_FEBRUARY 2, 1837_.
The joint committee to whom was referred so much of the governor's
message as relates to the northeastern boundary, and the documents and
evidence, together with an order of the two houses instructing the
committee "to inquire into the expediency of providing by law for the
appointment of commissioners on the part of this State, by the consent
of the Government of the United States, to survey the line between this
State and the Province of New Brunswick according to the treaty of 1783,
to establish monuments in such places as shall be fixed by said
commissioners and by commissioners to be appointed on the part of the
Government of Great Britain, have attended to the duties assigned them
with the industry and solicitude which the importance of the subject
demanded. Could the committee have spared the time and had the means
to obtain documents not within the jurisdiction of the State, and
consequently out of its power, a more clear, methodical, and perfect
view of the subject would have been presented; but as there had been
hitherto so much procrastination and the impatience of the public,
already great, was becoming more and more intense, your committee
without further preamble or apology ask leave to present the following
report:
The legislature and people of Maine, we believe, will not contend that
the treaty-making power of the United States does not extend to a final
adjustment of a disputed and undefined line of boundary between a State
and a foreign nation; _but we do insist_ that no power is granted by the
Constitution of the United States to _limit_ or _change the boundary
of a State or cede a part of its territory without its consent_. It is
even by no means certain how far _such consent_ would enable the treaty
authority to exert its powers. _Citizens_ might be made the subjects of
a treaty transfer, and these citizens owing allegiance to the State and
to the Union, and allegiance and protection being reciprocally binding,
the right to transfer a citizen to a foreign government, to _sell_ him,
might well be questioned as being inconsistent with the spirit of our
free institutions. But be this as it may, Maine will never concede the
principle that the President and two-thirds of the Senate can transfer
its territory, much less its citizens, without its permission, given by
its constitutional organs.
Your committee, however, deem it but fair to admit that they have
discovered no inclination in the General Government, or any department
of it, to assume this power. On the contrary, the President has
repeatedly declined the adoption of a conventional line deviating from
the treaty of 1783, upon the express ground that it could not be done
without the consent of Maine.
It is due, nevertheless, to the State of Maine to say that the committee
have no evidence that any conventional line has been proposed to them
for their consent. It indeed appears that the consent of Maine had not
been given to the adoption of any other boundary than that prescribed
by the treaty of 1783 up to the 29th February, 1836, and we are well
assured that no proposition for a different boundary has since that
time been made to any department of the government of this State.
The President of the United States on the 15th June last
communicated to the Senate, in compliance with their resolution, a
copy of the correspondence relative to the northeastern boundary. This
correspondence embraced a period from the 21st July, 1832, to the 5th
March, 1836.
The opinion and advice of the King of the Netherlands, to whom the
controversy was referred by the provisions of the treaty of Ghent, was
made on the 10th January, 1831, and of the three questions submitted,
viz, _the northeastern boundary, the northwesternmost head of Connecticut
River_, and _the forty-fifth parallel of latitude_, he seems to have
determined _but one_. He did decide that the source of the stream
running into and through Connecticut Lake is the true northwest head of
that river as intended by the treaty of 1783; and as to the rest, he
_advises_ that it will be _convenient (il conviendra)_ to adopt the
"Thalweg," the deepest channel of the St. John and St. Francis, for the
north line, and that the forty-fifth degree is to be measured in order
to mark out the boundary to the St. Lawrence, with a deviation so as to
include Rouses Point within the United States. As to _the convenience_
of establishing the St. John and St. Francis as the northern boundary of
Maine, we have only to observe that however "convenient" it may be to
Great Britain to obtain so large a portion of our territory and waters,
it would certainly be very _inconvenient_ to us, and inasmuch as we are
probably capable of judging of our own "convenience," and have never
solicited _the advice_ of anyone on this point, it is scarcely to be
expected that we shall be _advised_ to adopt a line so preposterous
and injurious.
It was in this view and in strict conformity with the Constitution
conferring the treaty power that the President on the 7th December,
1831, submitted to the Senate this "award" and "advice" of the King
of the Netherlands. Senators were divided on a principal point, some
insisting that to carry the award or opinion into effect was only _in
execution_ of the treaty, and it therefore belonged exclusively to the
President "to take care" that this "supreme law" was faithfully executed
or to reject it altogether.
