I nternation
1 88
1
[ 6
and from there the boundary followed the middle O f that
stream to the source o f the St Francis whence the High
land boundary was unmistakable I n making this decision
the arbiter gave what he considered a fair settlement o f
the dispute England gained enough o f the disputed ter
rit o ry to insure her communications between the P rovinces
o f N ew Brunswick and C anada
while the United States
retained a strong military frontier along the Highlands as
well a s R ouse 8 P oint at the entrance o f Lake C hamplain
I n value o f territory the gains of Great Britain at the
source of the C onnecticut a n d along the forty fift h p arallel
were counterb a l anced by awardi n g to the United States the
fertile valleys o f the Aroostook and A l l e ga sh the country
north of the St John being v ery rugged and o f little agri
c ultural value
Mr P reble sent t h e award to England January 1 2
“
1 83 1 and with it a
respect f ul protest against a decision
which had exceeded its authority in giving an opinion in
”
stead o f a judgment
The grounds for this protest were
that the arbiter had not been authorized by the rules of
1 827 to mediate between the claims but to decide ab s o
This had n o t been don e in
l ut e ly f o r one or the other
regard to the northwest angle Of N ova Scotia and the High
l ands
The British ministry nevertheless disregarded
P reble s protest which was not made under any i n stru o
tions from h is govern ment and announced that it would
15
accept the award a s had b een agreed in the convention
I n the United States the award met a strong opposition
Maine in p art icular strenuously protested its acceptance by
the federal government A j oint select committee o f its
legislature co n si s ting o f four senators and seven rep re
s en t a t ive s recommended reso l utions which were adopted by
the state l egislature January 1 9 1 83 2 which declared
that it was not within the constitutional power o f the fed
era l government to cede to a foreign p ower any portion o f
.
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
-
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
’
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
15
P arliamentary D ebates
,
,
,
,
3 rd
series
,
Vo l 6 7,
.
pp
,
.
1 1 7 1 , 1 1 75
.
1 89
1 7]
a state s territory without its consent ; that the decision
was no t obligatory on the parties o f the arbitration agree
ment and that inasmuch as the adoption o f the new line
was regarded as a vio l ation o f the rights o f Maine a f orma l
protest was made agains t it Thes e reso lves were commun i
and the R epresenta
c a t e d to C o n gress and the P resident
t iv es o f the State in C o n gress were instructed to prevent if
possible the adoption o f the award The c o Op e ra t io n o f
Massachusetts was solicited and o n February 1 5 the general
court o f the legislature of that state p as sed concurrent reso
lutions for the rej ection o f the award
The question was referred to the Senate by the P resi
dent O n D ecember 7
and S hortly a f te rwards Eng
land s decision to accept the award was o fficially announced
After a lengthy deb ate in secret session the Senate vote d
in June 1 83 2 to rej ect the arbiter s decision and to re
open negotiations with England for determining the boun
dary according to the treaty o f
The vote was
decisive : thirty five for rejection against eight f o r accept
ance Maine s absolute stand against the award was the
chief cause f o r the refusal o f the federal government to
accept it P resident Jackson was inclined to accept the
arbiter s decision in which he saw the solution o f a long
17
standing and sore d iffic ul t y
But the protests o f Maine
and Massachusetts could not be legally over ridde n since
it is not possible under the constitution t o cha n ge the boun
darics o f a state against its will except by treaty The
refusal of the award by the United States was ann ounced
to the British Minister by the Secretary o f State July 3 1
’
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
’
.
,
’
,
,
,
-
’
.
.
’
,
.
-
,
.
,
,
,
1 83 2
.
England refused to consider the vote o f the Senate as
a fin al rejection o f the award but for three y ears con
t inu ed t o i n sist o n its acceptance by the United States
,
.
C ongressional D ebates Vo l VIII P art I p
“
”
1 7 C urtis
Life of Webster II p 1 3 9 ; also
LV
p 461
1 6
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
1 3 95
N
.
.
A R eview
.
,
Vol
.
1 90
1
[ 8
P almerston declared that even though the arbiter 8 opinion
upon the Highlands wa s purely deliberative the United
States could not rightfully repudiate the other p arts of the
18
decision
Sir C harles R V aughan also stoutly defended
the award His dispatches to the home government through
the year 1 833 express his firm belief that the way to settle
the boundary question was to induce the United States to
accept the award He also suggested that o n ce this was
done E ngla n d could by negotiation and equivalents re
move the Amer i can jurisdiction from the territory north of
19
the St JOhn
N othing was accomplished however to
ward a reconsideration o f the award by the Senate Eng
land fin ally gave u p the attempt and declared herself no
”
lo n ger bound by her offer to accept the arbiter s decision
From 1 83 3 to 1 841 the boundary question was j uggled
b ack and forth between the two countries in a series of
projects and counter proj ects in which neither side could
agree to the conditions imposed by the other Soon after
the rej ection o f the award the United States proposed that
a j oint commiss ion be appointed to survey the line and de
termine the Highla n ds named in 1 7 83 England reluct a ntly
consented t o this p roposal A draught o f convention was
drawn up and sent to the American Secretary o f State
through the English Minister Mr Fox
But when this
reached Washi n gton the United States had decided that set
t l em ent could only be obtained by arbitration recent dis
t urb a n c e s in Maine having shown the improb ability o f set
They accor dingly re
t l em ent by a survey CO III I IH SS I O I I
turned a counter proposal that a commission Of six be
chosen for the survey and arbitration o f the boundary
England accepted the main features o f this proposal but
absolutely refused to consent to the added conditions that
’
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
-
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
D e Lapradelle et P olitis
R ecueil des Arbitrages I nternation
”
aux p 282
1 9 V aughan to Viscount Goder i ch
Feb 7 1 83 3 American H is
t o ri c a l R eview VII p 5 04
2 0 P arliamentary D e bates
3 rd Series V ol 6 7 p 1 1 75
“
1 8
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
1 91
1 9]
Mitchell s Map should be acknowledged by the commission
a s the authentic map o f the country and that age n ts o f the
two governments Should accomp any the survey commi ssion
to furnish expla n ations o n behal f of their respective gov
Her obj ection s were exp ressed in the preamble of
e rn m en t s
a new draft for a convention communicated to the Sc ore
tary o f State by Mr Fox July 28
The United
States reply to this wa s another counter proj ect delivered
Augu st 1 3 1 840 P almerston said in his letter to Fox Of
“
Au gu st 24 1 841 th a t thi s co n tained so many in a dmiss
”
ible propositions that it could n o t be accepted T o this
he added a belief that no settlement could be hoped f o r dur
22
ing the P residency of Mr V an Buren
The whole course o f the negotiation during this long
period o f p roj ects and counter projects accomplished noth
ing toward an actual settlement I t did however imp ress
upon the two govern ments the necess ity o f ab andoning their
attempts to fix the boundary according to the terms o f the
treaty o f 1 7 83 I n his communication to Mr Forsyth o f
January 1 0 1 83 8 Mr Fox proposed a conventional line as
23
the only possible settlement o f the dispute
Although the
United States continued to urge f urt her attempts t o trace
the line in conformity with the treaty the Opinion was form
ing among some o f the leading men o f the country o f whom
D aniel Webster was one that a conventional line would
have to be agreed upon
Meanwhile survey commis sions had been se n t out by
each government to collect data and topographical evidence
concern ing the disputed territory E n gland se n t two com
missions one in 1 83 9 conducted by C olonel Mudge and Mr
F e a t h e rst o nh a u gh and another in 1 840 under Mr Brough
The reports o f these
t o n and Mr F e a t h e rs t on h a u gh Jr
commissions were i n tended to furnish additional p roo f s for
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
’
-
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
-
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
Senate D ocument N O 27 4 27t h C ong
2 2 P arliamentary D ebates
3 d Series Vo l
23 P arliamentary D ebates
3 rd Series Vo l
21
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
6 7,
.
,
,
l st
.
67
Sess
p 1 23 3
p 1 229
.
.
.
.
.
1 92
2
[ 0
’
England s claim in case a n other convention was a greed
upon Similarly the United States se n t surveyors into the
disputed territory in the summers o f 1 840 and 1 84 1 to
veri f y by their reports the American claim f o r the High
lands north o f the St John Although the work o f thes e
commissions wa s ex p a rt e the two governments inform ed
o n e another o f their intention to send surveyors into the
territory and even communicated the reports o f the c om
missions so that a pa rt ial step was taken in the directio n o f
mutual action in S pite o f their disagreements in making
24
drafts f o r a convention
While the foreign S ecretaries o f both governments were
exchanging views on framing a convention f o r settling the
question and surveyors were making maps o f the disputed
territory aff airs o n the boundary were becoming more and
more critical
The disputes resulting from an unsettled
frontier were taking o n a very threatening aspect I t had
been agreed by the p arties when the question was submitted
to arbitration that any attempts o n either side to exercise
j urisdiction over the disputed territory should b e s u s
pended But whether from inability or unwillingness
—
probably the latter the l ocal authorities did not stop their
citizens from coming into contact in the disputed territory
The national govern ments showed a desire to settle the
question peaceably by divi di n g the disputed territory if
necessary but the authorities o f Maine and N ew Brunswick
25
demanded that their c l aims be upheld t o the full extent
The disputes o n the Maine bou n dary ce n tered around
the settlement o f Madawaska S ituated on both sides o f the
St John at it s intersection with the Madawaska R iver I t
was over these settlements that both countries claimed j uris
diction and consequently a clas h o f authority resulted I n
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
[
,
.
,
.
.
.
C orresp of F o x and Forsyth Senate D ocument N O 27 4 29t h
C on g l st Sess
“
2 5 R esolves of Maine Legislature
March 25 1 83 7 in Messages
”
and P apers of the P residents
J D Richardson Vo l II pp 3 4 9
24
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
3 57
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
22
[
1 94
could be thus kept under gu ard was ques tionable The
military agreeme n t of Scott a n d Harvey was really a tem
p o ra ry tru ce pe n ding the settlement which it was hoped
would soon be reached by the national governments
The border disturb ances were not confined to the fron
tiers o f Maine but spread along the entire northern boun
dary Violations o f neutrality n ot even thought O f by the
framers of the treaty of Ghent were actually begun during
a C anadian rebellion 1 837 3 8
American adventurers
idle rs and worse helped the insurgents to aggravate the
“
“
”
C anadian authorities B ands of P atriots and Hunters
”
Lodges were established along the frontier f o r the purpose
o f assisting the rebels in what they declared to be the cause
o f right and liberty
A ffairs came to a crisis in this quarter
“
”
with the destruction of the steamer C aroline
an Amer
ican vessel which was alleged to have been used by the
sympathizers to carry supplies and war munitions to N avy
I sland where the rebels were located
An E n glish force
was sent o ut o n the night o f D ecember 29 1 837 to destroy
the vessel but found her moored to the dock o n the Amer
ican shore i n stead of at N avy I sland as they had expected
They were not deterred however f rom carrying o ut their
p l ans but se l ze d the vessel f orcibly and towed her into the
current where She was s et a fire and allowed to drift over
N iagara Falls A t least o n e American was killed in the
affair and several were more o r less injured The in d ig
nation o f the entire country was roused by this outrage
United States territory had been violated by an armed force
Of a foreign government This was more than a loca l dis
pute o f boundaries I t was unmistakably an invasion of
United States territory a fact which the government as
well as the people resented O n the frontier things were
in a commotion and there wa s imminent danger o f the
people taki n g summary justice by a resort to arms The
national government took immediate steps to establish
order and also to prevent a repetition of such invas ions
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
1 95
28]
The militia were called into service u n der the command o f
General Scott and a f ormal complaint wa s made to the
29
British government
Under this vigorous manageme n t matters became more
peaceable in 1 83 9
General Scott did much to end the
”
“
P atriot movement by addressing the rebel sympathizers
upon the fol l y and danger o f di sturbing the international
80
peace
P roclamations by the P resident urged similar for
31
bearance up on the citizens o f the United States
The
favorable aspect o f the ques tion is shown in the P resident s
t h ird annual message t o congress issued D ecember 2
“
He says in part :
The extraordinary powers vested in me
by the act o f C ongress f o r the defense of the country in an
emergency considered s o far probable as to require that
the E xecutive should possess ample means to meet it have
f
f
’9
Happily in ou r pending ques
not been exerted
tions with Great Britain o ut Of which this u n usual grant
of authority arose nothing has occurred to require it s ex
f
e rt ion
There is every reason to believe that the
disturbances like those which late l y agitated the neighbor
in g B ritish P rovinces will not again p rove the sources of
”
border contentions
P rompt and judicious action by the
national authorities had dispersed any immediate danger
of conflict on the frontier But the feeling o f hostility was
only suppressed and n ot extinguished The international
questions which gave rise to the disturbances remained
u nsettled
I n 1 840 and 1 84 1 more diffi culties were added t o the
disputes already pending which like the case o f the C aro
”
line
invo lved questions of international law Foremost
,
.
.
.
.
’
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
29
.
R ichardson Messages and P apers
of
,
4 01 4 04
the P residents
,
Vo l
.
III pp
,
.
-
30
.
C allahan J M
.
,
1 00 1 01
.
,
The N eutrality
the American Lakes pp
of
,
.
-
U S Statutes at Large V ol XI pp 7 84 7 85
3 2 R ichardson
Messages and P apers o f the P residents V ol III
31
p
.
.
-
.
,
,
.
5 29
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
1 96
[ 24
among these was the question o f Right O f Search o r V isit
which was revived at this time by the action o f British
cruisers engaged in suppress ing the S lave trade o n the
African C oast The United States and Great Britain had
agreed in the Treaty o f Ghe nt to exercise their best e fforts
to end the tra ffic in slaves T o further this obj ect a treaty
was negotiated but not ratified , during the second admin
ist ra t io n of Mr Monroe allowing a mutual right o f visit to
be exercised by the cruisers of the two governm en ts to
ascert ain whether S hip s suspected o f being slavers were act
u a l ly SO eng aged
Si n ce this time England had entered
in t o treaties with other powers particularly P ortugal
Sp ain and France f o r the exercise o f a right of visit but
with the Un ited States nothing had b een agreed upon
Several proposals f o r such a treaty had been made by Eng
land from 1 833 to 1 83 8 but not accepted This question
had never b een we l l received in the Un ited States and its
significance in the war o f 1 81 2 was not yet forgotten But
in the spring of 1 840 the comma n de rs of the American and
British fleets o n the coast o f Afric a S igned an agreement
for the mutua l right to arrest the merchant vesse ls o f the
United States and England and her allies found to be
trading in slaves and turn them over to their own govern
33
ment s authorities f o r adjudication
The agreement on
the part of the American C ommander was unauthori zed by
his instructions and was promptly disavowed by the home
government But duri n g the interval o f it s enforcement
several American merchant vesse ls were arrested by British
cruisers on slender suspicions o f being slavers causing con
s i de ra b l e loss to their owners f rom the interruption o f the
v oyage
The complaints received by the national govern
ment against such interference with innocent commerce
renewed the o l d opposition to the R ight o f Search even
though it was now as England claimed a mere R ight of
V isit to ascertain the truth o f a vessel s nationality Eng
'
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
33
Webster s D iplomatic and Official P apers
’
pp
73 76
-
.
.
