The Virginian

From the Journal of Commerce.

DISPUTED BOUNDARY

The last number of the North American Review, just received, contains, among other things, a good article on the disputed northeastern boundary of the U. States. The views advanced in this national question appear the more reasonable, as the territory in dispute is said to be equal in extent to the whole area of Massachusetts; nor is it strange that our British neighbors should look with an evil eye upon a claim, which it is stated, would bring the American boundary within 12 miles of the St. Lawrence, and only 40 to the south of Quebec. We believe that the claim of our Government in this case, is perfectly just, and we shall take this opportunity to state it, very briefly, for the information of our readers along with some of the reasons by which it is supported.

The boundaries between the United States and the British possessions in North America were settled by the definite treaty of peace in 1783. The beginning of the south line is thus fixed: from the north-west angle of Nova Scotia; that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the source of St. Croix river to the highland, along the said highlands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those that fall into the Atlantic ocean, to the north-westernmost head of Connecticut river, &c. Again, the eastern line is thus defined: East by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river St. Lawrence, &c. It is plain from the first of these extracts from the treaty that our northern boundary line begins at the north-western angle of the province of Nova Scotia, as that province was defined in 1783: for it has since been divided, and the north-western part forms the present province of New Brunswick. That angle is formed by our eastern boundary line, just described, and the highlands. The question is, where does that line strike the highlands, or which are the highlands intended by the treaty? That chain of mountains which appears, on most maps of the United States to be a continuation of the Green Mountains, holds a northeasterly course from the sources of the Connecticut, drawing gradually nearer to the St. Lawrence, and extends to the coast of St. Lawrence, at Cape Rosieres, separating the rivers that flow into the ocean from those that flow into the river St. Lawrence. But at some distance short of that termination of the chain, just pointed out, a branch of these highlands is thrown off to the east, which separates the waters of the St. John, which flow into the Bay of Fundy, and thence into the ocean, from those of the Penobscot, Kennebec, and other rivers which empty more directly into the ocean. The last elevation of this branch towards the north-east is called Mars Hill, and this is the point at which the British would have our northerly line to begin: whilst we follow our eastern boundary 40 miles to the north, crossing the St. John, and leaving all the upper part of its course within our limits, and find the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia (now New Brunswick) at the intersection of that eastern boundary with the main and more northern chain of highlands. Having thus ascertained what is the precise matter in dispute, we next come to the reasons which show that the Americans are right. The British came into quiet possession of all the French territories in North America, of which the province of Nova Scotia was a part, in 1763. If, in their public documents, subsequent to this period, they anywhere fix the boundaries of Nova Scotia, the same boundaries must be adhered to in the explanation of our treaty of 1783. Now a proclamation was issued by the king, in October 1763, erecting four distinct governments within the ceded territories. One of these was the government of Quebec, and its boundary to the south and east is clearly drawn along the more northern of the above-mentioned chains of highlands. A royal commission was issued about the same time to a new governor of Nova Scotia, in which that province is described as bounded on the north "by the southern boundary of our province of Quebec, as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs." The western boundary is then marked out, and thereby the northwestern angle of Nova Scotia (now New Brunswick) clearly fixed not at Mars Hill, but at the more northern highland. By an act of parliament of 1774, the southern boundary of the province of Quebec, which by the last mentioned document had been designed as the northern boundary of Nova Scotia, was again defined with a clearness that, one would think, should place the matter beyond all dispute. The words are, "south by a line from the Bay of Chaleurs, along the highlands which divide the rivers which empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea," &c. This is a description which can never be made to apply to the more southern chain of highlands: it can only suit the more northern. What the British had thus distinctly recognized as the north-western angle of Nova Scotia, they must naturally be supposed to have intended in the treaty of 1783. This alone would be sufficient, but there are other circumstances which tend to establish the justice of our claim. By the words of the treaty that we have italicized above, the north-western angle of Nova Scotia is described as formed by the eastern boundary of the United States and the highlands; but if we take Mars Hill, this hill being the point of the chain towards the northeast, no angle at all of Nova Scotia can be formed by this highland, of which it is a part. This highland could only help to form a northeastern angle for the U. S. However, getting over this difficulty of these highlands not being confined to a northeast direction into the British province, we do concede the northwesterly angle of Nova Scotia to be here formed by continuing the line north between the United States and the highlands; but on the supposition that our northern boundary begins at the highlands it would not be the British northern boundary of Nova Scotia, but would divide that province in two parts. The authorities of that province have exercised jurisdiction far to the north of such a line. If then, it is the convenience of the British to create a northeast angle of Nova Scotia which angle, however, for all purposes than settling a boundary, they find somewhere else. It should also be borne in mind that by the treaty of 1783 our northern line is to divide those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean but the British claim would draw a very different line, viz: along the highlands that separate the waters of the St. John, from those which fall more directly into the Atlantic ocean. Such a line of separation as the latter, it is most never entered the minds of the commissioners who made the treaty. They thought that our eastern boundary should cross the St. John's course of which river is quite accurately laid down on the map they are known to have used. If this had not been their meaning, they would have caused the line to take a southwest course from the source of the St. Croix, instead of a northerly one. Many other reasons might be given in support of our claim, but we think it unnecessary to adduce them here, since we believe that those which we have already stated will be amply sufficient to satisfy any impartial person, who will take the trouble to consider them, with the aid of a good map before them.