But the prevailing opinion was that this "award" or "advice" was
_perfecting an unfinished_ treaty, and that therefore it could not be
effected by the President without "the advice and consent of the Senate,
two-thirds of the members present concurring therein." So far from the
concurrence of two-thirds _for_ the measure, there were _thirty-four_
to _eight against_ it, and it was consequently rejected, and a
recommendation to the President was adopted to open a new negotiation
to determine the line of boundary according to the treaty of 1783.
It is insisted by the British ministers that a due north line from the
monument at the source of the St. Croix will intersect no highlands
described in the treaty of 1783. Now this is an assumption by Great
Britain totally unwarranted by any evidence. The boundaries bearing upon
the question are thus given: "From the northwest angle of Nova Scotia,
to wit, that angle which is formed by a line drawn due north from the
source of the St. Croix River to the highlands; along the said highlands
which divide _the rivers_ that empty themselves into the St. Lawrence
from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, to the north westernmost
head of Connecticut River"; "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 St. Lawrence."
The first object, starting place, or _terminus a quo_, is this
_northwest angle of Nova Scotia_. It is the corner of the British
Province _designated by themselves_. It was presumed, and it is still
believed, that they knew the identical spot; we have a right to demand
of them to define it. In the treaty of 1783 they were disposed to define
it, and hence they say it is _that angle which is formed by a line drawn
due north from the source of the St. Croix to those highlands which
divide the rivers that flow into the St. Lawrence from those which flow
into the Atlantic Ocean_.
Nothing can be more clear than that the British negotiators of the
treaty of 1783 had reference to their east and west line between Canada
and Nova Scotia. This in 1755-56 was matter of controversy between
France and England, the French claiming that it was far south and the
British strenuously contending that these very highlands were even more
north than we have endeavored to fix them.
The controversy resulted in a war, which, after the capture of Quebec,
was terminated by the peace of 1763, whereby Great Britain obtained both
sides of the line, and she then established the north line of Nova
Scotia about where we contend it should be. So far from admitting that
a due north line from the monument will not intersect the highlands
intended by the treaty of 1783, the State of Maine has always insisted,
and still insists, that no known obstacle exists to the ascertaining and
accurately defining them, and thus establishing the _terminus a quo, to
wit, the northwest angle of Nova Scotia_. It would seem strange, indeed,
that this line, so fully discussed and controverted between the English
and French in 1755-56, should have been left unsettled still when both
Provinces became British. It is impossible to imagine such ignorance of
so important a point as this northwest angle, so often referred to and
spoken of as a notorious monument.
The peace of 1783 was considered by Great Britain as _a grant by metes
and bounds_. The boundaries were prescribed, and this northwest angle
was _the commencement_. Twenty years only before this (1763) Nova Scotia
had been organized as a distinct Province, then including what are now
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and this angle was referred to as a
boundary without hesitancy or doubt. Indeed, the treaty itself, as if
to make assurance doubly sure, fixed it where a due north line from the
source of the St. Croix will intersect those highlands which divide
the rivers which flow into the _river_ St. Lawrence from those which
flow into the Atlantic Ocean. This source of the St. Croix has been
determined and a monument fixed there by the commissioners under the
fifth article of the treaty of 1795 (Jay's). Now the assumption that the
north line from this monument will intersect or meet no such highlands
is entirely gratuitous.
The treaty does not speak of mountains nor even hills, but of
"highlands" that divide rivers flowing different ways. It was well known
that rivers did fall into the St. Lawrence and into the Atlantic, that
these rivers would run _down_ and not _up_, and it was consequently
inferred that the _land_ from whence these _rivers_ flowed must of
necessity be _high_, and unless there are to be found in that region
_geological phenomena_ which exist nowhere else on the face of the globe
this inference is irresistible.
The truth is that these highlands have been known and well understood by
the British themselves ever since the grant of James I to Sir William
Alexander, in 1621. The portion of the boundary there given which
relates to this controversy is "from the western spring head of the St.
Croix, by an imaginary line conceived to run through the land northward
to the next road of Ships River or Spring discharging itself into the
great river of Canada, and proceeding thence _eastward_ along the shores
of the sea of the said river of Canada to the road, haven, or shore
commonly called _Gaspeck_" (Gaspé).
The cession of Canada by France made it necessary to define the limits
of the Province of Quebec, and accordingly His Britannic Majesty, by his
proclamation of 7th October, 1763, is thus explicit as to what affects
this question: "Passing along the highlands which divide _the rivers_
that empty themselves into the said _river_ St. Lawrence from those
which fall into _the_ sea, and also _along the north coast of the Bay
de Chaleurs_ and the coast of the _Gulf_ of the St. Lawrence to _Cape
Rosiers_" etc.
