BRITISH TREATY: NORTHWESTERN BOUNDARY: MR. BENTON'S SPEECH: EXTRACTS.
The line from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods never was
susceptible of a dispute. That from the Lake of the Woods to
the head of the Mississippi was disputable, and long disputed;
and it will not do to confound these two lines, so different in
themselves, and in their political history. The line from Lake
Superior was fixed by landmarks as permanent and notorious as the
great features of nature herself--the Isle Royale, in the northwest
of Lake Superior, and the chain of small lakes and rivers which
led from the north of that isle to the Lake of the Woods. Such were
the precise calls of the treaty of 1783, and no room for dispute
existed about it. The Isle Royale was a landmark in the calls of
the treaty, and a great and distinguished one it was--a large rocky
island in Lake Superior, far to the northwest, a hundred miles
from the southern shore; uninhabitable, and almost inaccessible
to the Indians in their canoes; and for that reason believed by
them to be the residence of the Great Spirit, and called in their
language, _Menong_. This isle was as notorious as the lake itself,
and was made a landmark in the treaty of 1783, and the boundary line
directed to go to the north of it, and then to follow the chain of
small lakes and rivers called "Long Lake," which constituted the
line of water communication between Lake Superior and the Lake of
the Woods, a communication which the Indians had followed beyond
the reach of tradition, which was the highway of nations, and which
all travellers and traders have followed since its existence became
known to our first discoverers. A line through the Lake Superior,
from its eastern outlet to the northward of the Isle Royale, leads
direct to this communication; and the line described was evidently
so described for the purpose of going to that precise communication.
The terms of the call are peculiar. Through every lake and every
water-course, from Lake Ontario to the Lake Huron, the language
of the treaty is the same: the line is to follow the _middle_ of
the lake. Through every river it is the same: the _middle_ of the
main channel is to be followed. On entering Lake Superior, this
language changes. It is no longer the _middle_ of the lake that
is to constitute the boundary, but a line through the lake to the
"northward" of Isle Royale--a boundary which, so far from dividing
the lake equally, leaves almost two-thirds of it on the American
side. The words of the treaty are these:
"Thence through Lake Superior, northward of the isles Royale and
Philippeaux, to the Long Lake; thence through the middle of said
Long Lake, and the water communication between it and the Lake
of the Woods, to the Lake of the Woods," &c.
These are the words of the call; and this variation of language,
and this different mode of dividing the lake, were for the obvious
purpose of taking the shortest course to the Long Lake, or Pigeon
River, which led to the Lake of the Woods. The communication through
these little lakes and rivers was evidently the object aimed at; and
the call to the north of Isle Royale was for the purpose of getting
to that object. The island itself was nothing, except as a landmark.
Though large (for it is near one hundred miles in circumference),
it has no value, neither for agriculture, commerce, nor war. It is
sterile, inaccessible, remote from shore; and fit for nothing but
the use to which the Indians consigned it--the fabulous residence of
a fabulous deity. Nobody wants it--neither Indians nor white people.
It was assigned to the United States in the treaty of 1783, not as a
possession, but as a landmark, and because the shortest line through
the lake, to the well-known route which led to the Lake of the
Woods, passed to the north of that isle. All this is evident from
the maps, and all the maps are here the same; for these features
of nature are so well defined that there has never been the least
dispute about them. The commissioners under the Ghent treaty (Gen.
Porter for the United States, and Mr. Barclay for Great Britain),
though disagreeing about several things, had no disagreement about
Isle Royale, and the passage of the line to the north of that isle.