1 97
25 ]
land maintained that treaty o r no treaty her wars hips
were entitled to visit a merchant vessel on the high seas and
I t was asserted that this
s ee the proof o f her nationality
was made necessary by the f act th a t vess els of various
nationality engaging in the slave trade sought immunity
by falsely assumi n g the flag o f the United States True as
this may have been the United States stuck to the prin
c ip l e that in time o f peace none but an A m e rl c a n warship
was entitled t o interrupt o r in any way inter f ere with a
merch ant vessel flying the American flag
England s zeal to abolish slavery raised another question
“
”
in which the case o f the
C reole
o f maritime rights
“
”
34
figured most prominently
The C reole was an Amer
ican vessel whose crew composed Of negro slaves had m u
t in ie d and f orced her captai n t o sail to the British port of
N assau in the Bermudas While in that p ort the English
authorities declared that in accord with the l aws o f Eng
land which recognized no rights o f slavery withi n Engl ish
“
”
territorial jurisdiction these S laves on the C reole were
no longer bound to their masters Similar action was taken
by the port authorities with slaves on board other American
ves sels driven to the refuge of the English port by stress
o f weather
The loss O f valuable slave property thus forced
upon the American owners raised a strong protest in the
United States particularly in the South where the question
o f fugitive slaves was keenly fe l t
C omplaint was made to
England and damages asked f o r the liberated S laves Eng
land however was inclined t o refuse the American claim
o n the mistaken ground that her laws against slavery ex
tended to foreign vessels within her ports
I n the United States the war spirit which had been
e ffectually quieted in 1 83 9 broke o ut a f resh in 1 840 over
“
”
new developments in the C aroline episode Alexander
Mc L eo d a British subj ect boasted in N ew Y ork of having
“
”
taken part in the destruction o f the C aroline
and that
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
34
Scott s C ases
’
on
I nternational Law p
,
.
25 2
.
1 98
[ 26
he had fired the shot which killed the American D u rf ree
He was immediately arrested and imprisoned in Lockport
35
N ew Y ork under a charge of murder
The popular cry
wa s that he should be hanged and in View o f the feeling o f
resentment prevale n t o n the f rontier there was a reason
able p rospect that the threat would be executed
I n England a feeling n o less strong was created that if
Mc L eo d was hanged war would be declared The govern
ment had assumed the responsibility Of the destruction of
“
”
the C aroline
and a just indign atio n was felt that an
Englishman S hould b e tried by a foreign court with a pros
peet of being convicted and executed for acts which were
committed under the orders o f his government I n this
imp ortant crisis the United States government was next to
helpless Mc L e o d was held for trial by a N ew York State
court and there was then n o authority by which his case
cou l d be transferred to the federal courts The only thing
to b e done was to ass ure him a fair trial be f ore the State
court and furnish any possible evidence for his defense
E ngland s demands f o r his immediate releas e could n ot be
36
granted
O n the whole Anglo American relations at the close o f
V an Buren s administration were in a very complicated
and uncertain state The boundary question had been dis
p ut e d f o r so many years in spite o f repeated attempts to
settle it that peaceable mean s were nearly exhausted The
hostile feeling o n t he frontier had brought the border States
t o a condition o f military p reparation very war like and
37
threatening
Maine had demanded that unle s s a settle
ment was reached in the negotiations then pending the
federal government should take military possession o f the
38
entire disputed territory
The Governor of N ew Bruns
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
'
.
.
.
.
’
.
-
,
’
.
,
.
,
-
,
.
,
.
C urtis Life o f Webster Vo l II p 5 3
3 3 Se n ate D ocument N O
22n d C ong
1 l s t Sess
3 7 P arliamentary D ebates
3 rd Ser V ol 6 2 pp 1 23 8 1 24 1
3 8 House Journal
26 th C ongress 2n d Sess p 79 6
35
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
-
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
1 99
27 ]
wick on the other hand was i n structed to retain possess ion
Under
o f the same territory by military f orce if n ecessary
the constant stress o f popular hostile sentiment the situation
o f armed neutrality could not be indefinitely mai n tained
Add to this aggravated boundary question the other ques
tions o f international relations then in dispute a n d we can
app reciate the critical complexity o f them all Briefly sum
m a riz in g the unsettled boundary the violation o f American
“
”
territory in the C aroline episode the trial O f Alexander
Mc L e o d for acts authorized by his government the right
“
”
visit A merican merchantmen on
o f English cruisers to
the high seas and the exercise o f te rritorial j urisdiction by
England s colonial authorities over vessels sto rm driven
into her ports were the questions which combined to enforce
the negotiations o f the treaty of Washingto n commonly
known as the Webster Ashburton Treaty
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
-
,
,
-
.
II
.
THE MA KIN G O F THE T R EAT Y
.
the P residential election of 1 840 General Harrison
m ade a S weeping campaign o f the country and his p arty
the Whig went into o ffice by a great popular Victo ry I n
forming his cabinet Harrison was sin gu larly fortu n ate in
Vi ew o f the existing state o f foreign a ff airs to be able to
entrust the D epartment o f State to a man Of such eminent
capabilities as D aniel Webster
To h is sound judgment
and cool masterly conduct of the a ffairs of State is largel y
due the credit O f successful ly terminat ing the comp l icated
series of disputes which had arisen between the United
States and England
N egotiations for the settlement of the boundary were
reopened by England with Webster and the new a d minis
t ra t io n in March 1 84 1
I nstead of conti n uing from the
point where negotiations had stopped in August 1 840
P almerston n ow referred back to his first dra f t f o r c o nve n
“
tion of which he directed Mr Fox to S how the n e w secre
”
tary its reasonableness
Webster however suspended any
In
,
‘
.
,
-
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
200
[ 28
action until he could become more acquainted with the
39
question and its cours e o f discussion
But be f ore a ny
further action was taken the death O f P resident Harrison
after o n e month in O ffice suspended all negotiations for a
time This unexpected calamity also i n troduced a new dif
fic ul t y into the work o f the admi n istration
Tyler the
vice president who succeeded Harrison disagreed with his
p art y to such an extent that his entire cabinet with the
exception of Webster res igned and the popular support
he S hould have received in C o n gress was withdra wn Under
the spell o f this estrangement it seemed dubious that any
treaty which the P resident might propose would be heartily
received in the Senate and ratified
D uring the summer of 1 84 1 Webster intimated to Mr
Fox that he was disposed t o settle the boundary d ifli c ul t ies
40
I t is well
by a conventional line o r line by compromise
known that Webster s aw little hop e in continuing the O l d
negotiations f o r a j oint survey commission with ultimate
umpirage His opinion was thus exp ressed in the Senate a
“
few years later :
Mr P resident it is true that I regarded
the c as e as hopeless without an entire change in the manner
1
”
Here was a distinct step toward peace
o f p roceeding !
able settlement I t wa s a move to recover the question from
the great tangle of diplomatic p ro c ee du re in which it had
remained s o long and accomplished s o little
I n Engl and more changes wer e made which bore upon
the fin al settlement o f the di fficulty
Lord Melbourne s
Ministry was succeeded in September 1 841 by that o f Sir
R obert P eel and the management o f foreign a ffairs h it h
erto entrusted t o V iscount P almerston was taken up by
Lord Aberdeen a man much less sharp and antagonistic
than his predecess or Th e United States Minister to Eng
.
.
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
’
.
,
,
M
m
m
m
N
p
M
u
s
m
i
m
n
m
fl
fl
,
,
,
,
.
P arliamentary D ebates 3 rd Ser Vo l 6 7 p 1 23 6
4 0 C urtis Life o f Webster V ol II p
70
4 1 Webster s Speech i n t h e Senate April 1 84 6 in vindication o f the
Treaty of Washington D iplomatic and O fli ci a l P apers p 23 9
39
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
’
,
‘
.
,
.
.
'
3
8
9
8
202
3
0
[
the Engl ish Ministry and immediately began to prepare
45
the way for the negotiations in America
He was n ot
without a plan in this preparation I n 1 839 it had been
ru mored that the United States would send a similar Spe
c i al Mission to England and Webster heard that h is name
had been suggested to the P resident by P oi n sett the Secre
tary of War To justify this good opinion o f Mr P oinsett
Webster had drawn up a plan o f negotiation by which he
thought such a Specia l Minister should proceed and sent
it to the P resident Many o f the leading features o f this
plan were later embodied in the negotiation of the Treaty
!6
o f Washington
C hief among them was to secure the con
curre n ce and aid o f Maine and Ma ssachusetts in the nego
t i a t i o n f o r a conventiona l line o f compromise
I t was clear
to Webster that without the co operation of these two States
nothing could be done toward bringing the adverse clai ms
to a common understanding
Ashburton arrived in the United States April 4 1 842
a n d o n the 1 l t h
Webster sent letters to the Governors o f
Maine and Massachusetts announcing the arrival and pur
pose o f the Special Mission and asking their active c o Op e r
‘7
a t i on f
He was anxious to avoid having t h e question in
volved with the l ocal prej udice which was likely to be found
in the State Legislatures and asked that commissioners be
sent to Was hington to confer with the N atio n al R ep re s en
The
t a t ive s and act for their States in the negotiations
diflic ul t ie s o f settlement even by this means were great
Both States had declared in favor of a settlement by the
treaty of 1 7 83 and Maine stil l held stubborn ly to her claim
for the whole disputed territory But Webster s appeal
f o r a compromise settlement and for the appointment o f
commissioners to gain that end was well received Go v
e rn o r D avis Of Massachusetts replied that the commissioners
to
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
c
.
,
’
.
,
.
45
46
47
See Appendi x A
C urtis Li fe o f Webster
See Appendi x A
.
,
.
,
Vo l
.
II p
,
.
2
.
203
31 ]
would be appointed and that the people o f the State were
ready to make reasonable concession s to the convenience o r
“
—
f
n
n
o
neces sity
Great Britai
but nothi g not a rood o f
”4 8
—
barren heath or rock to unfoun ded claims
I n Maine
the consent to compromise was not S O easily obtai n ed I t
was necessary to convene the l egislature in special session
and overcome local prej udice a n d political antagonism with
an appeal for national p atriotism Webster was in Boston
early in May and sent Jared Sparks who was thoroughly
familiar with the points o f strength a n d weakness in both
claims to in fluence the Maine le gislators f o r a compromise
I n this work he was successful as reported in his letter to
Webster May 1 9
R esolutions were passed o n the
26t h in favor o f a conventional line and f o r the appoint
ment o f four commissioners two from each p arty to give
the State s assent to such terms as seemed] reasonab l e and
‘
50
T O Webster this meant a preliminary success in the
fair
settlement He is said to have announced this res ult to
“
”
P resident Tyler with the comment
The crisis is passed
The C ommissioners of both States were well chosen with
o ut reference to their political connections
Massachusetts
was represented by Abbott Lawrence John Mills and
C harles Allen and Maine by E dward K avanagh E dward
Kent Wm P P reble and John O tis
A word as to the negotiators before entering upon a
discussion o f their work is not amiss D anie l Webster s
career as on e of the leading statesmen o f the Un ited States
is too well known to need repetition
But his peculiar
position in the administration at this p a rticular time merits
o ur attention and approval
Webster was prominently as
s o c i a t e d with the Whig p art y which had declared Tyler to
be a traitor to its principles and caused the members of
Harrison s cabinet wh o had been asked t o continue in o ffi ce
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
C urtis Life o f Webster V ol II p 99
4 9 C urtis
I b id p 1 00
5 0 Maine Histor i cal Soc i ety Vo l
VI II p
48
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
31 0
.
2
3
[
under Tyler to resign with the single exception of Webster
In the approaching crisis in the internationa l disputes
Webster saw his duty to remain with the new P resident
in the face o f severe p arty criticism an d complete the sett l e
ment which h e believed he could accomplish At the p res
ent time when we can s e e the important influe nce o f Webs
ter in bringing about the final settlement we are apt to
underrate the di fficulties he faced in staying at h is post
I t wa s no easy thing f o r him at that time before the treaty
was made and before the people appreciated t h e val ue Of
the work he was to accomplish t o remain allied t o the P res
ident against whom political anger and party excitement
were raised to a high pitch H is action in undertaking the
work of the negotiation is therefore most commendable
since true p atriotism and the cause o f peace were his only
51
motives
Lo rd Ashburton also was well qualified to accomplish
a compromise settlement He was favorably known and
respected in the United States through his commercial as
sociation with the house o f Baring Brothers and by his
marriage to an American lady We have ample evidences
o f his u n selfish motives in accepting the Special Mission
but nothi n g summarizes them better than his own state
ment in a letter to Gallatin O f April 1 2
He and
Gallatin were o l d friends ripe in years and had witnessed
this controversy f rom the beginning Ashburton says in
“
p art :
Y ou will p robably be surprised at my undertaking
f
The truth is that
this task at my period of life
I am tempted by my great anxiety in the cause and the
extreme importance which I have always attached to the
The latter
m aintenance o f peace between o ur cou n tries
circumstance induced my political friends to p ress this a p
poi n tment upon me and with much hesitation founded
”
so l ely o n my health and age I yielded
He profes ses his
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
“ Webster ”
Lodge :
p 25 1
5 2 Gallatin s Writings
V ol II p
51
,
.
.
’
,
.
,
.
5 95
.
205
33]
belief that all political p arties in the United States are in
c l in e d t o secure peace with England on reasonable terms :
“
I expect and desire no other and my present character
Of a diplomatist is S O new to me that I know no other course
”
than candor and plain dealing
The commissioners arrived in Washington and the nego
t ia t io n s O fllc ial ly commenced June 1 3 1 842 with a letter
53
from Ashburton to Webster
I n this h e reviewed the
course of preceding attempts at settling the question in
which no progress had been made because each p arty had
held uncompromisingly his own claim
The present a t
tempt he s aid t o succeed must proceed n ot as a renewa l
of the controversy but with a full realization Of p revious
failures By an interchange o f notes of June 1 7 th a
personal conference was arranged f o r the next day and by
Webster s request Ashburton a few days later wrote a
statement of his views o n the subj ect of a conventional line
I n this statement Ashburton again expressed his desire for
f rank presentations of their case
England s obj ect he
said was not a gain o f acres o f land S O that he was willing
to concede all materia l advantages which were not essentia l
to England an d her subj ects He suggested the St John
as a good boundary from its intersection with the north line
from the source of the St C roix to the Highlands except
for the Madawaska settlement on the south bank But he
“
could not
in any case abandon the interests o f thes e
”
people
whose history and personal desire bound them to
England
Webster submitted Ashburton s letter to the Maine com
mis sioners and their reply was received June 29t h
It
shows that they were stil l firm in their be l ie f that the whole
o f the disputed territory was theirs by right but that they
were willing to make concessions necessary to s ecure Eng
“
land s line of colonia l communication
F o r this they s u g
,
.
‘
,
,
.
,
,
-
.
'
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
,
,
‘
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
,
’
.
C ongressional Glob e 27t h
5 4 See Map
Appendi x D
53
,
,
.
C
ongress
,
3 rd
Sess p
.
,
.
4
.
206
[ 34
gested that the line follow the St John to a point about
three miles above the mouth of the Mada waska and f rom
there turn northward continuing parallel t o that river a l
most its source whence it turned westward by a straight
line through the head o f Lake P oh en a ga m o ok to the High
l ands
Thus the whole valley o f the Madawaska which
they said was the re a l Upper St John was allowed f o r
E ngland s road of commu nication s They declared that if
Ashburton s claim for the settlements south o f the St John
was si n e qua no n they would re f use to negotiate further
The negotiations had reached a critical state The de
c is io n o f the boundary rested awkwardly upon a disagree
m ent between the Mai n e commissioners and the E nglish
Minister with Webster trying to mediate between them f o r
mutual concessions At this juncture matters were almost
disrupted b ecause o f a misunderstandin g of the British
home government concerning the American claim in the a f
“
”
fair o f the C reole
The only demand the United States
raised upon the circumstances o f this cas e was that her
merchant ships seeking shelter in English ports should not
become subj ect to the local territorial jurisdiction
The
English ministry confused the American claim with a de
mand f o r the return of fugitive slaves which was co n trary
to E n gland s law against slavery Webster explained the
distinction in his letter to Everett June
I n that let
ter he intimated that something in Ashburton s recent in
s t ru c t io n s bore strongly o n this point and conspired to make
Ashburton think o f returning to England without complet
ing the work of the Special Mission The combined urging
o f Webster and P resident Tyler succeeded in preventing
such a termination o f the negotiations at this unfinished
point but it required all Of the Secretary s Skill a n d tact
to keep this quest ion o ut of the discussions until the bound
56
ary question was settled
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
’
.