The act of Parliament of the fourteenth George III (1774) defines thus
the south line of Canada: "South by a line from the Bay de Chaleurs
along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into
the river St. Lawrence from those which flow into _the sea_." The north
line of the grant to Alexander is from the source of the St. Croix to
the "spring head" or source of some river or stream which falls into
the river St. Lawrence, and thence _eastward_ to Gaspé Bay, which
communicates with the Gulf of St. Lawrence in latitude 49° 30', and
would make nearly an east and west line. The proclamation of 1763
defines the _south_ line of the Province of Quebec as passing along the
highlands which divide the rivers that fall into the St. Lawrence from
those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of the
Bay de Chaleurs to _the Gulf_ of St. Lawrence. This is the _south_
boundary, and consequently in an _east_ and _west direction_; but it
passes _north_ of Bay de Chaleurs, wherefore the south boundary of the
Province must of necessity be north of Bay de Chaleurs. The eastern
boundary is northerly by the Gulf of _Cape Rosiers_, in about latitude
50°, longitude 64° north of Gaspé Bay, and at the mouth of the river
St. Lawrence, where it communicates with the gulf or sea. And the act
of Parliament makes _this south side_ from this same bay along those
highlands, and it must _inevitably run west_ or _it is no south_
boundary. Now no one can doubt that in the proclamation of 1763 it
was the intent to adopt Sir William Alexander's _northern_ for this
_southern_ boundary of the Province of Quebec.
Indeed, it appears in every commission to the governor of Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick from 1763 to 1784, and after the treaty of peace of
1783, that the Province of Nova Scotia extended to the southern boundary
of the Province of Quebec. It then irresistibly and inevitably follows
that a west line from the Bay de Chaleurs, intersecting a due north line
from the monument, is the identical northwest angle. Now a line from
Mars Hill direct to Cape Rosiers, instead of being _easterly_, would be
north of northeast, _crossing_ the Bay de Chaleurs. But passing along
its north coast, as the proclamation provides, the line from this Mars
Hill must be more northerly still. Indeed, the pretense that a pyramidal
spur or peak, such as this hill, should constitute the range of
highlands mentioned in the treaty is so utterly visionary that it is
entitled to _no sort of respect_.
We may now by these facts and reflections give this inquiry a right
direction, _to wit,_ to the ascertainment of the north boundary of Nova
Scotia, which is the southern boundary of Canada. We have always been
lured from this by the British negotiators to the _left_ or _west_ of
this north line from the monument.
No one who is in the least conversant with the subject can suppose for a
moment that this northwest angle can be found in such a direction. The
question for us is, Are there any highlands north of the Bay de Chaleurs
extending _in a western direction toward_ a north line drawn from the
monument? If this line westerly from the bay be not distinctly marked so
far as to intersect this north line, the principle is to extend it in
the same direction to the place of intersection; that is, if the line
between Nova Scotia and Canada is _west_ to within, say, 30 miles of the
north line from the monument, and the rest of the way is indefinite or
obscure, extend it on in the same direction until you form a point of
intersection, and this will be the northwest angle of Nova Scotia. But
the truth is, _the highlands are there_, and have been found in running
due north from the monument. The elevations were taken by the British
surveyor from the source of the St. Croix, at the monument, to the first
waters of the Restigouche; and at Mars Hill, 40 miles, the summit of
this isolated sugar loaf was 1,100 feet, and at the termination of the
survey at the Restigouche waters, 100 miles farther, the elevation was
I,600 feet; consequently the summit of Mars Hill, 1,100 feet above the
waters of the St. Croix, is 500 feet lower than the lands at the
Restigouche. And yet the pretense is that there are no highlands but
this detached spur, Mars Hill! Still further, the highest position
surveyed is nearly 50 miles short of the Melis, which falls into the St.
Lawrence, and we do not perceive that the elevations have been taken
there at all, but we do find it is here that _the waters separate_, and
consequently the land must be still higher.
In failure of highlands (_assumed_ not to exist), the British
negotiators claim a line which, instead of dividing the St. Lawrence
and Atlantic waters, would actually extend between two rivers, _both
of which fall into the Atlantic_.
To say nothing of the absurdity, not to say ignorance, of such a claim,
it is enough that it is in the teeth of the treaty itself. It is painful
to repeat the argument that no other highlands were intended, for all
others were expressly excluded but those which divide the waters that
flow in those different directions. The effect of their construction,
as we all know, is to give them the whole of the St. John, with all its
tributaries, and a tract of territory south of that river equal at least
to 75 miles square.
