The subject was again presénted to both branches of the Legislature, by the Governor, in his message, on the 4th of January, 1827-And the Governor also, by special message, communicated a letter from the Secretary of State of the United States, dated January 29th, of the same year, accompanied by a letter of Charles R. Vaughan, Esq. the British Minister, dated January 7, 1827, wherein he complains of the acts of Maine and Massachusetts, in surveying and laying out townships and roads, and concludes by saying: 'I think it advisable to make you acquainted, without delay, with the communication which I have received from the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick, whom I beg leave to assure you, cautiously abstains on his part from exercising any authority in the disputed territory, which could invite encroachments as a measure of retaliation.' All which were considered and became the subject of a report in the Legislature, on the 12th day of February, 1827, and a resolve was passed thereon, on the 23d day of the same month, respecting the northeastern boundary of the State, to wit: made under the fifth article of importance had been obtained the treaty of Ghent. under the Resolves of the State, although they had been regularly communicated; and all the information, which was in possession of the government of this State, consisted in the few, and very few copies of letters from the British Minister, which had been elicited by the resolves of the State of Maine; and beyond that, there was no official information of the proceedings of the commission under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, nor the claims set up by the British, except what was derived from public reports, vague in their nature, and uncertain in their character. It was not until long after the Commissioners had terminated their labors, that any official communication was made, which tended to show the British claim; and even that, from the looseness of its phraseology, seemed to convey no other distinct idea, than that the British, from causes known to themselves, claimed all the country north and west of Mars Hill, as a part of the ancient province' of Nova Scotia, and even that did not appear until near the middle of the year 1825. The delay to give information to the State of Maine, when it had been so often requested, particularly in the letter of the Governor, of July, 1820, to the Executive of the United States, containing a request that some one might be added from the State of Maine to assist in the examination of the subject, and considering that the sovereignty of the whole country to which the British had, in such an extraordinary manner, and so contrary to the discussions 6 Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby requested to take all such measures, both in acquring information and in procuring a speedy adjustment of the dispute, according to the treaty of 1783, as he may deem expedient and for the interest of the State.' To this period, nothing of any request contained in the last resolve, merits the encomiums and approbation of the State. If further comment were necessary, the fact that all the information which had been so long, but unsuccessfully sought, was obtained, speaks a language more satisfactory to him and the State, than anything we could add. As to the positions taken and maintained by the Governor, they must be in accordance with the views and common sense of the State, and we cannot present his discussions in a clearer or more acceptable light, than to request a fair, candid and impartial examination of them. With these remarks, and without further comment, the correspondence between him and the Government of the United States is annexed. which preceded the treaty of the Governor has executed the Ghent, pretended a claim, was in Maine, and that the government of the United States had no constitutional authority to cede any portion of an independent sovereignty, directly or by construction, is certainly very extraordinary. And it cannot fail to appear extraordinary, that the same policy on the part of the government of the United States, should be continued, when, by uniting Maine in the controversy, all reasonable ground of complaint on her part would have been removed; at least, if she had in her sovereign capacity engaged in the controversy, she must have been concluded by the result. If she had mismanaged her concerns, that could never have been brought up as a reasonable cause of complaint against the United States. Maine, as she was in a state of profound ignorance, had no opportunity to aid or assist the United States ; nor does she claim that she has a right to interfere in the course its Government chooses to adopt; but she has the right of reading the constitution of the United States, of judging for herself, and if she is deprived of the exercise of her sovereignty and her property, she has a right to remonstrate and assert her rights; and by force of the original compact, she is entitled to the aid and assistance of the independent sovereignties constituting the United States, to reinstate her in that of which she has been deprived by an unjust and unconstitutional exercise of power. The promptness, decision, perseverance and ability with which Thus we have detailed, at some length, the principal facts and circumstances touching the title and the extent of the title of the State to territory and jurisdiction; from which it appears that our title is perfect to all the territory bounded by the southern line of the province of Lower Canada, to wit, by the line drawn from the head of Connecticut river, along the lands which limit the sources of the rivers that fall into the river St Lawrence, to the head of the bay of Chaleurs, and westward of the line drawn due north from the source of the river St Croix to that line, being the line described and adopted by the British Government long before the revolution, and being the lines which are also described and adopted by the provisional and definitive treaties of peace. That the British Government have always, directly and indirectly, conceded our title, in all the negotiations and discussions on the subject, prior to the discussions under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, and made no claim of title founded on any intrusion of theirs, the ministers, who sought it as a cession, not having urged or even stated the fact, except by way of allusion, and that Massachusetts and Maine have always exercised jurisdiction according to the title of Maine, and have continued their progress of surveys, sales and settlements, and other acts, and that the United States have always exercised general jurisdiction, and did in 1820 exercise acts of jurisdiction as far as there was any occasion for it: That there was no reason, from any knowledge in possession of the United States, until very recently, and still more recently in possession of this State, more immediately interested, to suppose, that, if the British Government had crossed the above described lines, she would not, as soon as the lines were surveyed, withdraw, and cease to commit like acts of intrusion; and it has also appeared, from representations made by the British Minister to the Secretary of State, 'that the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick had given assurances that he would cautiously abstain from all acts of authority which could invite encroachments as a measure of retaliation.' But notwithstanding all these facts, circumstances, and assurances, John Baker, a citizen of the State of Maine and of the United States, was arrested in his own dwelling house, situated on the land he purchased of, and holds by the deed from Massachusetts and Maine, on a warrant and other process served by the Sheriff of the county of York, accompanied by armed men, and in the night time, at least before Baker had risen from his bed, and was carried to Frederickton, and thrown into prison, where he is now confined. Processes have also been served, within our territory, on the Aroostook, and the cattle and property of our citizens have been taken away by the civil officers of New Brunswick. Baker is charged, among other things, with an intrusion and trespass on the premises he holds under Massachusetts and Maine. When the Governor of this State had received notice that the sovereignty of the State, by the officer of the Government of New Brunswick, had been violated, in the abduction and imprisonment of one of its citizens, and other acts, he issued his proclamation, and commissioned an agent of the State to proceed to the province of New Brunswick, to inquire into the cause of the arrest, and the other violations of the State sovereignty, and to demand of the Government of New Brunswick the restoration of Baker; all which will more fully appear in the documents annexed. The Governor has in this, with his usual promptness, discretion, and ability, performed his duty to the State and its citizens. The agent in prosecution of the object of his commission proceeded to Frederickton, the capital of New Brunswick, and notified the Government of his arrival and official capacity. He was not received in his official capacity. From what cause that arose, whether from their own policy, or their misconstruction of the power and authority of the Governor of this State, is not certain. It seems to us there would have been no objection to the recognition of the agent of this State, had his commission been only to demand a fugitive from justice, or that the Governor of New Brunswick would consider that he was transcending his power, were he to send an agent to this State to demand a fugitive from his own Government. Notwithstanding he was not received in an official character, we are happy to have it in our power to say, that he was politely received by the gentlemen of the place. The object of his agency, therefore, so far as it related to the arrest and imprisonment of Baker, totally failed, as it did also in some other respects. His official capacity embraced two objects: 1st. To demand a delivery of persons. 2d. To obtain public information. If not recognised for any other purpose, he might have been permitted as a person authorized to inquire into the truth of facts, important to the rights of the people of the State, and peace of the country. From all the facts, we cannot perceive on what ground they can justify the violation of the State and National sovereignty in the arrest of Baker, on his own soil and freehold, which he holds in fee under the States of Massachusetts and Maine, and the other acts of their officers on the Aroostook. On the ground of title they have no justification, and they can only justify themselves on the ground of a possession de facto, which cannot by the acknowledged principles of law be extended beyond actual occupation. In the case of Baker the settlement on his lot was commenced not within even a possession de facto, feeble and slender as that would be; and in relation to the Aroostook, there is not even a possession of any kind, unless it has been acquired by the lawless depredations of individuals, for which they have, from time to time, atoned by settlements with the agents of the State of Maine. Even the few, who have settled on the Aroostook, settled there considering it to be within this State, and intending also to settle out of the province of New Brunswick. The course pursued by the British must be accounted for on another principle, than a cautious abstinence of the exercise of authority which could invite encroachments as a measure of retaliation.' When the British are thus attempting to extend their intrusion, and imprisoning and otherwise harassing by legal process citizens of Maine, they have constitutional claims on her protection; and although Massachusetts and Maine, from the treaty of peace, have exercised the same jurisdiction over all the wild lands which had not been particularly appropriated for cultivation to this time; if such acts are repeated, it cannot be expected that Maine will be a quiet spectator. It will be her duty to enforce her laws within her own jurisdiction, and to protect her own rights and the rights of her citizens. The Government of the United States have a duty to perform towards the State, and its citizens, not less towards those who are forcibly taken from the territory, and imprisoned, than towards those who are taken from the national marine. An agent has been sent to the province of New Brunswick, who has returned, and we have a confidence that the whole business will be adjusted, and that the constitutional rights of the State, and the liberties and rights of the citizens, will be protected and preserved. Your committee, impressed with the importance of the subject to this State, and the United States, and approving most cordially, of the measures taken by the Governor, believe, from the past, that the State has a well founded assurance that its best interests will be protected, and its constitutional rights preserved. JOHN L. MEGQUIER, This report was unanimously adopted by both branches of the Legislature of Maine, February 18, 1832. Official Decision of the King of the Netherlands. Department of State of the U. States, Washington, 18th March, 1831. To his Excellency, Samuel E. Smith, Governor of the State of Maine. SIR: By the President's direction, I have the honor to transmit, herewith, to your Excellency, a copy and translation of the award given in relation to the Northeastern Boundary of the United States, upon the question which was submitted to the King of the Netherlands, by this Government and that of Great Britain concerning that Boundarywhich award was officially delivered to the Minister of the United States at the Hague, on the tenth of January last, and by him forwarded to this Department, where it was received on the 18th instant, with a view of making your Excellency acquainted with the state of this transaction, as received here. I also transmit herewith a copy of the Protest which the Minister of the United States at the Hague thought it his duty, without instructions to that effect from the President, to address to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government to which he is accredited, against the award referred to,-together with extracts from his despatch to this Department, showing the character of his Protest, and the ground upon which it was made; and a copy of the correspondence between himself and Sir Charles Bagot, the Ambassador of Great Britain at the same Court, upon the subject. Mr Preble has asked leave of absence, for the purpose of visit |