In their separate reports, they agreed upon this; and this settled
the whole question. After going to the north of Isle Royale, to
get out of the lake at a known place, it would be absurd to turn
two hundred miles south, to get out of it at an unknown place. The
agreement upon Isle Royale settled the line to the Lake of the
Woods, as it was, and as it is: but it so happened that, in the
year 1790, the English traveller and fur-trader Mr. (afterwards
Sir Alexander) McKenzie, in his voyage to the Northwest, travelled
up this line of water communication, saw the advantages of its
exclusive possession by the British; and proposed in his "History
of the Fur Trade," to obtain it by turning the line down from Isle
Royale, near two hundred miles, to St. Louis River in the southwest
corner of the lake. The Earl of Selkirk, at the head of the Hudson's
Bay Company, repeated the suggestion; and the British government,
for ever attentive to the interests of its subjects, set up a claim,
through the Ghent commissioners, to the St. Louis River as the
boundary. Mr. Barclay made the question, but too faintly to obtain
even a reference to the arbitrator; and Lord Ashburton had too much
candor and honor to revive it. He set up no pretension to the St.
Louis River, as claimed by the Ghent commissioners: he presented
the Pigeon River as the "long lake" of the treaty of 1783, and only
asked for a point six miles south of that river; and he obtained all
he asked. His letter of the 17th of July is explicit on this point.
He says:
"In considering the second point, it really appears of little
importance to either party how the line be determined through
the wild country between Lake Superior and the Lake of the
Woods, but it is important that some line should be fixed and
known. I would propose that the line be taken from a point
about six miles south of Pigeon River, where the Grand Portage
commences on the lake, and continued along the line of the said
portage, alternately by land and water, to Lac la Pluie--the
existing route by land and by water remaining common by both
parties. This line has the advantage of being known, and
attended with no doubt or uncertainty in running it."
These are his Lordship's words: Pigeon River, instead of St. Louis
River! making no pretension to the four millions of acres of
fine mineral land supposed to have been saved between these two
rivers; and not even alluding to the absurd pretension of the Ghent
commissioner! After this, what are we to think of the candor and
veracity of an official paper, which would make a merit of having
saved four millions of acres of fine mineral land, "northward of the
claim set up by the British commissioner under the Ghent treaty?"
What must we think of the candor of a paper which boasts of having
"included this within the United States," when it was never out of
the United States? If there is any merit in the case, it is in Lord
Ashburton--in his not having claimed the 200 miles between Pigeon
River and St. Louis River. What he claimed, he got; and that was
the southern line, commencing six miles south of Pigeon River, and
running south of the true line to Rainy Lake. He got this; making
a difference of some hundreds of thousands of acres, and giving to
the British the exclusive possession of the best route; and a joint
possession of the one which is made the boundary. To understand the
value of this concession, it must be known that there are two lines
of communication from the Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods,
both beginning at or near the mouth of Pigeon River; that these
lines are the channels of trade and travelling, both for Indians,
and the fur-traders; that they are water communications; and that it
was a great point with the British, in their trade and intercourse
with the Indians, to have the exclusive dominion of the best
communication, and a joint possession with us of the other. This is
what Lord Ashburton claimed--what the treaty gave him--and what our
Secretary-negotiator became his agent and solicitor to obtain for
him. I quote the Secretary's letter of the 25th of July to Mr. James
Ferguson, and the answers of Mr. Ferguson of the same date, and also
the letter of Mr. Joseph Delafield, of the 20th of July, for the
truth of what I say. From these letters, it will be seen that our
Secretary put himself to the trouble to hunt testimony to justify
his surrender of the northern route to the British; that he put
leading questions to his witnesses, to get the information which he
wanted; and that he sought to cover the sacrifice, by depreciating
the agricultural value of the land, and treating the difference
between the lines as a thing of no importance. Here is the letter. I
read an extract from it:
"What is the general nature of the country between the mouth
of Pigeon River and the Rainy Lake? Of what formation is it,
and how is its surface? and will any considerable part of its
area be fit for cultivation? Are its waters active and running
streams, as in other parts of the United States? Or are they
dead lakes, swamps, and morasses? If the latter be their general
character, at what point, as you proceed westward, do the waters
receive a more decided character as running streams?