Whether from the peaceful spirit of our Government, the Christian
patience of Maine, or the "modest assurance" of the British
negotiators--any or all--certain it is that His Britannic Majesty's
pretensions _are growing every day_. It is not only an afterthought,
but one very recently conceived, that we were to be driven south of
the St. John.
His Britannic Majesty's agent, Mr. Chipman, who has been lately urging
us south of that river, was also agent to the commission, under the
treaty of 1795, to ascertain the true St. Croix, and in insisting on
a more _western_ branch of this river gives as a reason that a line
due north will cross the St, John _farther up_, whereas if you take an
_eastern_ branch such line will cross near Frederickton, the seat of
government of New Brunswick, and materially infringe upon His Majesty's
Province. He not only admits, but contends, that this north line _must_
cross the river. Here are his words: "This north line must of necessity
cross the river St. John." Mr. Liston, the British minister, in a
private letter to Mr. Chipman of 23d October, 1798, recommends a
modification of the powers of the commissioners for the reason that _it
might give Great Britain a greater extent of navigation on the St. John
River_. The same agent, Mr. Chipman, was also agent under the fourth
article of the treaty of Ghent, and we find him contending there "that
the northwest angle of Nova Scotia is the same designated in the grant
to Sir William Alexander in 1621, subject only to such alterations as
were occasioned by the erection of the Province of Quebec in 1763." Now
we have already seen that this south line of the Province of Quebec, so
far from _altering_ this northwest angle, in fact confirms it.
In perfect accordance with this disposition to encroach is a proposition
of the British minister (Mr. Vaughan) that inasmuch as the highlands can
not be found by a due north direction from the monument we should _vary
west_ until we should intersect them, _but not_ EAST. Now that in case a
monument can not be found in the course prescribed you should look for
it _at the left, but not to the right_, seems to us a very _sinister_
proposition. We have shown, and, as we think, conclusively, that the
range of highlands is to be looked for on British ground, and nowhere
else, because it is their own boundary, and a line which must, with an
ascertained north line, form the angle of one of their own Provinces.
And yet we are not to examine there at all; we have never explored the
country there, and are expected to yield to such arrogant, extravagant,
and baseless pretensions!
We would ask why, in what justice, if we can not find the object
in the route prescribed, are we to be thus trammeled? Where is the
_reciprocity_ of such a proposition, so degrading to the dignity and
insulting to the rights and liberties of this State? No; the people of
Maine will not now, and we trust they never will, tamely submit to such
a _one-sided_ measure.
The next restriction or limitation with which this negotiation is to be
clogged is an admission that the Restigouche and St. John are not
Atlantic rivers, because one flows into the Bay de Chaleurs and the
other into the Bay of Fundy; yet neither falls into the river St.
Lawrence. They would then find those highlands between the St. John and
the Penobscot. There can not be a more arrogant pretension or palpable
absurdity. Suppose the waters of both these rivers are excluded as
flowing _neither way_, still the waters that flow _each way_ are so far
separated as to leave a tract of country which, if equally divided,
would carry us far beyond the St. John. But we admit no such hypothesis.
The _Atlantic_ and the _sea_ are used in the charters as synonymous
terms. The Restigouche, uniting with the Bay de Chaleurs, which
communicates with the sea, and the St. John, uniting with the Bay of
Fundy, which also communicates with the sea, and that, too, by a mouth
90 miles wide, are both Atlantic rivers. These rivers were known by the
negotiators not to be _St. Lawrence rivers;_ they were known to exist,
for they were rivers of the first class. If they were neither St.
Lawrence nor Atlantic, why were they not excepted? They were not of
the former, therefore they must be included in the latter description.
Indeed, if rivers uniting with Atlantic bays are not Atlantic rivers,
the Penobscot and Kennebec, which unite with the respective bays of
Penobscot and Sagadahock, would not be Atlantic rivers, and then where
are those highlands which divide the waters referred to in the treaty
of 1783? Should we leave this question unsettled a little longer, and
the British claims continue to increase, we might very soon find these
highlands south of the Connecticut, and all the intermediate country
would be _recolonized_ by "construction." We therefore invoke the
sympathy of all New England, with New York besides, to unite against
this progressive claim--this avalanche which threatens to overwhelm
_them as well as ourselves_.