,
’
.
’
,
.
See Appendix C
5 6 “ I t is a fact
whi ch Mr Webster always acknowledged th at
P res i dent Tyler s address in persuadi ng Lord Ashburton to remain
”
was most skillfully and happily used
C urtis Li fe o f Web ster Vo l
II p 1 05 note
55
.
.
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
207
35 ]
To fix a boundary with concession s and equivalents to
which both Maine and England would agree was a perplex
ing matter Maine had refused to consider any part o f the
territory which sh e claimed under the treaty o f 1 7 83 as an
equivalent on the part of E ngland f o r the concessions o f
Maine E ngland could o ff er equivalents which were just
and equitable to the United States but none which would
inure directly to the State o f Maine The strip o f territory
along the f ort y fift h p arallel and free n avigation of the St
John had been already suggested by Ashburton but at least
Webster had from
o n e o f these in no way benefited Maine
the first recognized this di fficulty as most important and
considered various ways by which it could be overcome I n
a private note to Mr Everett as early as April 25 1 842 he
57
speculates on p ossible equivalents to be o ffered t o Maine
O ne of his suggestions was to include within the United
States a tract o f territory lying between the due north line
from the source o f the St C roix and the St John
This
territory he did n o t think possessed much agricultural value
but would have great weight in the negotiation s since it
conceded to Maine territory undoubtedl y belonging to Eng
land I f this proposition was ever submitted by Webster
to Ashburton it was not well received There is no mention
found of it in their written correspondence The only other
equivalent suggested by either Webster or Ashburton was
the privilege o f sending timber and produce down the St
John f ree of any duty n o t imposed o n similar articles grown
in N ew Brunswick E v en this was not considered an actual
concession but more as a recogn ition o f a right which Maine
had claimed f o r many years The first negotiation entered
into f o r the boundary settlement after th e rejection of the
award embodied a demand by the United States for f ree
‘
58
navigation o f the St John
The prospect o f coming to
amicable agreement was very Obscure I t seemed imp os s i
,
.
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
P rivate C orrespondence o f D aniel Webster V ol II p 1 20
5 8 V aughan to V iscount
Goderich American Historical R e view
V ol VII p 503
57
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
208
36
[
ble t o find terms which would satisfy both Maine and Eng
l and
At this p oint Webster and Ashburton put as ide the for
m a l it i es o f diplo m atic correspondence and conducted their
59
negotiations in pe rsona l confere n ces
They attacked the
di fficulties which confronted them in a spirit similar to that
o f two business men who enter a private o ffice and discus s
an arrangeme n t for their mutual benefit Ashburton had
received the reply o f the Maine commissioners of June 29th
with Webster s comments on the propositions it contained
July 8th He replied July 1 l t h that their proposed li n e
“
”
north o f the St John was
wholly inadmissable
an d
reluctantly implied that if it was neces sary he would sur
render the Madawaska settlements on the south bank of
that river I n regard to these settlements Maine also had
taken a somewhat conciliatory tone
Her commissioners
had O ff ered t o allow the Madawaska settlers to choose for
themselves to which government they would adhere o n the
condition that in case the territory was given to N ew Bruns
wick al l grants O f land hithert o given by Maine should be
confirmed I t was apparent that both sides were willing to
accept the St John as the boundary as far as the mouth of
the Madawaska but from there to the Highlands their
claims di ffered decidedly T o bring this disagreement to
a compromise b asis was the problem which the negotiators
proposed to so l ve in their conferences The only feasible
equivalent o ff ered to Maine and Massachusetts for their con
cessions o f land was the free navigation o f the St John and
this was n ot considered by the commissioners as su fficient
recompense f o r their losses O ne more means of satisfying
the States remained That was t o pay cash for the territory
which they were asked to give up Webster agreed that the
United States could do this in a manner more acceptab l e to
the States than if the Offer came from England The s et
t l em en t o f the boundary and advantages gained in other
.
.
.
,
’
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
59
C urt is Life of Webster V ol II p
,
,
.
,
.
115
.
21 0
3
8
[
In
this case he appealed to the commissioners to accept his
arra n gement f o r p aying the states f o r their claims not as
“
”
a bargain o f acres but as means to secure international
peace and promote the wel f are o f the federal state
The f ate o f Webster s proposition and p robab l y of the
whole negotiation wa s decided July 22 1 842 when the
Maine commissioners finally gave assent t o the terms em
62
bo died in Webster s communication of July 1 5t h
The
Massachusetts commissioners had expressed their approval
t wo days before a fact which probably helped to bring
Maine to an agreement In consenti n g t o the terms o f
f e re d by Webster the C ommissioners still maintained that
they made a sacrifice o f extensive territory which they
rightfully owned and for which no adequate compensation
“
was given I t was a surrender they said of a portion of
”
the birth right O f the people o f the state made in favor o f
“
the judgment O f her sister states and in a spirit o f attach
63
ment and patriotic devotion o f their state to the Union
The States asked that certain amendments be made to the
terms before they were incorporated into a treaty ; viz that
the privilege o f free navigation Of the St John be extended
to include f arm produce a s well as timber ; that the amount
“
”
disputed territory fund which was the money re
o f the
c e iv e d by the N ew Bruns wick authorities f o r the timber
cut in the disputed territory be pai d over to the United
64
States for the u s e of Maine and Massachuse tts and that
all possessory titles to land previously granted by Maine
Massachusetts and New Brunswick be reciprocally recog
n iz e d by both governments
Massachus etts also asked that
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
-
,
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
Ashburton in a private note undated wrote a s follows to Web
“
ster : I have had an interview wi th the gentlemen from Maine and
I incline to think they will consent to o ur line I explained that I
was at the end o f my line and that they must therefore sa y yes or
”
no
C urtis Life of Webster V ol II p 1 20
6 3 Webster s D iplomatic and O fli c i a l P apers
pp 4 9 5 6
6 4 The di sposal o f the “ di sputed territory fund ” carried into e f
feet an arrangement entered into some years b efore regar di ng timber
cut upon the disputed territory Webster s D iplomatic and Official
P apers pp 6 1 6 2
62
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
’
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
21 1
3 9]
the amount to be paid by the United States be increased to
o n e hundred and fifty thousand dollars f o r each Of the two
States As hburton accepted the additio n al terms and in
giving h is o fficial approval o f them the settleme n t Of the
northeastern boun dary was at last assured
The negotiators next directed their attentio n to the set
t l em ent of the boundary described under the seventh article
of the Treaty of Ghent and to frami n g their agreements
into the articles o f a treaty But the di fficult part of the
negotiation had been accomplished The boundary o n the
“
”
northwest was not complicated with States claims o r
advers e local j urisdictions nor were the other disputed
questions o f international relations beyond the reach of a
conciliatory adjustment They had all been touched upon
in the conferences between the negotiators so that their fina l
settlement was largely a matter o f setting into O fficial form
what had already been informally agreed upon
The country west o f Lake Superio r wa s still wild and
uninhabited except by I ndians and pioneer trappers so
th a t the boundary in that quarter was easily fixed by a
65
c o mp ro m 1s e line
Ashburton o n July l 6t h had proposed
that the line S hould be drawn through P idgeon R iver lo
c a t e d about half way between the li n es claimed by the com
missioners under the seventh article o f the Treaty o f Ghent
and to this Webster readily assented when he summarized
the settlements o n all the p oi n ts o f boundary in his com
66
mun ic at ion o f July 27t h
Through the water c o mmun ic a
tion between Lake Huron and Lake Superior the boundary
was decided in favor of the line claimed by the American
commissioner under the Treaty o f Ghe n t thus ceding to
the United States St George s o r Sugar I sla n d This
however was regarded as on e of the equivalents o ff ered for
the settlement o f the northeast boundary
.
,
,
.
.
.
’
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
.
,
,
,
.
Webster s C orres pondence with Mr D el a fiel d and Mr Ferguson
o f July 2ot h and 25 t h 1 84 2 giv es the Opini on o f those gentlemen upon
“
the character o f the territory in question
Webster s D iplomati c
”
and O fficial P apers pp 6 7 7 2
6 6 We b ster s D iplomatic and Official P apers p
57
65
’
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
.
’
,
.
.
21 2
4
[ 0
the fin al negotiations upon the international disputes
arising o ut o f the suppression of the S lave trade the case O f
“
“
”
”
the
C reole
and the C aroline episode a proces s o f
selection was emp l oyed These questions were all more o r
less involved with other disputes between the t wo coun tries
I n regard to supp res sion Of the slave trade we have already
noticed its connection with the right Of search and the re
With a renewal
viv a l of the o l d dispute upon this point
o f that question came the ques tion o f impressment which
though sub dued since the war o f 1 81 2 had never been d e f
in it el y settled
The question raised by the case o f the
“
”
C reole had been con f used in England with the ext ra di
“
”
tion of fugitive slaves In the
C aroline
episode the
complications o f the frontier disturbances and a nece ssity
for the suppression o f lawless characters were involved
To meet these questions e ff ectively Webster and Ashburton
selected for treaty articles what they considered the fun
d a m en t a l causes for the disputes and left the settlement
o f the particular cases in which these causes had operated
to an Official correspondence between the negotiators Thus
in the treaty itse l f but two questio ns other than the settle
ment o f the boundary were included ; namely the sup p res
sion of the s l ave trade and the extradition of criminals for
certain enumerated o ffen ses In the Official corr e spondence
accompanying the treaty the negotiators dealt with the
subj ect o f interference with American ships storm driven
into the ports o f the West I ndies with the attack upon and
“
”
destruction of the C aroline and with the subj ect o f im
In
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
p
ress
m en t
.
account O f the negotiations upon these questions is
necessarily brief I t was chiefly con ducted by persona l c O n
f e ren c es between the negotiators o f which no minutes o r
any O ffi cial record was kept From Webster s correspond
ence however some light is thrown upon the way in which
the arr a ngements were conducted As early as April 26
1 842 Webster writes to Mr Everett in London that he
An
.
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
21 3
41 ]
has proposed to Lord Ashburton a p ractical settlement o f
the right of search difli c ul t y by maintai n ing for a limited
time in dependent squadrons o n the African C oast for the
67
suppression of the slave trade
This arrangeme n t was
“
a fte rwards spoken of by Ashburton as the cruising con
”
which he thought was a favorable means to a c
v e nt i o n
68
complish it s Obj ect
The question o f right Of S earch
brought forth a lengthy corresp onde n ce between Webster
and General C ass then United States Minister to France
who was much disappointed that an absolute renunciation
Of the right o f search was n o t secured by the Un ited States
“
”
The discu s sion of the question o f the C reole has already
been mentioned as a di fficulty in the boundary settlement
The chie f point in the adjustment o f this question was to
make plain the distinction between a remonstrance by the
United States against the interference with American S hips
seeking shelter in B ritish ports and a demand for the return
o f fugitive slaves
Upon this question Webster wrote to
“
John D avis April 1 6 1 842 as follows : O ur position in
relation to the C reole h as been misrepresented by some
and misunderstood by others b ut it is defensible and
”69
safe
P ractically all Of the agreeme n ts a fterwards ex
pressed in the corresp ondence explanatory to the treaty
had been arranged by personal con f erences even before the
fo rmal settlement o f the boundary From July 29t h to
Augus t 9t h these agreeme n ts were given official tone in an
interchange o f forma l diplomatic notes stating the views
held by the respective governments in regard to each o f the
disputed points A proper understanding of this corre
s p o n den c e will be gained in o u r study of the treaty in its
70
various articles
The negotiations were brought to their close August 9
1 842 in a treaty signed by Lord Ashburton and D aniel
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
‘
’
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
Webster s P rivate C orrespondence V ol II p
6 8 C urti s
Life of Webster V ol II p 1 1 8
6 9 Webster s P r ivate C orr es pondence Vo l II p
7 0 See P art III
’
67
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
1 24
.
’
,
.
.
,
.
119
.
.
21 4
4
2
[
“
Webster entitled : A treaty to settle and define the bound
aries between the territories o f the United Stat e s and the
possessions Of Her B ritannic Maj esty in N orth America ;
F o r the final suppress ion o f the African slave trade ; and
for the giving up o f criminals fugitive from justice in cer
”7 1
tain cases
But with the con clusion Of the negotiators
work the final settlement o f the treaties provisions was but
half assured N ot on ly was its ratification b y the p roper
authorities in the respective governments necessary to its
finality and legal enforcement but laws had to be p assed
by the t wo governments to carry certain o f its provisions
into e ffect O n the part of England the article relating
to extradition was without b inding effect until substantiated
by an act o f P arliament
while in the United States a
bill o f appropriation was necess ary to carry o ut the Obliga
tions o f the national government to the States O f Maine and
Mass achusetts accordi n g to the terms of the fifth article
I n E ngland the di ffic ul ties o f ratification such as con
fronts a treaty in the United States are eliminated R ati
fic a t ion there is a prerogative o f the C rown and unless the
agreements of the negotiator are radically contrary to the
national interests his engagements are unquestionably
73
sanctioned by his government
S O with the Webster
Ashburton Treaty the only question o f ratification was in
regard to the action of the United States England s a o
c ep t a n c e o f it was practically undoubted
The P resident referred the T reaty to the Senate August
1 1 t h together with the O fficial correspondence of the n e
f
o
upon
the
questions
not
included
in
the
articles
r
i
a
t
o
o
t
s
g
the treaty He sent also a special message o f approval in
which he explained at some len gt h the results o f the n e got i a
tions and the reas ons f o r their proposed ratification by the
,
,
’
.
’
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
’
.
.
,
,
.
See Appendix B
7 2 See Append ix A
(5) b
“
73 S
B C randall
Treati es thei r Maki ng and Enforc e ment
71
.
.
.
1 51
.
.
,
.
,
”
,
p
.
21 5
43 ]
Senate
R egarding the boundary settlement a recapitula
tio n was gi ven of the poi n ts a greed upon and the d ifiere n c e
which had been settled An import ant advantage was no
ticed in that the main channels of the St Lawrence which
in certain cases lay entirely within the boundary o f o n e o f
the cou n tries were Opened to f ree navigation by the ships
The provisions for the suppression of the slave
o f both
trade were explained with re f erence to their bearing upon
the right of search and the principles which determined
American policy in this regard Similarly the negotiations
“
“
”
”
upon the questions o f the C aroline
the C reole and
impressment were interpreted by the P resident as definitive
statements o f the ground held by the United States upon
these points
In the Senate the Treaty was referred on a motion by
Mr R ives to the C ommittee on Foreign R elations of which
he was chairman The report o f this committee favoring
the ratification o f the treaty was received August 1 5t h and
the Senate in secret session proceeded t o deliberate upon
“
it
I t was made the order of the day for the 1 7t h and the
discussion continued through the 1 9t h and 20t h I n this
debate the chief opponent to the treaty was Senator Benton
o f Missouri who made several motions for amendment and
alteration O f the treaty all o f which were rej ected when
voted upo n Mr R ives led the de f ense o f the treaty before
the Se nate and fin a lly after defeating the v arious attempts
o f the opposition to amend its articles
he submitted on
Augu st 20t h the following resol ution :
“
R esolved ( two thirds o f the senators present concur
ring ) That the Senate advise and consent to the ra t ific a
tion o f the treaty to settle and define the boundaries between
the territories o f the United States and the possess ions o f
Her Britannic Maj esty in N orth America ; f o r the final sup
pression o f the African slave trade ; and for the giving up
74
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
-
,
C ongressional Globe
7 5 C ongressional Globe
74
,
,
27 t h
27 t h
C ongress
C ongress
,
,
3d
3d
Sess p 2
Session p
.