"There are said to be two lines of communication, each partly by
water and partly by portages, from the neighborhood of Pigeon
River to the Rainy Lake: one by way of Fowl Lake, the Saganaga
Lake, and the Cypress Lake; the other by way of Arrow River
and Lake; then by way of Saganaga Lake, and through the river
Maligne, meeting the other route at Lake la Croix, and through
the river Namekan to the Rainy Lake. Do you know any reason for
attaching great preference to either of these two lines? Or do
you consider it of no importance, in any point of view, which
may be agreed to? Please be full and particular on these several
points."
Here are leading questions, such as the rules of evidence forbid to
be put to any witness, and the answers to which would be suppressed
by the order of any court in England or America. They are called
"leading," because they _lead_ the witness to the answer which
the lawyer wants; and thereby tend to the perversion of justice.
The witnesses are here led to two points: first, that the country
between the two routes or lines is worth nothing for agriculture;
secondly, that it is of no importance to the United States which
of the two lines is established for the boundary. Thus led to the
desired points, the witnesses answer. Mr. Ferguson says:
"As an agricultural district, this region will always be
valueless. The pine timber is of high growth, equal for spars,
perhaps, to the Norway pine, and may, perhaps, in time, find a
market; but there are no alluvions, no arable lands, and the
whole country may be described as one waste of rock and water.
"You have desired me also to express an opinion as to any
preference which I may know to exist between the several lines
claimed as boundaries through this country, between the United
States and Great Britain.
"Considering that Great Britain abandons her claim by the
Fond du Lac and the St. Louis River; cedes also Sugar Island
(otherwise called St. George's Island) in the St. Marie
River; and agrees, generally, to a boundary following the old
commercial route, commencing at the Pigeon River, I do not
think that any reasonable ground exists to prevent a final
determination of this part of the boundary."
And Mr. Delafield adds:
"As an agricultural district, it has no value or interest,
even prospectively, in my opinion. If the climate were
suitable (which it is not), I can only say that I never saw,
in my explorations there, tillable land enough to sustain
any permanent population sufficiently numerous to justify
other settlements than those of the fur-traders; and, I might
add, fishermen. The fur-traders there occupied nearly all
those places; and the opinion now expressed is the only one
I ever heard entertained by those most experienced in these
northwestern regions.
"There is, nevertheless, much interest felt by the fur-traders
on this subject of boundary. To them, it is of much importance,
as they conceive; and it is, in fact, of national importance.
Had the British commissioner consented to proceed by the Pigeon
River (which is the Long Lake of Mitchell's map), it is probable
there would have been an agreement. There were several reasons
for his pertinacity, and for this disagreement; which belong,
however, to the private history of the commission, and can
be stated when required. The Pigeon River is a continuous
water-course. The St. George's Island, in the St. Marie River,
is a valuable island, and worth as much, perhaps, as most of the
country between the Pigeon River and Dog River route, claimed
for the United States, in an agricultural sense."
These are the answers; and while they are conclusive upon the
agricultural character of the country between the two routes, and
present it as of no value; yet, on the relative importance of the
routes as boundaries, they refuse to follow the _lead_ which the
question held out to them, and show that, as commercial routes,
and, consequently, as commanding the Indians and their trade, a
question of national importance is involved. Mr. Delafield says
the fur-traders feel much interest in this boundary: to them, it
is of much importance; and it is, in fact, of national importance.
These are the words of Mr. Delafield; and they show the reason why
Lord Ashburton was so tenacious of this change in the boundary. He
wanted it for the benefit of the fur-trade, and for the consequent
command which it would give the British over the Indians in time
of war. All this is apparent; yet our Secretary would only look at
it as a corn and potato region! And finding it not good for that
purpose, he surrenders it to the British! Both the witnesses look
upon it as a sacrifice on the part of the United States, and suppose
some equivalent in other parts of the boundary was received for it.
There was no such equivalent: and thus this surrender becomes a
gratuitous sacrifice on the part of the United States, aggravated by
the condescension of the American Secretary to act as the attorney
of the British minister, and seeking testimony by unfair and illegal
questions; and then disregarding the part of the answers which made
against his design.