Again, if this Mars Hill (and we confess we can not speak of the
pretension with any patience) _is the northwest angle_, and the north
boundary of Nova Scotia and the south boundary of the Province of Quebec
are the same, and north of the Bay de Chaleurs, then there is indeed
_no_ northwest angle, for a line due north from the monument, passing by
Mars Hill, must pursue nearly the same direction to get to the north of
that bay without crossing it; and who ever thought of an angle at the
side of a continuous line? Now, according to the British maps taken in
this very case, you must run a course of north about 14° east to obtain
the north side of the bay without crossing it, and the distance would
be in this almost due north direction more than 100 miles, while that
from the monument to Mars Hill would be little more than 40. Now when we
consider that this northerly line must form nearly a right angle to pass
along the north shore of the Bay de Chaleurs, that this is 100 miles
farther north than Mars Hill, where instead of an angle there can be
only an inclination of 14°, can there be a greater absurdity than the
British claim founded on these facts?
We will now present some facts and remarks in regard to the surveys and
explorings made by the commission under the fifth article of the treaty
of Ghent, and the first fact that occurs is that the elevations taken
by the British surveyor stop far short of where the waters divide, and
we find no proof that these elevations were carried through by our own
surveyors. If the British surveyor, after ascertaining _he was still
ascending_ and had in fact arrived at the lands at _a branch of a river_
elevated 500 feet above the summit of Mars Hill, _found it prudent to
stop short_, we see no good reason why the American agent did _not
proceed on_ and take accurate elevations at a place where the waters
divide. If such a survey was made, the committee have not been able to
obtain the evidence. It is not in the maps or documents in the library
or office of the Secretary of State, and the committee believe that no
such elevations have been taken northerly of the first waters of the
Restigouche. It is, indeed, a little singular that we have so little
evidence, not only in regard to this height of land, but also of the
rivers which flow into the St. Lawrence _to the left_, and _especially
to the right_, of the north line from the monument.
We know some of them, to be sure, such as the _Oelle Kamouska, Verte,
Trois Pistoles, Remouskey_, and _Metis_ on the left, and the _Blanche,
Louis, Magdalen_, and others on the right of this line, but we know them
chiefly as _on maps_ and as transcribed from older maps, but very little
from actual survey or even exploration. An examination of the sources of
those rivers at the right of this north line, with the important natural
boundary, the north shore of the Bay de Chaleurs, would accurately
define the divisional line between the Province of Quebec and Nova
Scotia, which extending west would intersect the due north line and thus
form the northwest angle of Nova Scotia.
It moreover appears that little or no exploration has been made of the
lands _east_ of the due north line. It seems strange to us, although it
may be satisfactorily explained, why we should have been drawn away from
this very important region. It is, indeed, the true source of inquiry.
In this direction the evidence is to be found, and Maine can never be
satisfied until it is looked for here.
An extraordinary method of adjusting this question, though in
perfect accordance with other pretensions, has been proposed by
Great Britain--that the disputed territory should be divided in equal
portions, each party being satisfied of the justice of its claims.
To this proposition we can not subscribe. It is equally unjust between
nations and individuals. Whether a party in controversy is satisfied
or not with the justice of his claims is what is only known to himself,
and consequently the one whose claims are most exorbitant, however
unjust, will always get the best end of the bargain. But such a rule
would in this case apply most unfortunately to Maine. We are limited at
farthest to the St. Lawrence, and to a very narrow point there, while
the British may extend their claims to the south and west indefinitely.
Establish this principle and we shall soon find their claims, already
so progressive, stretched over to the Piscataqua, and then if we are
to divide equally both as to _quantity and quality_ the divisional line
then would fall south of the Kennebec. If the want of the consent of
Maine is the obstacle to such an adjustment, we trust it will always
remain an insuperable one. Indeed, we protest against the application
to us of such a rule as manifestly unequal and unjust.
We come now to the recent transactions of the British colonial
authorities, sanctioned, as it appears, by the Government at home, and
we regret to perceive in them also those strong indications of continual
and rapid encroachment which have characterized that Government in the
whole of this controversy. Mr. Livingston, in his letter of 21st July,
1832, proposes that "until the matter be brought to a final conclusion
both parties should refrain from the exercise of jurisdiction," and
Mr. Vaughan, in reply of 14th April, 1833, in behalf of his Government,
"entirely concurs." Here, then, the faith of the two Governments _is
pledged to_ abstain from acts of jurisdiction until all is settled. Now,
how are the facts? We understand, and indeed it appears by documents
herewith exhibited, that an act has passed the legislature of New
Brunswick "incorporating the St. Andrews and Quebec Railroad Company,"
that the King has granted, £10,000 to aid the enterprise, and that the
legislature of Lower Canada, by its resolutions of both houses, has
approved the scheme and promised its cooperation. It may be that the
Government at home was not aware that this railroad must inevitably
cross the disputed territory.