.
,
,
.
.
1
.
21 6
4
[ 4
”
of
criminal s fu giti v e from jus tice in certain cas es
This
resolution was carried by the decisive vote o f 3 9 to 9 and
ordered t o be communicated to the P resident of the United
States
The treaty having been also duly ratified by England
the exchange o f rat ific at ion s took place in London O ctober
1 3 1 842 between E dward Everett the United S ta tes min
ister and Lord Aberdeen the English Secretary of Foreign
a ffairs The P res ident formally announced the treaty in
76
the United States by a proclamation o f N ovember l 0t h
In the United States the ratification o f the treaty by
such a decisive vote called forth many expressions of grat
i fic a t ion from prominent men o f the country
Foremost
among these was Webster himself O n August 21 1 842 h e
“
wrote as follows t o Mr Jeremiah Mas on :
I cannot forego
the pleasure o f saying to an Old and constant friend who
I know takes a p ersona l as well as a pub l ic interest in the
matter that the treaty was ratified last evening by a vote
o f thirty nine to nine
I did not look f o r a maj ority quite
”
S O large
I am truly thankful the thing is done
Mr
“
Mason replied o n August 28t h that : I n my Opinion it is of
more importance to the welfare o f the country than any
thing else that h a s taken place S ince the Treaty of
C hancellor K ent added his commendations t o the treaty in
“
the following words : That act ( for the remova l o f certain
cases to federal courts ; passed Augu st 27 1 84 2) and the
l 0t h article Of the treaty providing for the surrender o f
fugitives are momentous and most conspicuous improve
”78
ments in our nationa l and diplomatic codes
Even Gal
l atin who had so long championed the claim o f the United
States for the boundary as described in 1 7 83 sanctioned the
settlement reached by the compromise line He said c o n
“
cerning it
The arrangement being founded upon a sup
posed equiva l ent the principa l part of which is o f an in
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
Webster s Diplomatic and Official P apers p 23 0
7 7 Webster s P rivate C orrespondence Vo l
II pp 1 4 6
7 8 I b id
p 1 60
’
76
.
,
.
’
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
1 48
.
21 8
[ 46
from France Lewis C ass the United States minister at
P aris bitterly resented that h is e ff orts in Europe t o pre
vent a n adoption Of the right o f search were not more
substantia l ly upheld by the provisions o f the Webster Ash
burton Treaty Webster successfully upheld the action of
the go v ernment in the ensuing correspondence which con
t in ue d after C as s had resigned h is post on account o f his
82
feelings a gainst the treaty
The political opponents found an exce l lent Opportunity
to attack the treaty in the discussion raised by a circum
stance O f its ratification This was the notori ous question
“
33
of
The Maps !
When the negoti ations were j ust begin
ning Jared Sparks who was gathering dat a in the French
“
archives for a revision O f h is work
The D iplomatic C or
”
respondence o f the American R evol ution
discovered a let
t e r written by Frankl in t o C ount de V ergennes in which he
r eferred to a cert a in map which he had sent marked with a
“
”
st rong red line t o show the b oundaries o f the United
States as settled in the p reliminary draft of the tre aty of
O n fu rther search he disc o vered a map answering
1 7 83
accurately the description given by Franklin on which the
line marked for the boundary coincided with that claimed
84
by England
Mr Sparks immedi ately sent a copy of thi s
map to Webster with an explanatory letter conce rning it
N othing more was heard of this letter o r of its c ontents un
til a f ter the treaty was signed by the negotiators Then
while the Senate was debating the ratification o f the treaty
Webster gave a copy o f Sp arks letter and the map to Mr
R ives chairman o f the C ommittee on F or eign Relations
and it was published in Mr R ives speech
As soon as
the treaty was ratified an d the fact became known that
Webster had withhe l d the information conveyed by Sparks
.
,
,
-
.
.
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
’
.
.
’
Webster s Di plomati c and O fficial P apers pp
“
8 3 A full and complet e a c count o f t h e Maps is g iv en i n
N orth
”
American R eview 1 84 3 V ol LVI pp 4 6 8 4 7 7
“
8 4 Jared Sparks to Buchanan
February 1 1 1 84 3 C urtis : Lif
”
of Buchanan Vol I p 5 05
’
82
1 7 0 221
-
.
,
-
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
4 7]
21 9
l etter
while the treaty was being negoti a t ed a stir o f ex
c it e m ent was raised
Webster was charged with having
taken an unfair advantage o f the B ritish negotiato r in
withholding evidence bearing upon the question which
he was duty bound to make known This charge o f dis
honorable conduct on the p art o f the Secretary o f State
was enforced by the fact that Sparks letter had been used
85
to secure the ratification o f the treaty by the Senate
This
feeling was strongest in England but wa s also ente rta ined
by some p eople in the United S tates
A fair judgment of the case however shows that Web
s t e r s conduct in regard t o the Sp arks map was n o t such as
86
his opponents declared
R ives speech upon the Sparks
documents did not imply that they in any way a flec t e d the
“
”
“
validity o f either claim
but
he said
they could n o t
fail in event o f another reference to give increased c o nfi
dence and emphasis t o the pretensions o f Great Britain and
exert a corresponding influence upon the mind o f the ar
”
biter
There is little doubt in view o f the co n flicting
probabilities to be drawn from the number o f maps relat
ing t o the boundary that if the discoveries o f Mr Sparks
had been made kn own at the time they were communicated
to Webster the only result would have been the addition
of endless perplexities and a possible dis ruption o f the n e
87
But in the midst Of popular interes t and possi
got i a t i o n
,
.
,
.
’
.
,
.
,
,
’
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
private letter o f Webster to Everett July 1 4 1 842 shows
that Webster di d take precautions to keep the map question quiet
He says to E verett :
forbear to press the search for maps
”
i n England o r elsewh ere O ur strength is o n the letter of the tr e aty
“
”
C urtis : Life o f Webster Vo l II p 1 03
“
8 6 “ D efense of Webster ” E
Everett in O rations and Speech
”
es Vo l IV p 21 3
8 7 Webster and Ashburton both expressed their satisfaction wit h
the results accomplished by keeping the map question o ut of the ne
i
i
o ns
a
o
t
t
Webster before the N ew Y ork Historical Society April
g
“
1 5 1 84 3 said :
I must confess that I di d no t think it a v ery urgent
duty to go t o Lord Ashburton and tell him that I h ad found a bit of
doubtful evide nce in P aris o ut o f whi ch he might perhaps make some
”
th ing t o prej udi ce our claims
Webster s Works V ol II p 1 4 9
“
Ashburton wrote to Webster that
he was by no means di sposed to
”
di sturb its ( the map question s ) sleep
S ee Append ix C
85
A
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
.
.
.
220
[ 43
ble ant a gonism raised by the map question the di scussion
o f the treaty was renewed in the Senate and P arliament
The debates which ensued brought forth the severest kind
of criticism both for the treaty and its negotiato rs but re
s ul t e d finally in a complete vindication o f both
I n the Senate a discussion was brought about by a
disp atch Of Mr Everett received February 23 rd in which
a reference was made to the right of search and to the st ate
ment made by Sir R obert P eel that Lord Aberdeen 8 dis
c u ss i o n o f it in a dis patch to Everett D ecember 20 1 84 1
had not been answered by the United States I t had been
asserted in E ngland that the claims which Aberdeen laid
down in his disp atch o f D ecember 20t h to the ri ght o f
“
search o r as explained by Aberdeen
The right to a s c er
”
tain the truth of a vessel s nationality
had never been
88
denied in the United States and were in fact undeniable
The real reason why Aberdeen 8 dispatch had n ot been an
s we re d was that negotiations had been transferred to the
Special Mission before Everett framed a reply The sub
j cet having been brought before the Senate in such a man
ner Mr Benton made a long speech upon the di ff erent in
t e rp ret a t io ns put upon the treaty in the t wo countries and
argued that f o r just such in d efin it en es s none o f the real
questions between the countries had been settled by the re
89
cent negotiations
He was answered by Mr Archer who
d ec l ared that the misunderstandings were more apparent
than real He ( Archer ) said that although England had
not actually given up the right of visit yet the treaty had
removed the cause for its immediate exercise and was there
fo r a solution o f the question
Th e opposition to the treaty in the United States was
not con fined to the right of search Mr Benton criticized
al l o f its provisions and added that on e o f the greatest faults
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
.
,
‘
,
,
,
’
,
.
’
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
88
89
P arliamentary D ebates 3 rd Seri es V ol 6 8 pp 6 1 5
”
“
Benton : Thirty Y ears View in the U S Senate
4 21 , 4 5 1
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
6 21
.
Vol
.
II pp
,
.
221
4 9]
was that it did n ot settle all the questions it was supposed
to include O ne o f these was the question o f O regon which
was beginning to attract settlers to such an extent that it
was felt that the arrangement for its j oint occupation by
90
the two countries should be terminated
I n P arliament the treaty was b rought up f o r discussion
by a resolu t ion o f Lord P almerston calling f o r the corre
s p on d en c e o f the recent negotiation and the instructions o f
the ministry to the British envoy to be laid before the House
of C ommons In his subsequent speech upon the motion he
made a detailed and searching criticism o f the treaty its
negotiation and England s representative in the ne got ia
91
tions
He reviewed the history o f the boundary question
from its beginning in1 7 83 to the negotiations o f Lord A sh
burton ; then proceeded to attack those negotiations upon
al l the points connected with them
He considered the
choice o f Lord Ashburton as negotiator a great mistake and
o n e which was clearly demonstrated in the weakness and
lack o f S kill shown in the negotiations The concessions Of
territory to the United States he considered for the most
part as absolute losses to England for which no c omp en
sating equivalents were gained Th e 8t h and 9t h articles
o f the treaty were not a fulfillment o f the promise Of the
“
governments in the Treaty o f Ghent to use their best en
”
deavors
to end slavery S ince efficient policing of the s e a
against slave traders was only possible by a mutual right of
“
”
search In regard to the C reole
P almer st on held that
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
I n regard to th e O regon question and i t s connection with the
treaty o f Washington a mi staken belief has been circulated that
Marcus Wh itman the missionary by a heroic trip across the continent
to tell the national authorities o f O regon s value saved that territory
from being traded to England f o r a c o d fishery in the Webster
Ashburton negotiation This story has been conclusively proved to b e
an entire fabrication but many notable writers were taken in by i t
“
among others being Vo n Holst who says in his C onstitutional H i s
“
”
tory o f the United States, V ol III pp 5 1 5 2 How much truth
”
is in the story can probably never be authenti cally determi ned
The
proofs of the story s lack o f foundation are found in E dw G
“
”
Bourne s
Essays in Historical C riticism
9 1 P arliamentary D ebates
3 rd Seri es V ol 6 7 pp 1 1 6 2 1 21 6
90
,
,
,
’
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
’
.
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
222
[ 50
Ashburton gave too much countenance to the doctrines of
Webster in p romising that instructions should be sent t o the
“
”
colonia l governors t o prevent such O ffic ious interferences
in the future The extradition article alone escaped the
genera l condemnation o f Lord P almerston This he b e
l ie ve d to be a sound principle of internationa l relations
which would be properly enforced by the two governments
for their mutua l benefit But on the whole P almerston
regarded the treaty as n o definite as surance o f future peace
I ts agreements were either already bad o r more capable o f
misconstruction than o f satisfactory enforcement
This
long arraignment by P a l merston which occupied more than
three hours in its delivery was conc l uded with a hope that
the forebodings which had been express ed wou l d prove
wrong
Sir R obert P ee l replied to P almerston 8 attack with an
ab l e defense o f the entire course o f the government in the
recent negotiations He emphasized the fact that some
thing had at l ast been accomplished The Specia l Mission
“
”
and Ashburton s undiplomatic and unskillfu l n egot ia
tions had settled questions which P almerston with forma l
diplomacy had tried f o r ten ye ars to determine without
success The misconstructions put u pon the treaty by its
opponents were not founded upon any actua l misun der
standing between the go v ernments regarding the under
lying principles it embodied
N either side had sacrificed
any principle which it had he l d nor su ff ered any material
l o s ses in territory
The failure t o negotiate upon the O r
egon question was attributed to the danger Of complete fail
u re if too many difli c ul t ies were a d ded to those already de
man di ng S ettlement The charge o f misconduct o n the part
o f the negotiators recently raised by the map question was
erroneous Even if Webster had produced the Spa rks map
—which he was not boun d to do—nothing woul d have been
proved by it The British government had recentl y dis
covered a map which be l onged to the King George I I I
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
’
.
.
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
‘
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
51 ]
223
“
and o n which the boundary stated t o be the l ine as de
”
scribed by Mr O swald
the British negotiator in 1 7 83
I t was clear
wa s shown as clai med by the United States
that the maps proved nothing toward o n e c l aim or the ot h
er P eel conc l uded that the fact that no on e dared to move
any open censure o r b l ame o f Ashburton wa s proof o f the
universa l satisfaction with his conduct
The debates in the House o f C ommons besides the two
speeches a l ready mentioned included others by Mr Macau l
a y and Sir C har l es N apier in opposition and Sir H D oug
las and Mr D israeli in support Of the treaty O n March
23 rd when the ques tion was again called up it havi n g been
adj ourned the day before by a ca l l o f order for lack o f a
quoru m Mr Hume gave notice o f the following resolution :
“
That the House looking to the l ong protract e d nego
t iat i on s between the government o f this country and that
o f the United States of N orth America as t o the settlement
o f the northeastern boundary and taking into consideration
the state o f ou r foreign relations in O ctober 1 84 1 is o f the
Opinion that the treaty o f Was hin gt on is alike honorable
and advantageous to each o f the high contracting parties
a n d that the thanks o f the House are due to the ministers
who advised as we ll as to the R t Hon Lor d Ashburton who
”9 2
negotiated and concl u ded that treaty
This reso lution o f thanks was passed in the House o f
C ommons on Ma y 2n d by a l arge maj ority Meanwhile the
House o f Lords had deb ated a similar motion made by
93
Lord Brougham and accepted it April 7t h
The result o f the debates in P arliament bore o ut the b e
l ief o f Ashburton that the opposition t o the treaty l ay
chiefly among political enemies of the
I t also
foreshadowed the u ltimate success o f the treaty in that it
showed a disposition in P arliament to carry o ut its provi
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
‘
,
,
,
,
P arliamentary D ebates
9 3 I b id
V ol 68 pp 6 3 2
9 4 See Append i x C
92
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
3 rd
81 8
.
Seri es
,
Vol 6 7,
.
p
.
1 31 7
.
224
[ 52
Lord Ashburton replied to an inquiry in the House o f
Lords February 9 1 843 concerning the l 0t h article o f the
treaty that he had written to Webster o f the necessity o f an
95
act o f P arliament t o co nfirm that article in England
A
bil l f o r this purpose was introduced by A shb u rton in June
1 843 and finally p assed Au gust 22n d
In the debate upon
it there was still an inclination o n the part o f some of the
members to confuse the ext radition art icle with an attempt
by the United States to recover fugitive slaves This mis
take was rectified by Lord Aberdeen who disclaimed any
possibility o f such an interpret ation o f the article ever being
96
enforced
In the United States the bill for carrying into e ff ect the
T reaty o f Washington was p assed in the House o f R e p re
The
s en t a t ive s F ebruary 28 1 84 3 by a vote Of 1 3 7 to 4 0
Senate adopted it March 2n d without division upon the
report o f the C ommittee of Foreign R elations o f which Mr
Archer was the chairman
The final work of putting the treaty into force was com
p l et e d by the j oi n t survey commission appointed under the
sixth article The report o f this C ommission was received
97
January 28 1 847
I t showed that the line was succes s
ful ly marked and surveyed from the source O f the St C roix
to the intersection of the forty fif th p arallel with the St
Lawrence three hundred men having been occupied for
eighteen months to complete the work P erfect ha rmony
prevailed between the commis sioners and nothing was en
countered throughout the work to cause any di ff erence b e
tween them regarding the determination o f the l ine With
the adoption of the report o f the Joint C ommission o f the
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
-
.
,
.
.
See Appendi x A ( 5 ) b
9 6 Shortly before leavi ng America
at th e conclusion of the Treaty
Ashburton had assured a delegation o f the American and Foreign
Anti Slavery Society that care woul d be taken that the provision of
the l ot h article should no t prej udi ce the cause o f anti slavery N iles
R egi ster Vo l 63 p 5 3
9 7 Senate Executi v e D ocuments
3 0t h C ong l s t Sess D oc N o 7 1
Vo l VIII p 3
95
.
.
,
,
-
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
226
5
4
[
tions ; and secondly f or the mi l itary and com mercia l S ig
n ific a n c e o f the new boundary
The relation o f the boundary question t o the interna
t ion a l peace of the United States and England has been
noticed as o n e of the l eading causes o f the negotiation o f
98
the Webster Ashburton treaty
I t was the o n e question
which had hung over the two countries in constant dispute
since 1 7 83 O ther q u estions had remained unsettled a s
l ong as had the boundary such as the right of search but
none had been s o continua ll y agitated o r so long in actua l
suspe n se The very l en gth o f time during which this ques
tion had remained u nsett l ed had made it a sore point of
d ifie re n c e between the two countries
But since the settle
ment of the frontier had started disorders and friction b e
tween the l ocal authorities a very practica l danger was em
bodied in the un settled boundary question Under these
circumstances it had become the factor w
hich embittered a ll
disputes arising between the two govern ments I ts settle
ment therefor was o f great importance t o them both
The line o f the boundary as l aid down in the Webster
Ashburton T reaty articles I and I I secured a settlement
which was satisfactory and definite I t was satisfactory
to neither side from the standpoint of their respective
c l aims but a s the termination o f an aggra v ated and dan
o
t
dispute
it
a
compromise
which
secured
both
r
u
s
w
as
e
o
g
parties the essentia l features o f their contentions and th us
allowed a peaceable adjustment o f their re l ations Articles
I V V V I and X o f the treaty dealt with the adj ustment
o f territorial jurisdiction to conform to the new boundary
and p rovided f o r a peaceable administration o f law on the
frontier They were al l carried into e ffect without diffi
culty thus definite l y terminating the frontier dis putes
which had become almost a frontier war
The commercia l and military sign ificance o f the new
boun dary were 1 mp o rt a nt p oints o f dis cussion in both coun
,
.
-
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
98
See P art I
.
227
55]
tries during the debates u pon the treaty I ts military im
portance was particularly emphasized and f o r good reason
The fee l ings between the two nations at that time were not
yet firmly established o n a peace basis and more considera
tion was given t o the pos sibilities o f another war than at
the present day R ouse 8 P oint and the Highland frontier
therefore were important questions in the boundary settle
ment Th e advantages which resu l ted seem t o have been
about e qual l y divided R ouse S P oint wa s ret urned to the
United Sta tes and the Highland fro ntier from the sourc e o f
the St Francis to Met j a rmet t e went to Great Britain Each
country gained a point which was more conducive to its o wn
welfare than to the others detriment Rouse 8 P oint in
commanding the entrance t o Lake C hamplain wa s much
more important as a strategic point o f defense for the
United States than it wou l d be f o r C anada Similarly the
Highland frontier was more essentia l f o r the de f ense O f
C anada than for the United States since it bordered close
l y o n the St Lawrence the highway of England s colonia l
communications
The mi l itary poss ibilities o f the boundary however have
neve r been tested and there is no l onger the ol d hostile
fee l ing between the two countries to cause much anxiety
in that regard
But the commercia l poss ibilities Of the
boundary settlement have been actually rea l ized The free
navigation of the St John as provided in the 3 rd article
p roved to be an important concession t o the l umber interests
99
in Maine as wel l as to promote a genera l good feeling in
the commercial intercourse between the countries In ar
t i cl e V I I a correction for commercial advantages was
made in the bo u ndary sett l ed under the Treaty o f Ghent
The origina l description o f the boundaries said that the line
“
a l ong the St Lawrence S hould be through the middle of
.
.
’
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
.
.
,
’
’
.
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
.
Under the 4th arti cle o f th e treaty o f June 5th 1 85 4 it was
a greed that no export duty sh ould be charged o n Am erican timber
floated down the S t Jo h n, and s h ipped from N ew B runswi ck
Trea
”
ties and C onventi ons
p 452
99
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
228
[ 56
”
that river
and it had been determined so by the commis
s io n e rs of the Treaty of Ghent
I t was found however
that the navigable channe l o f the river was not always the
middle of the stream and that in severa l cases mentioned
in article V I I o f the Treaty o f Washington the only safe
ship channe l was within the te rritory Of on e o f the nations
P rovision was made therefore for the free na vigation o f
1 00
such channels by the ships O f both countries
I t is sometimes said that the questions o f right o f search
and impressment were settled by the treaty Of Was hington
o f 1 84 2
This is n o t true in any strict sense o f the word
In fact the only thing which was accomp l ished by this
treaty at a l l connected with the ri ght o f search was a re
moval o f the immediate occasion for its exercise
The
question o f right o f search had been brought up in con
n e c t i o n with the suppression Of the slave trade and since
the p rovisions for independent squadrons eliminated the
necessity o f a right o f search in accomplishing that pur
1 01
pose
it was considered that the question was practically
settle d As P a l merston said the provision for a sufficient
naval force by the United States to stop American ships
“
from engaging in the slave trade
was p ractica l ly equiv
a l ent t o the acknowledgment o f a power which we did n o t
ab andon in words but it wou l d be understood we should
” 1 02
not attempt t o exercise
The principle of right o f
search was not touched by this treaty which operated mere
ly as a suspension o f the questions and not as an actual s et
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
t l e m ent
.
I n international law river boundaries are i nterpreted to be th e
”
“
mi ddl e o f the main channel o r thread o f the stream
unless other
“
wise stipulated by treaty
W m B ut t e rut h e t a l v The St Louis
“
—
Bri dge C o
1 23 I llinois 5 3 5 )
Scott s
C ases i n I nternational
(
”
Law
p 1 21 The Treaty o f Washington av oided the mistake o f
“
”
stipulating mi d dl e o f the stream
By it th e boundary along the
”
“
St John is described as the middle o f the channel
The final
opening of the entire river St Lawrence for free navigation by the
ships o f both countri es was not accomplished until 1 87 1 Taylor :
“ I nternational P ublic Law ” p 286
1 0 1 See Append ix B
The Treaty Art VIII
1 0 2 Bulwer
Life o f P almerston V ol III p 6 3
1 00
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
’
’
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
229
57]
The right of impressme n t is o n e which England has
never abandoned in any O fficial decl aration I ts practica l
abandonment however has caused it t o be considered as set
I ts only connection with the treaty of Washington
t led
I t was believed in 1 84 1 that
1 842 is entirely secondary
the demand of England f o r the right o f search might be
associated as it was before the war o f 1 81 2 with the right
to take seamen from American merchant ships o n the
ground that they were deserters
This led Webster to
address correspondence to Lord Ashburton setting forth
the reasons f o r the United States opposition to impress
ment and the stand they would take against it all f uture
1 03
time
Ashburton s reply agreed with Webster s views
and gave as surance that there would never arise another
occasion f o r its exercise But Ashburton did not feel em
powered to negotiate any treaty stipulations upon this ques
tion I t has remained undenied by England except by the
semi offic ia l renunciation of Lord Ashburton
But the e ffects o f the provisions for independent squad
d ro ns to patrol the African C oast were felt in Europe as
well as in the United States England had advocated a
mutua l right of search as a necessary measure in s up p res
sing the slave trade and by her e fforts a treaty for this
purpose had been negotiated by five o f the European na
tions England France Austria R ussia and P russia were
the parties t o this ! uintuple Treaty I t was ratified by al l
except F rance who was still deb ating the ratification when
Webster and Ashburton began the negotiation o f the treaty
o f Washington
The United States had not been asked to
become a p arty to the ! uintuple Treaty but it was under
stood that this request would be made as soon as the orig
1 04
ina l contracting parties should ratify it
V igorous pro
tests agains t the right o f S earch and the adoption of the
! uintup l e Treaty were made in Europe by Mr Wheaton
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
’
’
.
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
Webster s D iplomatic and O fficial P apers p 95
1 04 P arliamentary D ebates
3 rd Seri es V ol 6 7 p 1 205
1 03
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
.
23 0
[ 58
the United States Minister to P russia and by General C as s
the Minis ter at P aris The efforts o f these men were main
1 05
1y responsible for the rej ection O f the treaty by France
and when the treaty o f 1 842 was announced the ! uintuple
treaty was definitely ab andoned I ts opponents pointed to
the eighth article o f the Webster Ashburton treaty as the
1 06
real solution of the diffi culty
I n securing e v en the temporary e l imination o f the ques
tion o f right Of search from the disputes between the two
countries Webster and Ashburton achieved success to a
certain degree I n the critical state of the international
re l ations at that time a practica l settlement o f this O l d
question by removing the temporary cause for its agitation
was a wise and e ffective me a sure But the fact of its b eing
only a postponement and n o t a settl ement o f the principle
invo l ved is well borne o ut by the subsequent history o f
the right of search and its significance in the United States
1 07
at a later date
I n striking at the causes rather than at the e ff ects o f
the disputes between the t wo countries Webs ter and Ash
burton were p articularly successfu l in their selection o f the
subj ect o f extradition Of criminals fugitive from justice
John Bassett Moore has
f o r the tenth article o f the treaty
well expressed the good e ffects o f extradition l aws in gen
“
eral as follows :
N o innovation in the p ractice o f nations
has ever more completely discredited the woefu l predictions
o f its adversaries than that o f surrendering fugitives from
,
,
.
,
.
-
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
Lawrence I ntroduction to Wh eaton s I nternational Law p 1 20
Al so Webster s D iplomatic and Official P apers pp 1 7 0 221
1 06 P arliamentary D ebates
3 rd Series Vo l 6 7 p 1 266
1 0 7 “ Apart from the case o f p i racy
executions o f revenue laws
and proper cause f o r self defense the ri ght o f visit i n time o f peace
m ay be said to have ended in 1 85 8 when England abandoned i t after
a strong protest by the United States Senate caused England st a
”
t i o ni ng cruisers near the i sland o f Cuba to stop S lave tradi ng
Taylor I nternational P ublic Law p 23 9 and 3 1 0 note Also P hill i
more I nternational Law Vol III p 5 4 3 I n 1 86 2 the United States
concluded a treaty with England f or the mutual exercise o f the ri ght
o f search within certain limits by public vessels o f the two countries
”
“
duly authori z ed for the work
Treat i es and C onventions p 4 54
’
1 05
,
.
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
23 1
59 ]
” 1 08
j ustice
I n 1 842 international l aws o f extradition were
yet an innovation almost untried be f ore the adoption of the
Webster Ashburton treaty The only p revious attempt to
pass extra di tion laws in the United States was in Jay s
treaty o f 1 7 94 which p rovided in its 27t h article for the
extradition of criminals fugitive from justice in cases O f
murder o r forgery N othing ever came Of this attempt
however and it expired by limitation
Since then
the governments had ext radited crimina l s in some cases as
an act of comity but no e ffective rule of extradition was
adopted The n e cessity for such a regu lation was forced
u pon the attention o f the two gove rnment s in 1 834 when
the following reply was sent by Mr Forsyth to a request
for the surren der Of Andrew Ca wl in charged with murder
“
in Engl and :
I have the honor by his ( the P resident s )
directions to reply that in absence o f any conventional
agreement between the United States and Great Britain f o r
the de l iv ery O f p ersons charged with heinous o flens es the
authority of the executive o f the United States to exercise
a right o f such important e ffect upon the personal security
is more than questionab l e and hence the case t o which yo u
refer is without any remedy in the competency Of this
”1 1 0
government t o apply
The opinions both o f attorney
generals and courts decided that in absence o f treaty stip
ul a t i ons the executive authority in the United States was
not authorized t o extradite a p erson f o r offenses committed
in a foreign country This gave unbounded opportunity
for criminals to operate between the United States and
C anad a with little fear of being punished A considerable
share o f the border disturb ances final ly resu lting in the
“
”
C aroline a fia ir was due to these law beaters who in
f e s t e d the boundary
The tenth article o f the Webster
.
,
,
-
.
’
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
Moore J B American D iplom a cy p 25 3
1 09 Lawrence
I ntroduction to Wh eaton s I nternat i onal Law p
cxiii C f Moore American D iplomacy p 25 2
1 1 0 Moore J B
Treatise on Extradi tion and I nter State R end ition
p 31
1 08
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
.
-
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
23 2
6
0
[
Ashburton Treaty was intended to put a stop to such l aw
l essness o n the border and to promote the general cause Of
11 1
j ustice by providing f o r extradition upon seven o ffenses
This article was well received by s ome o f the opponents
o f the treaty
but vigorously attacked by others partien
l a rly in England where it was confused with the mistaken
”
idea that the C reole claims applied to the extradition o f
fugitive S laves The distinction between the two was made
c l ear in Aberdeen s speech up on the bill f o r c a rrym g the
“
112
article i n to e ffect
I n the Senate Benton said
Though
”
fair on its face it is diflic ult o f execution
He feared
that with its large number o f numerated O ffenses it would
be misused to secure the punishment of innocent persons
113
and politica l o ff enders
In the House Mr Levy of
Florida made a motion and speech in March 1 844 for the
abandonment o f the extradition article on the grou n d that
E ngland was n ot executing her part o f the agreement in
refusing to extradite seven negroes wh o had committed a
murder and escap ed t o N assau Nothing resulted from this
motion
“
”
I n spite of the
woefu l predictions o f its adversaries
the extradition article proved its effectiveness in securing
order on the frontier Th e results o f its enforcement were
highly commended by Mr Woodbridge a former governor
who spoke during Webster s defen se of the
o f Michigan
Treaty o f Was hington before the Senate April
“
as follows :
I have now only t o add my entire and un
qua l ified conviction that no act o f the legislative o r treaty
making power that I have ever kn own h as ever been more
successful in its operation than this article of the treaty ;
nor could any provision have been attended by more happy
consequences upon the peace an d s afety o f society in that
”1 1 6
remote frontier
.
,
,
.
’
.
,
,
‘
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
See Appen di x B
1 1 2 See P art II
1 1 3 Benton
Thirty Y ears V iew in the U S Senate p
1 1 4 Webster s Works Vo l
V p 78
1 1 5 Webster s D iplomatic and O fficial P apers p
295
111
.
.
’
.
,
.
,
’
,
.
,
.
.
’
,
.
.
.
444
.
23 4
2
6
[
A PP E NDIC ES
.
—
A PP EN
Extracts from the di plomatic correspondence relating
to the negotiation o f the Webster Ashburton Treaty
D IX
A
.
-
.
A PP EN D IX B — The treaty concluded at Washington August
by Lord Ashburton and D ani el Webster ve rb a t i m
.
,
.
,
A PP EN D IX
9 , 1 84 2,
C — Extracts from Webster s P rivate C orrespondence
’
.
.
APP EN D I X D —A map showi ng the various li nes between the United
States and the British P rovinces
.
.
A PP E NDIX
A
.
Extracts from the diplomatic correspondence relating to the n e
go t i a t i o n O f the Webster Ashburt on Treaty
( 1 ) E dward Everett to Webster London D ecember 3 1 1 84 1
( 2) Webster to Everett Washington January 29 1 84 2
( 3 ) Webster to Governor F a i rfie l d Washingt on April 1 1
-
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
1 84 2
.
( 4)
Webster t o the Maine C ommissioners Washington Jul y
,
,
1 5 , 1 84 2
.
( 5 ) Lord Ashburt on to Webster , Washington , August
1
(
E
D
W
AR
D
E
V
ERE
TT
)
London D ecember
,
,
WE B S T ER
TO
3 1 , 1 84 1
X
.
.
.
J(
9(
'
9, 1 842
-
“ At
a late hour on the evening of the 26t h I received a note
from the Earl of Aberdeen requesting an interview for the follow
ing day w h en I met him at the Foreign O ffice agreeably to the
appointm ent After one or two general remarks upon the di fficulty
o f bringing about an adjustment Of the points of controversy b e
tween the governments by a c ontinuance o f the discussions hither
to carried o n h e said that her maj esty s government had deter
m i ned to take a decisive step toward that end by sending a special
minister to the Unite d States with a full power to make a final
settlement of all matters in dispute
This step was de
t e rm i n e d on from a sincere and earnest desire to bring t h e matter
s o long in controversy t o an amicable settlement ; and if as he di d
,
,
,
,
.
,
’
,
,
,
.
,
63]
235
not doub t the same disposition existed at Washington he thought
this step afforde d the most favorable and indeed the only means
o f carrying it into e fie c t
I n the choic e of the indi v idual for the
mission Lord Aberdeen added that he had been mainly in fluenced
by a desire to select a person who would b e peculiarly acceptable
in the United States as well as eminently qualified f o r the trust
and that he persuade d himself he had found one who in both re
sp e c t s
was all that could be wishe d He then name d Lord Ash
burton who had consente d to undertake the mission
Although this communication was of course wholly unexpected
to me I felt no hesitation in expressing the great satisfaction with
which I recei v ed it I assure d Lord Aberdeen that the P resident
had nothing more at heart than an honorable adj ustment of the
matters in discussion between the two countries ; that I was per
s ua d e d a more acceptable selection of a person for the important
mission proposed could not have been made ; and that I anticipated
the happiest results from this o v erture
Lord Aberdeen rej oin e d that it was more than an o vert ure ; that
Lord Ashburton would go with full powers to mak e a definite ar
rangement o n e v ery point in discussion between the two countries
He was aware of the di fii c ul t y o f s ome of them particularly what
h a d incorrectly been calle d the right O f search which he deeme d
the most di fli c ul t o f all ; but h e was willing to confide this and all
other matters in controversy to Lord Ashburton s discretion He
added that they should have been quite willing t o come to a gen
eral arrangement here but they suppose d I had not full powers for
such a purpose
This measure b eing determined o n Lord Aberdeen said he pre
sumed it would be hardly wort h while for us to continue the cor
respondence here o n matters in dispute b etween the governments
He o f c ourse was quite willing to consider and reply to any state
ment I might think proper t o make o n any subj ect ; but pending
the negotiations that might t ake place at Washington he supposed
”
no benefit could result from a simultaneous discussion here
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
’
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
X
J(
-
-
( 2)
WEBS TER
,
X
‘
“
.
29, 1 84 1
9t
9i
9(
9(
E VERETT
To
Washington January
96
96
.
9(
Y our dispatch o f the 3 l s t of D ecember announces the import
ant intelligence O f an intent i on o f dispatching a special minister
from Englan d to the Unite d States with full powers to settle
every m atter in dispute between the two governments ; and the
,
23 6
64
[
P resident directs me to s a y that he regards this proceeding as
origi nating in an entirely amicable spirit and that it will b e met
on his part with perfectly corresponding sentiments The high
character Of Lord Ashburton is well known to this government ;
and it is n o t doubted that he will enter on the duties assigned to
h im not only w i th the advantages of much knowledge and e x p e ri
ence in public a fia i rs but with a true desire to signali z e hi s mis
sion by assisting to plac e the peace o f the t wo countries o n a per
manent basis He will be receive d with the respect due t o his o wn
character the character o f the go v ernment which sends him and
the high importance to both countries of the subj ects intrusted
to his negotiation
The P resident approves your conduct in not pursuing i n Eng
land the discussion o f questions which are now t o become the sub
”
j e c t s o f negotiation here
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
WEB S TER
GO VERN O R F AI RFI EL D
Washington April 1 1 1 84 2
D epartment o f State Washington April 1 1 1 842
“
Y our excellency is aware that pre v ious to March 1 84 1 a
negotiation had been going o n f o r some time betwee n the Secreta ry
o f State of the Unit e d States under the direction o f the P resident
an d the British minister accredited to this government having for
i ts Obj ect the creation of a j oint c ommission for settling th e c on
t ro v e rs y respecting the northeastern boundary of t h e United States
with a pro v ision for an ultimate reference to arbitrators to be a p
pointed by some o n e o f the sovereigns of Europe in case an ar
O n the leading features of a
b i t ra t i o n should b ecome necessary
convention f o r this purpose the two governments had become
agreed ; but o n several matters of detail the parties differed and
appear to have been interchanging the i r respective views and Opin
ions proj ects an d c ounter proj ects without coming to any final
arrangement down to August 1 84 0
V arious causes not now
necessary to b e explained arreste d the progress o f the negotiation
at that time a n d no considerable advance has sinc e been made in it
I t seems to have b een understood on both sides that o n e arbi
t ra t i o n having failed it w a s the duty o f the two parties to proceed
t o institute anoth er according to the spirit of the t reat y of Ghent
and other treaties ; and the P resident has felt i t to b e his duty un
less some new c ourse shoul d be proposed to cause the negotiat i on
t o b e resumed an d pressed to its conclusion But I have n ow to
i nform your excellency that Lord Ashburton a minister plenipo
t e n t i a ry and special has arri ved at the s eat of the government o f
3)
To
.
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
65]
23 7
the Unite d States charged with full powers from h is sovereign to
negotiate and settle the different matters in discussion between the
two gover nments I have further t o stat e to you that he has O ffi
in regard to the bound
c i a ll y announce d t o this department that
ary question h e has authority to treat for a conventional line o r
line by agreement o n such terms and condi tions and with suc h
m utual considerations and equivalents as may be thought j ust and
equitable and that he is ready t o enter upon a negotiation for such
con ventional line s o soon as this government shall say it i s author
i z e d and ready on its part to commence such negotiation
Under thes e circumstances the P resident h as felt it to be h is
duty to call the serious attention of the governments of Maine and
Massachusetts to the subj ect and t o submit to those governments
the propriety o f their c O Operation to a certa i n extent and in a
certain form in an endeavor t o terminate a controversy already
of s o long duration and wh i ch seems very l ikely t o be still con
s i d e ra b l y further protracte d b efore the desire d end Of a final a d
j ustment shall b e attained unless a shorter course o f arr i ving at
that end be adopted than such as has heretofore been pursued
and a s the two governments are still pursuing
Y et wi t h out the concurrence of the two states whose r i ghts are
more i mm ediately concerned both having an interest in the soil
and o n e of them i n th e juris diction and government the duty o f
this government will be to adopt no new course but in compl i ance
w it h treaty stipulations and in furtheranc e of what has already
been done t o hasten t h e pending negotiations as fast as p ossible
in the course hitherto adopted
But the P resident t h inks it a highly desirable obj ect to prevent
t h e delays necessar i ly incident to any settlement of the question
by t h ese means Such delays are great and unavoidable I t h as
been found that an exploration and examination of the several lines
constitute a work of three years T h e existing commission for
making such explorat i on under th e authori ty of t h e United States
has been occupied two summers and a very considerable portion
I f a j oint commission should
o f the work remains still to be done
b e appointed and should go throug h the same work and the com
missioners should di sagree as is very possible and an arbitrat i on
on that account become indispensable the arbitrators might find it
necessary to make an exploration and survey themselves or cause
the same to be done by others o f their o wn appointment I f to
these causes operating t o postpone the final decision be added the
time necessary to appoint arbitrators and for their preparation to
leave Europe for the service the various retarding incidents a l
,
.
,
,
'
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
23 8
66
[
ways attending suc h Operation seven o r eight years constitute
perhaps the shortest perio d within which we can look for a final
result I n the meantime great expenses have been incurred and
further expenses cannot be avoided I t is well known that the con
t ro v e rs y has brought heavy charges upon Maine herself to the re
m un e ra t i o n o r proper settlement o f which she can n o t b e expecte d
to be indi ff erent The exploration by the government o f the Unit
e d States has already cost a hundred thousand dollars and the
charge of another summer s work is in prospect These facts may
be s ufli c i e n t to enable us to form a probable estimate of the whole
expense likely to be incurred before the controversy can b e settle d
by arbitration ; an d o u r experience admonishes us that even a h
other arbitration might possibly fail
The opinion Of this governm ent upon the justice and validity of
the American claim has been expressed at s o many times and in
so many forms that a repetition o f that Opinion is not necessary
But the subj ect is a subj ect in dispute The government has
agreed to make it matter o f reference and arbitration ; and it must
fulfill that agreement unless another mo de for settling the contro
v e rs y should b e resorted to with the hope of producing a spee di er
decision The P resi dent proposes then that the governments o f
Maine an d Massachusetts S hould severally appoint a commissioner
or commissioners empowere d t o confer with the authorities of this
government upon a conventional line or line by agreement wi t h
its terms conditions considerations and equivalents ; with an u n
d e rs t a n di n g that no such line will be agreed upon without the as
s ent O f such commissioners
This mo de of proceeding o r some other which shall express as
sent beforehand seems indispensable i f any negotiation for a c o n
v e n t i o n a l line is to be attempted ; since if happily a treaty S hould
b e the result o f the negotiation it can only be submitted t o the
Senate o f the United States f o r ratification
I t is a subj ect of deep an d sincere regret to the P resident that
the British plenipotentiary did not arrive in the country and make
known his powers i n time t o have made this communication b efore
the annual session o f the Legislature of the two states had bee n
brought to a close He perceives and laments the inconvenience
which may b e experienced from reassembling those legislatures
But the British mission is a speci a l o n e ; it does not supersede the
resident mission o f the British government at Washington and its
stay in the United States is n o t expecte d to be long I n addition
to these considerations it is to be suggeste d that more than four
m onths of the session of C ongress have already passed and it is
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
‘
,
.
,
’
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
6 7]
23 9
highly desirable if any treaty for a conventional line should b e
agreed o n that it should be concluded before the session shall ter
minate n o t only because of the necessity of the ratification o f the
Senate but also because it is not impossible that measures may
be thought advisable or become important which can only be a o
complished by the authority o f both Houses
These considerations in addition to the importance of the s ub
and
a
firm
conviction
in
th
e
mind
of
the
resident
that
the
P
e
c
t
j
i nterests of both countries a s well as the interests O f the two
states more i mmediately concerned require a prompt effort to
bring this dispute to an end constrain him to express an earnest
h O p e that your excellency will c onvene the Legislature of Maine
and submit the subj ect to its grave an d candi d deliberations I
am etc
D AN I EL WEB S TER
”
His Excellency John F a i rfie l d Govern or o f Maine
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
MAI NE CO M M I S S IO NER S
Washington July 1 5 1 842
D epartment o f State, Washingt on July 1 5 1 84 2
“ Gentlemen —Y ou have had an opportunity Of reading Lord
Ashburton s note t o me o f the 1 1 t h of July Sinc e that date I
have had full and frequent conferences with him respecting the
eastern boundary and believe I understand what is practicable to
be done o n that subj ect s o far as he is concerned I n these con
f e re n c e s he has made no positive or binding proposition thinking
perhaps it would b e more desirable under present circumstances
that such proposition S hould procee d from the side of the Unite d
St ates I have reason t o believe however that he would agree
to a line of boundary between the United States and the British
provinces of C anada and N ew Bru nswick such as is described in
a paper accompanying this ( marked B ) and identified by my s i g
nature
The territory in dispute between the two countries contains
square miles equal t o
acres
By the line descri bed in the accompanying paper there will be
assigne d t o the United States 701 5 square miles e qual to
acres ; and to England 501 2 square miles equal t o
acres
By the award o f the K ing o f the N etherlands there was as
signe d to the United States 7 907 square miles
acres ; t o
E n gland 4 1 1 9 square miles
acres
The territory proposed to be relinquished to England south o f
th e line of the K ing of the N etherlands is a s you wi l l s e e the
mountain range from the upper part of the St Francis R iver to
( 4 ) WE BS TER
To TH E
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
’
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
24 0
[ 68
the meeting o f the two contested lines of boundary at the M e t j a r
mette P ortage in the h ighlands near the source Of the St John
This mountain tract contains 893 square miles equal to
acres I t i s supposed to be of no value for cult i vation o r settle
m ent
O n this point you will s e e herewith a letter from C aptai n
Talcott who has been occupied two summers in exploring t h e line
o f the highlands
and i s intimat ely acquainte d with the territory
The line leaves to the United States between the base of the h il l s
and the left bank o f the St John and lying upon th e river a ter
ri t o ry o f
acres embracing without doubt all the valuable
land sout h of the St Francis and west o f the St John O f the
general division of the territory it is believed it may be safel y
said that while the portion remaining with the Unite d States is
i n quantity s even twelfths i n value it i s at least four fif t h s of the
whole
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
-
-
,
,
.
X
it
'
th i s li n e should be agreed t o o n the part o f the Unite d States
I suppose that the British m inister would as an equ i valent stip
ul a t e first for the use of the R iver St John for the conveyance
o f the timber growing o n any of its b ranches
t o tide water free
from all discriminating tolls i mpositions o r inabilities o f any k ind
the timber enj oying all t h e privileges o f British c olonial t i mber
All Opinions concur that this pr i vilege of navigation must greatly
enhance the value o f the territo ry and the timber grow i ng thereon
and prov e excee di ngly useful to the people Of Mai ne Second :
That R ouse 8 P oint in Lake C hamplain and the lands heretofore
suppose d to be within the limits o f N ew Hampshire V ermont and
N ew Y ork but which a correct ascertainment o f the 4 5t h parallel
o f latitude shows t o b e i n C anada
should be surrendere d to the
United States
I t is probable also that the d isputed line O f boundary in Lake
Superior might be s o adj usted as to leave a disputed island w ithi n
the Unite d States
These cessi ons o n the part Of Englan d would enure partly to
t h e benefit of the states of N ew Hampshire V ermont and N ew
Y ork but principally to the Un i te d States The consideration o n
the part of England for mak i ng t h em woul d b e the manner agree d
upon for adj usting the eastern boundary The price O f the cession
t h erefore whatever it m i ght be would in fairn ess belong to the
two states intereste d in the manner Of that adj ustment
Under the influence o f t h ese considerations I am aut h ori z ed to
s a y that if the commissioners o f the two states assent to the line
as describ ed in the accompanying paper the United States will
If
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
24 2
b
[ 70
.
“
By the 3 d article O f the convention which I have this day
signed with you there is an agreement for the reciprocal delivery
in certain cases of crimin a ls fugitive from j ustic e ; but it becomes
necessary that I should apprise you that this art i cle can have no
legal e ff ect within the dominions of Great Britain until confirme d
by act o f P arliament I t is possible that P arliament may not b e
in session before the exchange of the ra t i fic a t i o n s o f the c o n v e n
tion but its sanction shall be aske d at the earliest poss ible perio d
and no doubt can be entertained that it wi ll be given I n Her
Maj esty s territories in C anada where cases f o r acting under this
convention are likely to be of more frequent occurrence the gov
c ruor general has s ufli c i e nt power
under the authority of local
legislation an d the convent i on will there b e acted upo n s o soon
as its ratification S hall be known ; but it becomes my duty to i n
form you O f the short delay which may possibly intervene in giv
ing full e ff ect to it where the confirmation by P arliament b ecomes
”
necessary for its execution
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
’
,
,
‘
,
,
.
A PP E NDIX
B
.
The treaty conclude d at Washington Au gu st
Ashburton and D aniel Webster verb a t i m l l !
,
9 , 1 84 2,
by Lord
'
,
“
Whereas certain portions o f the line of boundary between the
Unite d States of America and the British dominions in N orth
America described in the second article o f the Treaty O f P eace
of 1 783 have not yet been ascertained and determined n o t wi t h
st a nding the repeated attempts which have been heretofore made
f o r that purpose ; and whereas it is now thought to be f o r the
interest O f both parties that avoiding further d i scussion of their
respective rights arising in this respect under the said treaty they
should agree o n a conventional line in said port i ons of the said
boundary such as may be convenient t o both parties with such
equivalents an d compensations a s are deemed j ust and reasonab le ;
and whereas by the treaty concluded at Ghent o n the 24t h day
1 81 4 between the Unite d States and his Britannic
o f D ecember
maj esty an article was agreed to and inserted o f the following
tenor v i z : Article 1 0 Whereas the traffic in slaves is i rre c o n
c i l a b l e with th e principles of humanity and j ustice ; and whereas
both his maj esty and the United States are desirous o f continuing
their e fio rt s to promote its ent i re abolition i t is hereby agree d
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
‘
,
.
.
,
117
e c u t i ve
T re a tie s
and
C o n ve n t i o n s , J
D o c um e n t s , 2 7 t h C o n g
,
.
3 rd
H
.
H a s w e ll p p
S e ss
,
.
,
No
.
2, p p
432 43 8 ;
-
.
25 3 0
-
.
.
s
al o
H ou se Ex
71 ]
24 3
that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors
to accomplish s o desirable an Obj ect ; and whereas n o t wi t h s t a n d
i ng the laws which have at various times been passed by the two
governments and the e fio rt s made t o suppress it that criminal
t ra fli c is still prosecuted and carried on ; and whereas the United
States o f America and her maj esty th e ! ueen of the United K ing
dom of Great Britain and I reland are determined that so far as
may be in their power it shall be e fie c t ua ll y abolished ; and where
as i t is found expedient f o r the better administration o f j ustice
and the pre v ention o f crime within the t erritories and j urisdiction
o f the two parties respectively th a t persons committing the crimes
hereinafter enumerated and b eing fugitives from justice should
under certain circumstances b e reciprocally deli v ere d up : The
United States of America an d her Brit annic Maj esty having re
sol v e d to treat o n these several subj ects have for that purpose
appointe d their respective P lenipotentiaries to negotiat e and con
c l u de a treaty ; that is to say :
The P resident of the United States has o n his part furnished
with full powers D aniel Webster Secretary of State o f the United
States ; and Her Maj esty the ! ueen of the United K ingdom of
Great Britain and I reland has o n her part appointed the R ight
Honorable Alexander Lord Ashburton a peer O f the said United
K ingdom a m ember o f Her Maj esty s most honorable privy c ounsel
and Her M aj esty s minister plenipotentiary o n a special mission t o
the United States ;
Who after a reciprocal communication O f their respective full
powers have agree d to and signed the following articles :
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
,
,
’
,
,
I
I t i s hereby agree d and declared that the line of boundary shall
b e as f ollows : Beginning at the monument at the source o f the
R iver St C roix as designate d and agree d to by the commissioners
under the fifth article of the treaty O f 1 7 94 between the govern
ments of the United States and Great Britain ; thence north fol
l owing the exploring line run and marked by the surveyors of the
two governments in the years 1 81 7 and 1 81 8 under the fifth article
o f the Treaty o f Ghent to its intersection with the R i v er St John
and t o th e middle o f the channel thereof ; thence up the middle of
the main channel of the sa i d R i v er St John to the mouth O f the
R iver St Francis ; thence up the mi d dle of the channel of the said
R i v er St Francis and of the lakes through which i t flows to the
outlet Of the Lake P o h e n a ga m o o k ; thence southwesterly i n a
straight line to a point on the northwest branch Of the R iver St
ART I C L E
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
24 4
2
7
[
John which point shall be ten m i les distant from the main branch
o f the St John in a straight line
and in the nearest direction ; but
i f the sai d point shall be found to be less than s even miles from
the nearest point Of the summit o r crest o f the Highlands that
divide those rivers whic h empty themselves into the R i v er St
Lawrence from those which fall into th e R iver St John then the
sai d point shall b e made to recede down the sai d no rthwest branch
of t h e R iver St John t o a point seven miles in a straight line
from the said summit o r crest ; thence in a straight line in a course
about south eight degrees west to the point where the parallel of
latitude o f 4 6 degrees 25 minutes north intersects the southwest
branch o f the St John s ; thence southerly by the said branch
t o the source thereof in the Highlands at the M e t j a rm e tt e P ort
age ; thence down along the sai d Highlands which divide the waters
which empty themselves i nto t h e R iver St Lawrence from t h ose
which fall into the Atlantic O c ean t o t h e head of Hall s Stream ;
thence down the middle o f said stream till the l i ne thus run inter
sects the o l d line of boun dary surveye d and marked by V alentine
and C ollins previously t o t h e year 1 7 74 as the 4 5 t h degree of north
latitude and which has b een known and understoo d to be the line
o f actual division between the States o f N ew Y ork an d V ermont
on o n e side and the Brit i sh prov i nce of C anada o n the other ; and
from said point o f intersection west along the said dividing li ne
as h eretofore known and un derstood to the I roquois or St Law
rence R iver
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
,
.
’
,
,
,
,
,
-
,
,
,
.
,
.
ART I C L E
II
.
I t is moreover agreed that from the place where the j o int co m
missioners terminate d their labors under the sixt h article o f t h e
Treaty o f G h ent to w i t at a point in the N e e b i s h C h a nnel near
Muddy Lake the line shall run into and along the sh i p channel
between St Josep h s and St Tamm any I slands to the div is i on of
the channel at or near the h ead o f St Josep h s I sland ; thence
turning eastwardly and northwardly around the lower end of St
George s or S ugar I sland and following the middle o f the channel
which div i des St George s from St Joseph s I sland ; thence up the
east N e e b i s h C hannel nearest t o St George s I sland t h roug h the
m i ddle o f Lake George ; thence west Of J o n a s s I sland i nto St
Mary s R iver to a point i n the middle of that river about one
mile above St George s or Sugar I sland s o as to appropriate and
ass i gn the sa i d island to the United States ; thenc e adopting the
line traced on the maps by the c ommissioners t h rough the R iver
St Mary and Lake Superior to a po i nt nort h o f Ile R oyale i n
,
,
,
,
-
,
’
.
.
,
’
.
,
.
,
’
,
’
’
.
.
’
.
,
,
’
,
.
,
’
,
,
’
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
73 ]
24 5
said lake one hundre d yards to the north and east o f I le C hapeu
w hich last mentioned island lies near the northeastern point O f I le
R oyale where the line marke d by the commissioners terminates ;
and from the last mentione d point southwesterly through the mid
dle o f the soun d between Ile R oyale and the northwestern main
land to the mouth o f P igeon R iver and up the said river to and
through the n orth and south Fowl Lakes to the lakes o f the height
o f land between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods ; thence
along the water communication to Lake S a i s a gi n a ga and through
that Lake ; thence to and through C ypress Lake Lac d u Bois
B l a n e Lac la C roix Little V ermillion Lake and Lake N a m e c a n
and through the several smaller lakes straits o r streams connect
i ng the lakes here mentioned to that point in Lac la P luie o r
R ainy Lake at the C hau di ere Falls, from which the commissioners
trace d the line to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the
Woods ; thence along the sa i d line to the said most nort hwestern
point being in latitude 4 9 degrees 23 minutes 5 5 seconds north
and in longitude 9 5 degrees 1 4 minutes 3 8 seconds west from the
Observatory at Greenwich ; thence according to existing treaties
due south to its intersection with the 4 9t h parallel o f north lati
tude and along that parallel to the R ocky Mountains ; it being
understoo d that all the water communications and all the usual
portages along the l i ne from Lake Superior to the Lake Of the
Woods and also Grand P ortage from the shore of Lake Superior
to the P igeon R iver a s now actually used shall be free and open
to the use of t h e citi z ens and subj ects of both countries
ART I C L E III
I n order to promote the i nterests and encourage the industry
of all the i nhab i tants of the countries watere d by the R iver St
John and i ts tributaries whether l i ving within the State o f Maine
o r the prov i nce of N ew Brunswick
it is agreed that where by
the provisions o f the present treaty the R iver St John i s de
c l a re d t o be the line o f boundary the navigation of the said river
shall b e free and Open to both part i es and shall i n no way be
Obstructed by eit h er ; that all the pro duce of the forest in logs
lumber t im ber boards staves or shingles o r O f agriculture not
being manufactured grown o n any of those parts of the State of
Maine watered by the R i ver St John or by its tributaries of
which fact reasonable ev i dence shall if required be produced
shall have free access into and through the said river and its said
tributaries having their source within the State Of Maine to and
from the s e a port at the mouth o f the said R iver St John s and to
and round the falls of the sa i d river either by boats rafts or other
,
,
-
,
-
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
’
-
.
,
,
,
,
24 6
[ 74
conveyance ; that when within the province o f N ew Brunswick the
sai d produce shall be dealt with as if it were the pro duce Of the
said province ; that in like manner the inhabitants of the terri
tory o f the Upper St John determined by this treaty t o belong
to her Britannic maj esty shall have free access to and through the
river for their pro duce in those parts where the said river runs
wholly through the Sta t e O f Maine : P rovided always that this
agreement shall give no right t o either party to interfere with
any regulations not inconsistent with the t erms of this treaty
which the governments respectively of Maine o r o f N e wBruns
wick may make respecting the navigation O f the said river where
both banks thereof shall belong to the same part y
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
IV
All grants o f lan d heret ofore made by either party within the
limits Of the territory which by this treaty falls within t he do
m i n I O n s Of the other party S hall be held valid ratified and con
firme d to the persons in possession under such grants to the same
ext ent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the
dominions o f the party by whom such grants were made : and all
equitable possessory claims arising from a possession and improve
ment o f any lot o r parcel Of lan d by the person actually in pos
session o r by those under whom such person claims for more than
s i x years before the date o f this treaty
shall in like manner be
deeme d valid an d b e confirmed and quieted by a release to the
person entitled thereto o f the title to such lot or parcel o f land
describe d as best to include the improvements made thereon ;
SO
and in all other respects the two contracting parties agree t o deal
upon the most liberal principles o f equity with the settlers actual
l y dwelling upon the t erritory falling to them respectively which
has heretofore been in dispute between them
ART I C L E
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
‘
,
,
.
V
Whereas in the course O f the controversy respecting the dis
territory
on
the
northeastern
boundary
some
moneys
have
u
t
e
d
p
been received by the authorities o f Her Britannic Maj esty s prov
ince O f N ew Brunswick with the intention o f preventing depreda
tions o n the forests o f the said territory which m oneys were to be
”
“
c a rried t o a fun d called the dispute d territory fund
the pro
should be hereafter paid over to the
c e e d s whereof it was agreed
parties interested in the proportions to be determined by a final
settlement o f b oundaries : it is hereby agree d that a correct a o
count o f all receipts and payments on the said fund shall be de
ART I CL E
.
,
,
’
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
24 7
75 ]
livered t o the Go v ernment of the Unite d States within six months
after the ratification O f this treaty ; and the proportion o f the
amount due thereon to the States of Maine and Massachusetts
and any bonds o r securities appertaining thereto shall be paid and
delivered o v er to the Governm ent of the Unite d States ; and the
Government o f the Unite d States agrees to recei v e for the use o f
an d pay over to the States o f Maine an d Massachusetts their
respective portions Of said fund ; an d further to pay and satisfy
said states respectively for all claims for expenses incurred by
them in protecting the said heretofore disputed territory and mak
ing a survey thereof in 1 83 8 ; the Government of the United States
agreeing with the States of Maine and Massachusetts t o pay them
the further sum Of three hundred thousand dollars i n equal moieties
o n account o f their assent to the l ine o f boundary described in t h is
treaty and in consideration of the conditions an d equi v alents re
from the governmen t of Her Britannic Maj esty
c ei ved therefor
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
VI
I t is furthermore understood and agreed that f o r the purpose of
running and tracing those parts o f the line between the source of
the St C roix and the St Lawrence R i v er which will re quire to be
run and ascertaine d and for marking the residue Of said line by
proper m onuments o n the land two c ommissioners shall b e a p
pointed one by the P resident O f the United States by and with
the a d v ice and consent O f the Senate thereof and o n e by Her Bri
ta n nic Maj esty ; an d the said c ommissioners shall meet at Bangor
in the State of Maine on the first day o f May next o r as soon
thereafter as may be and shall proceed to mark the line above
described from the source o f the St C roix to the R iver St John ;
and shall trace o n proper maps the dividing line along sai d river
and along the Ri v er St Francis to the Outlet o f the Lake P ohe
n a ga m o o k ; and from the outlet of the said lake they shall a s c e r
tain fix and mark by proper and durable monuments on the land
the line described in the first article of this treaty ; and the said
commissioners shall make to each of their respective Go v ernments
a j oint report o r declaration under their hands and seals de s i g
nating such line O f bounda ry and shall accompany such report o r
declaration with maps certified by them to be true maps of the new
b oundary
ART I C L E VII
I t is further agreed that the channels in the R iver St Law
rence o n both sides o f the Long Sault I slands and Of Barnhart
I sland the channels in the R iver D etroit o n both sides of the
ART I C L E
.
’
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
.
,
,
24 8
[ 76
I sland Bois Blanc an d between that island and both the Ame rican
and C anadian shores and all the several channels and passages
between the various islands lying near the j unction of the R iver
St C lair with th e lake Of that name shall be e qually free and open
to the ships vessels and boats o f both parties
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
VIII
The parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare equ i p
and maintain in ser v ice on the coast o f Africa a su fficient an d
adequate squadron o r naval force o f vessels o f suitable numbers
an d descriptions to carry in all not less than eighty guns to
enforce separately and respectively the laws rights and Obliga
tions of each of the two countries for th e suppression o f t h e slave
trade the sai d squadrons t o b e independent of each other but the
two Governments stipulating nevertheless t o give such orders to
the O fli c e rs commanding their respective forces as shall enable
them m ost e fl e c t ua ll y t o act in concert and c o Op e ra t i o n upon
mutual consultation as exigencies may arise f o r the attainment of
the tru e obj ect Of this article ; copies of all such orders to be com
m un i c a t e d by each government to the other respectively
ART I C L E
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
IX
W h ereas notwithstanding all e ff orts which may be made o n
t h e coast o f Africa for suppressing the slave trade the facilities
f o r carry i ng o n that traffic and avoiding the vigilance of cruisers
by the fraudulent use o f flags and other means are so great and
the temptations for pursuing it while a market can b e found for
slaves s o strong as that the desired result may be long delaye d
u nless all markets be shut against the purchase of African negroes
t h e parties t o this treaty agree that they will unite i n all becoming
representations and remonstrances with any and all P owers within
whose domi ni ons such markets are allowed to exi st and that they
wi ll urge upon all such P owers the propriety and duty o f closing
such markets effectually at once an d forever
ART I C L E
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
X
I t is agreed that t h e United States and Her Britannic Maj esty
shall upon mutual requisitions by them or their M i nisters o fficers
respect i vely made del i ver up to j ustice all persons
o r authorities
who being c h arged with the crime o f murder o r assault wi th
i ntent to c ommit murder o r piracy or arson o r robbery o r f o rg
ery or the utterance o f forge d papers comm i tted w i thin the juris
diction o f either shall seek an asylu m or shall be found within the
ART I C L E
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
25 0
E D W AR D EVERETT WA S H I N ! TO N J U N E 28 1 84 2
“
O ur movement f o r the last ten d ays if any has been made
has been rather backward The boundary business is by no means
—
in a highly promising state s o many di fficulties arise not only
between us and England but between us and the c ommissioners
and the commissioners of the two States themselves —and other
questions are still less s o I know noth i ng o f Lord Ashburt on s
recent instructions but he appears to me cert ainly to be under
restraints not heretofore apparently felt by him What increases
the embarrassment and ren ders a failure more probable is his
great unwillingness t o stay longer in the country The P resident
h as desired a personal interview with him which has been had and
the P resident has pressed upon h i m in the strongest manner the
necessity o f staying till every e ff o rt to e ff ect the great Obj ect of
his mission shall have bee n exhauste d The P resident feels what
all must feel that if the m i ssion should return re b us i nf e c t is the
relations o f the two countr i es will be more than ever embarrassed
“
I think we have much reas on t o regret if not some right t o
complain that in regard to the delicate questions growing o ut o f
suc h cases as that o f the C reole we have been strangely mis
understoo d T h e Lords took u p the subj ect of the C reole appar
ently with no accurate knowledge of what had been done o r said
by us and argue d and decided questions which we had never raised
o r t h ought o f rais i ng and that misapprehension seems t o have run
through all subsequent cons i derations o f the subj ect We di d not
make any demand for fugitive slaves ; no such thing ; we well
kn ow that when slaves get on British ground they are free N o r
h ave we ever aske d England t o enter int o any stipulation by treaty
wh i ch S hould interfere w i th this general principle o f English law
N o r do we in the absence of treaty provisions deman d the s ur
render o f fugitives from j ustice ! o u quote Lord Aberdeen a s
saying ! o u do not yourselves give up mutineers to b e pun i shed
C ertainly we do n o t nor do we surrender other O ff enders unless in
virtue Of special stipulations by treaty But we think a proper
c onvention for the extradition of O ff enders charged with h igh
crimes would ten d greatly to prevent the commission o f such
cr i mes and to preserve peace and h armony between the two c oun
tries Such a provision would have nothing in i t peculiarly a d
I ts benefits would be equal and
v a n t a ge o us t o the Unite d States
ali ke to bot h part i es All along t h e i nland front i er the necessity
f o r some mutual regulation o f this k i nd is severely felt and cases
calling for such regulations are also constantly aris i ng o n the high
seas
But at any rate we wi s h t o be d i st i nctly understoo d and I repeat
1
(
) WEB S TER
[ 78
TO
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
’
‘
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
4(
9(
.
,
,
79]
25 1
therefore that we do not demand the restitution o f fugitive slaves ;
that without treaty stipulations to that c fie c t we do not demand
and shall n o t demand the surrender of criminals fleeing fro m
justice But all this is quite remote from what we firmly hold to
be our rights according to the laws and usages of nations in suc h
cases as that of the C reole That is to s a y ( that i n cases o f ves
sels carrie d into British ports by V iolence o r stress o f weather we
insist that there shall be no interference from the land with the
relation o r personal condition o f those on board according to the
laws o f their own country ; that vessels under such circumstances
shall enj oy the common laws o f hospitality subj ected to no force
entitled to have their i mmediate wants an d necessities relieved
and to pursue their voyage without molestation )
“ A general feeling prevails in this c ountry at th e present
moment no doubt b oth N orth and South that all questions will
be amicably settled through the agency o f Lord Ashburton s mis
sion His lordship s frank and candid manner his great i nt e l l i
gence and practical ability and the apparent j ustness and moder
ation o f his views and principles have consp i re d to conduct the
public mind to this conclusion and that public mind desires that
result and the country is preparing itself for the stat e Of things
which will naturally follow it But if the negotiation fail if
unexpected obstacles be interposed if what has been considered
quite reasonable and moderate be not attained if the boun dary
question t o put into another endless series o f surveys explorations
arbitrations and umpirages i f we are left only to understand that
o ur c oasting trade through the Bahama C hannel can not otherwise
enj oy ordinary safety than as we put it under c o nv e y a m i ssion
the institution O f which was hailed a s a bright harbinger o f the
restoration O f perfect amity and harmony between the two coun
tries and in the conduct of wh i ch I am sure the best disposition
has prevailed will only have term i nate d in leaving things much
worse than it foun d them I hardly s e e h ow this bad result is to
be prevented unless we can succeed in beseeching Lord Ashburt on
to delay his return another month in the hope that the cloud on
hi s brow may be dissipated by the next communication from home
“ I ha v e marked this letter private as it is in answer to a
pr i vate letter o f yours ; but the substance and e fie c t of it ought
perhaps b e made known to Lord Aberdeen ; notwithstandi ng t h at
h i s lordship m ay receive communications from Lord Ashburton
covering similar accounts of the s entiments entertaine d here and
t h e state of things exist i ng
“ I am dear s i r always faithfully yours
“ D WEB S TER ”
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
’
’
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
.
25 2
L O RD
( 2)
A S H B URTO N
WEBS TER,
TO
8
[ 0
THE !
RA N ! E, J
AN
UA R !
2, 1 84 3
.
“
But early next mont h we are aga i n all t o meet in
the great Babylon where the con flict O f parties in o ur C ongress is
t o begin I should probably not appear if it were not to look
after my dear charact er when the critics open their attack upon
“
”
what they call the Ashburton C apitulation
I am not afraid
of them and though I have not your power of destroying an a d
v e rs a ry I have one advantage over you that I have a right to be
h eard I n speaking o f critics howe v er I should in fairness state
that they are nearly if not exclusively re duced to o n e an ex
Secretary o f State who is labor i ng h ard in his vocation of a fault
fin di ng leader of opposition sharpened a little by the appre h ension
that his powers of d i plomacy are questioned by t h e result Mr
Everett who has been pass i ng a few days here wi th his family
w ill have tol d yo u that the public Opinion o f this cou ntry is de
c i de dl y satisfied
I have assurances to this e fie c t from people o f
all parties Few if any o f the Whigs will support the author Of
th e angry articles o f The M o rning C hronicle and I suspect that
when it comes t o the point h i s capitulation wi ll be more man i
fest than mine The truth i s t h at the desire O f all here is peace
and more especially with your country N obo dy of common sense
cares much about the pre c ise position of Lake P o h e n a ga m o o k
The important thing i s that we h ave shaken hands cordially and
I shoul d be very sorry to be supposed to have ever been anxi ous t o
make a sharp bargain The real merit of the settlement is that
it wi ll not stand this description O n the other side what we may
I believe really boa s t o f my dear s i r is that we have done a
work of peace w h ic h to the extent Of our power we must endeavor
to prevent folly or malevolence from S poiling This was the whole
of my aim i n crossing the Atlantic though I s e e my friend Mr
I ngersoll persists that I want to be an earl or a marquis wi th a
”
true republ i can appreciat i on of such vanit i es
,
.
.
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
,
‘
.
’
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
( 3 ) L O RD
A S H B URT O N
!r
“
K
‘
To
WEB S TER ,
LO NDO N AP RI L
,
28, 1 84 4
.
X
4(
'
'
t hi s side of t h e water the several debatable subj ects con
n e c t e d with our treaty are settl i ng down very satisfactorily i n the
public mind The battle of t h e maps the question whether con
cessions were made on either side and by whom with respect t o
searc h o r V isit and the admirable reproofs adm inistered by you
to the O fli c i o us interf e ren ce o f Mr
The discussion O f all
these quest i ons now pretty nearly exhausted leave the universal
i mpression t h at the treaty w a s a good and wise measure an d good
O
u
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
81 ]
25 3
and wise because it was fair ; so much s o that the critics are at a
loss to determine which o f u s had the advantage in the scramble
f o r t h e swamps on the St John s a dilemma in which it was your
wish as I am sure it was mine to leave them The map question
now fortunately only interests historians such as Mr Sparks and
Mr Bancroft I am by no means disposed to di sturb its sleep
o r t h at e i ther party should find o r think they had found anything
conclusive s o a s to interfere with the conviction that there existed
that real shade o f doubt or perplexity which could alone be satis
f a c t o ri l y settle d by compromise
I f we are ever fated to meet
again which I indulge the h ope may yet be the case I should have
some curiosity to know h ow you unravel this t o me inextricable
pu z z le ; at present I will only s a y what I know you will believe
that the discoveries here are quite recent and were wholly u n
known to me when I was at Washington N ot but that I agree
entirely w i th you that it would have been no duty o f mine to
damage the cause of my client yet at the same time I perhaps
went further in protestations o f ignorance than I otherwise should
have done P almerston has in P arliament b een th e only real a d
and it seems felt that he is not a di sinter
v e rs a ry o f the treaty
e s t e d one
His move will probably bring upon me the unusual
honor o f the complimentary acknowledgment o f my services That
i n the Lords is already passed w i th only three dissentient voices
I n the C ommons the motion is expected t o come on next week
The mi ni sters have taken no part in this volunteer pro ceeding I
send you herewit h Brougham 8 speech wh i ch is I am told goo d ;
but you w ill be surprised when I add that I h ave not yet read it
The ext radition article o f the treaty makes some stir with our
anti slavery people I h ave seen some of their deputations and
I hope to have satisfied them ; but we shall hear of them though
with no bad consequences when the bill passes for giving e ff ect
to this article The apprehens i on is that some cases o f robbery
will be got up to claim fug i tive slaves This will certainly require
caution with the magistrates in C anada but I am not fearful o f
the result ; but should the abuse prove excessive the remedy is in
the power to correct the arti cle We hav e now in o ur new gov ernor
general a very judicious di screet and liberal man upon whose
”
practical goo d sense full reliance may be placed
’
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
’
,
,
,
.
-
,
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
A PP E NDIX D
.
map showing the various lines between the United States and
the British provinces
A
.
254
[ 82
B I BL I O G RA P H Y
P R I M A R!
S O URCE S
.
.
American State P apers Foreign A ff airs V ols I I I IV
Military A ffairs Vo l VI I
Attorney Generals of the United States O fficial O p i nions of V ol
VI
C ongressional Globe
26 t h C ongress 1 s t Session
27 t h C ongress 3 rd Session
29 t h C ongress l s t Session
Cra l l e R K
“
”
6 VO l s
Works o f J C C al h oun
N e w Y ork 1 85 1 1 870 Vo l
IV
C ompilation of th e Treaties in Force P repare d under R esolution
Wash i ngton 1 904
o f the Senate February 1 1
1 9 04
C ongressional D ocuments Statutes at Large V ols V V I I
Executive D ocuments
26 t h C ongress 2n d Session
Vo l III
Executive Journals o f the Senate
Haswell J H ( C ompiler )
“ Treaties and C onventions Between t h e United States and
”
O ther P owers
( Senate Executive D ocuments 4 8t h C on
gress 2u d Sess i on Vo l I P art
Hous e D ocuments
27 t h C ongress 3 rd Session
House Execut i ve D ocuments
26 t h C ongress l s t Session
27t h C ongress 3 rd Sess i on
Hansard T C
P arliamentary D ebates 3 rd Series V ols 46 4 9 5 3 55 5 6 63
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
6 6, 6 7, 6 8
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
.
Lewis and others
“ A C omplete C ollection of Treat i es and C onvent i ons ” 22 vols
London 1 84 0 1 905 V ols VI VII
K ent Ja mes
“ C ommentaries on Ameri can Law ” 2n d E d
N ew Y ork 1 83 2
4 vols
Vo l I
H e rt sl e t ,
.
,
.
.
-
.
,
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
25 6
[ 84
S EC O N DA R ! S O URCE S
.
American Antiquar i an Society P roceedings o f V ols II and IV
Worchester Mas s 1 89 8
Amer i can Historical Society R eports o f 1 900 1 901 1 902 1 906
.
,
,
.
.
,
,
American Historical R eview
.
,
Vo l
.
VII
,
N ew Y ork
.
.
,
,
1 901
Benton F H
“
”
Thirty Y ears V iew in t h e Unite d States Senate
2 vols
N ew Y ork 1 856
Bulwer H L
“
”
Life o f H J Temple V i scount P almerston
London 1 870
.
.
,
.
’
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
1 874
.
.
,
,
.
Butler C H
“ Treaty Making P ower ”
2 vols
N ew Y ork 1 902
Bourne E W
“ Essays i n Historical C riticism ” N ew Y ork and London 1
901
C randall S B
“ Treaties Their Mak i ng and Enforcement ”
N ew Y ork 1 904
C urtis G T
“ Th e Life
”
2 vols
N ew Y ork 1 87 2
o f D aniel Webster
”
“ The Life
2 vols
N ew Y ork 1 883
o f James Buchanan
C allahan J M
“ The N eutrality of the American Lakes ”
Baltimore 1 898
“ Last Forty Y ears o f C anada ” Vo l X
D e Lapradelle P olitis
“ R ecueil des Arbitrages I nternationaux ”
V ol I 1 7 98 1 85 5
P aris 1 905
Everett E
“ O rations and Speeches ”
Boston 1 885 Vo l IV
Foster W E
“ R eferences to P residential Admi ni strations ”
N ew Y ork 1 885
.
,
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
-
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
Foster J W
“ A C entury o f Amer i can D iplomacy ” Boston 1 9 02
Gannett H
“ Boundaries o f the United States ”
Wash i ngt on 1 885
Gallatin A
“ Works ” edite d by H Allen
P h iladelphia 1 87 9
Hart A B
“ The Foundations o f American D i plomacy ”
London 1 901
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
,
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
,
.
.
25 7
85 ]
Lodge H C
“ D aniel Webster
.
.
,
”
Boston
.
,
1 884
.
Moore J B
“ American D iplomacy ” N e w Y ork and London 1 9 05
“ I nternational Arbitration ”
Boston 1 89 6
“ Treatise on Extradition ”
2 vols
Boston 1 891
.
,
.
.
,
.
“
N ort h American R eview
Schouler E
“ American D iplomacy
.
”
.
,
Vo l 5 6
.
.
.
,
Tyler L G
“ Letters and Ti m es
V ol II
,
.
,
.
.
.
”
N ew Y ork
.
,
1 886
.
.
.
of
Tyler
”
R ichmond
.
,
1 884
3
vols
.
.
von Holst D r H
“ C onst i tutional and P olitical History Of t h e United States
Tr by J J Lalor e t a l C hicago 1 887
8 vols
.
,
.
“ Westmi nster
.
.
.
R eview
”
.
.
Vo l
.
.
XXXIX
,
.
”
.
T HI S B O O K I S D U
AN I N ITIAL F
W I LL B E A S S ES S E D
T HIS
BO O K O N
W ILL
I N C R EA S E
DA!
TO
AND
O V ER D U E
.
THE
!
TO
5
L O O