But this ignorance of the subject seems incredible. A railroad from St.
Andrews to Quebec would be _impossible_ unless it crossed the territory
in question, even next to impossible and totally useless were it to pass
at the north of the St. John. It seems, therefore, extraordinary indeed
that the British Government, even in the incipient stages of this
enterprise, should make an appropriation which is in direct violation
of its solemn pledge. To give to a railroad corporation powers over our
rights and property is the strongest act of sovereignty. It is an act of
delegated power which we ourselves give to our own citizens with extreme
caution and with guarded restrictions and reservations. This railroad
_must_ not only cross the disputed territory, but it crosses it 50 miles
south of the St. John and almost to the southerly extremity of the
British claim, extravagant as it is. By the map herewith exhibited of
the survey of the route it appears that the road crosses our due north
line at Mars Hill, thence doubling round it toward the south it crosses
the _Roostic_ between the Great and Little _Machias_, the _Allegwash_
at the outlet of _First Lake_, a branch of the St. John south of _Black
River_, and passes into Canada between "Spruce Hills" on the right and
"Three Hills" on the left, thus crossing a tract of country south of the
St. John 100 by 50 miles. We have not a copy of the act of incorporation
of New Brunswick, and can not, therefore, say that the route there
defined is the same as on the map. Be this as it may, certain it is, as
anyone will see, that no possible route can be devised which will not
cross the territory in question. It is, then, a deliberate act of power,
palpable and direct, claiming and exercising sovereignty far south even
of the line recommended by the King of the Netherlands.
In all our inquiries and examinations of this subject there has been
great negligence in regard to this northwest angle. Judge Benson, one of
the commissioners under Jay's treaty, in a letter to the President of
the United States expressly and clearly defines this angle. He states
distinctly that the due north line from the source of the St. Croix is
_the west-side line_, and the highlands are _the north-side line_ which
form this angle, and this had never been questioned by the British
themselves.
This due north line, viz, the west-side line, was established by the
commission of which Judge Benson was a member, and the British have made
the north side line to be north of the Bay de Chaleurs, and yet with
these postulates to pretend that the points of intersection can not be
found is one of the greatest of their absurdities; and another absurdity
quite equal is that after passing west along the north shore of this
bay they would fall down nearly south more than 100 miles to Mars Hill,
about 60 miles from the south shore of the Province, at the Bay of
Passamaquoddy, which is part of the Bay of Fundy, and this point, too,
of so little inclination that it is a palpable perversion of language
to call it _an angle_, much more a northwest angle.
It is, indeed, time for us to begin to search, and in the right places,
too, in order to put a stop to these perpetual encroachments upon our
territory and rights. Our first object should be to ascertain and trace
the north boundary of Nova Scotia, which is the south boundary of the
Province of Quebec, and see if Canada comes as far down as Mars Hill.
And we should proceed to finish taking the elevations on the due north
line to some point where the waters divide. The General Government
should be immediately called on to execute the work, with the
cooperation of Massachusetts and Maine. Notice should be given to the
British authorities to unite in the undertaking, and if they refuse
our Government ought to proceed _ex parte_. The act would be entirely
pacific, as the object would be _to ascertain facts_--much more pacific
than the survey, _without notice_, of the St. Andrews and Quebec
Railroad through our territory, not for the purpose of ascertaining
a boundary, but to assume jurisdiction.
Your committee have gone through this tedious investigation with all the
deliberation, exactness, and candor which our time, means, and feelings
would allow. Our animadversions may in some instances have been strong,
and even severe, but we think we have expressed the sentiments and
feelings of the people of Maine, suffering under protracted injuries.
This State should take a firm, deliberate, and dignified stand, and one
which it will not retract. While it awards to the General Government
all its legitimate powers, it will not be forgetful of its own. We call
upon the President and Congress. We invoke that aid and sympathy of our
sister States which Maine has always accorded to them. We ask, nay we
demand, in the name of justice, HOW LONG we are to be thus trampled down
by a foreign people? And we trust we shall meet a cordial and patriotic
response in the heart of every republican of the Union.
Your committee therefore submit the following resolutions: