Слике страница

The plea therefore, to the substance of time. It was the very question they met to which the attention of the court is now solicit. settle; and their opinion, judgment, and award, ed, takes from the plaintiff's bill the whole made it what they determined it to be. subject of the proceedings of the commissioners The respondent contends, first, that it is not in 1710 and 1718, and treating of each of them necessary to the sufficiency of the plea, to conseverally, avers that the "whole real and true trovert or notice in any way the suggestion of merits of said complainant's supposed cause or a mistake. causes of action, claims, grievances, and com Second, That mistake or no mistake are subplaints, set forth and supposed in said bill of stantially and sufficiently put in issue by the complaint, were fully heard, tried, and deter- plea, so that the plaintiff may join the issue mined, in the hearing and by the judgment of there tendered, if he pleases. said commissioners; that the agreement was On the first point, it is respectfully submitted fair, legal, and binding between the parties, and that where a party alleges a proceeding to be was, in all particulars, a valid and effectual had under a mistake of fact or law, and sets settlement of the matter in controversy; and forth the circumstances in which he supposes was had and made without covin, fraud, or mis. the mistake to exist, if by the circumstances so representation, and with a full and equal stated it is apparent that there was no mistake, knowledge of all circumstances by both parties; the allegation may be treated as a nullity. The and that the same is still in full force, in no legal inference from the matter so stated, and way waived, abandoned, or relinquished; that not the term applied to it, must regulate the the station called Woodward and Saffrey's Sta- pleading of the adverse party, and the decision tion was then well known, the place where it of the court. Story Eq. Pl. sec. 680, and note. was fixed of common notoriety, and the line The plaintiff sets forth his circumstances of run therefrom, as aforesaid, capable of being supposed mistake. They are these: Massachu. discovered and renewed; that the said defend setts being in possession of a line or boundary, ant has held and possessed, occupied and en- Rhode Island complains, and purposes a joint joyed the land, property, and jurisdiction, accommission to settle it. Commissioners meet. cording to said station and line running there- | Governor Dudley, on the part of Massachusetts, from, from the date of said agreement to the tells Lieutenant-Governor Jencks, of Rhode present time, without hindrance or molesta - Island, that the true point is the Woodward tion.”

and Saffrey Station. Governor Jenckes, either It is certainly true that the plea does not un knowing that fact himself, before, or in some dertake to say that the Woodward and Saffrey other way being convinced, agrees to it, and Station is three miles southwardly of Charles signs an award fixing that station as the point River and no more. It does not put in issue of beginning. Nine years after, the same thing whether now a revision of the line, according is repeated by other commissioners, and the to the charter, would describe the same place. whole line run from that point. The bill does

If the plans exhibited in this case, either by not allege that the Rhode Island commissioner Rhode Island or Massachusetts, are correct, no believed the station to be the true one, because revision could alter the line; for it is clearly Governor Dudley told him so; but avers that within three miles of one of the branches of he did believe the fact, which being the very that river; and the only question would be, thing he was commissioned to ascertain, it must whether the charter, by the terms in it, viz., at *this distant day be supposed that he [*222 "on the south part of Charles River, or of any believed it on sufficient and satisfactory exami. or every part thereof,” meant to include one of nation. the forks as part of the river or not. But the It is obivous that in this, by the plaintiff's geographical and historical facts, which are own showing, is no mistake, as that term is un. notorious, and, of course, to be taken notice of derstood in equity. 221*] by the court (one of which *both these When negotiators meet to decide a question, maps prove), are important in the case. Charles it is impossible but that one must make an asRiver had never been explored in 1642 by any sertion to the other which, after the lapse of a European, and its borders were occupied only hundred years, the generation of the then pres. by savages. Woodward and Saffrey went there ent period may deem wrong in point of fact. to determine the river, the offset of three miles, So of arbitrators or referees. If a decision that and the line of boundary. It is very immaterial should appear to the heirs of a remote ancestor how they determined it.

to be wrong could be re-investigated on the alThe stream called Charles River acquired legation of the losing party that the verdict or that name not from nature, but man. When judgment was a mistake (which every losing and what was called Charles, became Charles; litigant is ready enough to make), there could what was called part of the river, was, for all be no end to lawsuits: and the decision which human purposes, thenceforth known and noto- this court may pronounce in this case, may, on rious as part of the river. They fixed their sta- the same principle, be revived a hundred years tion within three miles of water flowing into hence, by a suggestion that there was a mistake the main stream. They found or they called in the forming of it. this water Charles River. If it was unques It is impossible that any declaration made by tioned, it must have been conclusive. If it was Governor Dudley one hundred and thirty years questioned or questionable, if after Rhode Is. ago could be known now; and the suggestion land came into existence, and in 1710, near gey of the plaintiff, in this regard, must be a mere enty years after the naming of this water i fancy-sketch. The allegation, if made, could by Woodward and Saffrey, it was brought into be only the declaration of an opinion. question by Rhode Island, it was then a proper Gov. Dudley died in 1720, aged seventy-three subject of settlement, compromise, and agree years. 1 Holmes's Annals, 525. ment for the commissioners, and their decision The fact referred to occurred in 1642, five or settled the matter conclusively for all after six years before he was born

The statement of an opinion is no misrepre- | that his decision is a mistake. Lord Commis sentation. Scott v. Hanson, 1 Simon's Rep. sioner Wilson, in one of the cases (Morgan v. 13. Such a statement is not calculated to de- Mathews), says “It would be a melancholy ceive, but rather to put the opposite party on thing if, because we differ from arbitrators in his guard. Trower v. Newcomb, 3 Merivale, point of fact, we should set aside awards.”. 704. Ignorance, which might have been rem And Lord Chancellor Eldon, in Ching v. Ching, edied by due diligence and inquiry, is no cause states in strong terms, “If a question of law is for relief. Perry v. Martin, 4 John's Ch. R. referred to an arbitrator, he must decide it; 566. And Lord Loughborough has emphatical- and though he decides wrong, you cannot help ly said, ignorance is not mistake.

it." If the Rhode Island commissioner acted on The case is different where arbitrators, con: such representation, supposing, it was made, scious of a mistake, desire to rectify it; beand if it was false, yet his action is not to be cause, in that position, the supposed decision is considered as founded in a mistake, as that not their judgment, and this consideration rec: term is understood in equity; because the rela. onciles any cases of a seemingly different tions of the two commissioners was not such as character from those above cited. to induce one to place a known trust in the This supposed mistake may, however, even other, but the contrary. Fox v. Mackrith, 2 on the strict rules of equity practice, be passed Bro. Ch. Cas. 420; Smith v. The Bank of Scot- without notice in the plea, because the allegaland, 1 Dow. Parl. C. 272; Laidlaw v. Organ, 2 tion of the plaintiff renders it invalid by lapse Wheat. 178, 195; Evans v. Bucknell, 6 Ves. Jun. of time. It is of ancient date, and from that 173, 182–192. Such representation would not circumstance impossible to be ascertained, or if vitiate a sale; a fortiori, not an arbitrament. ascertained, to have any present operation. Fenton v. Brown, 16 Ves. 144; 2 Kent's Lec Courts of equity, by their own rules, indetures, 2d ed. 484, 485.

pendent of any statute of limitations, give If there was no false representation; if the great effect to length of time; and they refer Rhode Island commissioner believed a fact, the frequently to statutes of limitations for no truth of which it was his special duty to inves- other purpose than as furnishing a convenient tigate, and which he had the means of inves- measure for the length of time that ought tigating; and all this appears by the plaintiff's to operate as a bar in equity to any particular bill, the judgment and the award was not mis- demand. Beckford v. Wade, 17 Vesey, Jun; take, but conviction. The plaintiff, by calling 2 Scho. & Lefroy, 626; Paul v. M'Namara, it a mistake, cannot change the rule of plead-*14 Vesey, Jun. 91; Gifford v. Hort, 1 (*224 ing or of equity; and it may be treated as a Scho. & Lefroy, 406; Bogardus 1. Trinity misnomer or a nullity.

Church, 4 Paige, 178. 223*] *In further considering this allegation Now, though the question before the court of mistake, the great questions arise, in what assumes to be one of pleading and not of equi. relation or capacity did the present plaintiff ty, yet it is maintained by the respondent that and respondent stand to each other at that a plea is sufficient which leaves no material time! What was the capacity of the commis- matter unanswered; that what is not answered sioner, by whom the line was run 1 and what is redounds to the benefit of the plaintiff; and if the law of a case so situated ?

this mistake is not answered, it may count for If the parties now before the court stand here him valeat quantum. But if it is in itself im. as common suitors, corporations, or individuals, material, and of State character, it may be controverting the boundary of an estate, and passed over without notice, because it can in these commissioners are referees or arbitrators no shape make out a case for the plaintiff. mutually chosen to decide the controversy, then Second, the respondent contends "that all the rules regulating the proceedings of an ar- which the strictest rule of equity pleading rebitrament and award at common law or equity quires in this case is met by the allegation in may well enough be invoked to determine the the plea that the “said agreement was fair, question before the court. But in this view, legal, and binding between the parties, with: the mistake of law or fact, the wrong judg-out covin, fraud, or misrepresentation, and ment and erroneous decision of arbitrators do with a full and equal knowledge of all cir. not authorize the re-opening and re-examining cumstances by both parties." This allegation their proceedings. Knox v. Symonds, i Ves. is not now controverted: and it seems to the Jun. 369; The South Sea Co. v. Bumstead, 2 Eq. respondent's counsel impossible to say that, Pl. Abr. 8; Shephard v. Merrell, 2 Johns. Ch. R. with a full and equal knowledge of both par. 276; Delver Barnes, 1 Taunt. 48, 51; Morgan ties, their unanimous determination of the v. Mathews, 2 Ves. Jun. 18; Jones v. Bennett, question submitted to them could be a mistake 1 Bro. Par. Cas. 411, 428; Ching v. Ching, 6 Ves. relievable in equity. 282; Annersly V. Goff, Kyd on Awards, 351; To the form of the plea no exception is taken Mitford's Plead. in Eq. by Jeremy, 131, 132; by the learned counsel for the plaintiff; but he Lyon v. Richmond, 2 Johns. Ch. R. 51; Kleine contends that it is novel and insufficient in this, v. Catara, 2 Gall. 61; Dick v. Mulligan, 2 Ves. that it pleads possession as a bar, and not title. 23; Young v. Walter, 9 Ves. 464; Wood v. To an action at common law or at equity, Griffith, 1 Swans. 55; Auriol v. Smith, 1 Turner where the usual statute of limitations applied, & Russ. 125; Goodwin v. Sayres, 2 Jacob & this exception might, if well taken in point of Walker's Rep. 249.

fact, cause some hesitation. But it is not These cases go the whole length of establish-founded in a correct estimation of the charing the position that the mistake of the arbitra- acter of the plea. The respondent, in his plea tor on a matter of fact or law referred to him in bar, asserts his title to the territory in discannot be inquired into; or rather, that his pute, and derives it from the joint effect of judgment and opinion make the rule, and there the agreements of 1710 and 1718, and possession is no authority above him competent to say' under them forever. It may be that under the

peculiar circumstances of this case, neither the, those great and fundamental doctrines of interagreement, if made against the letter of the national law, which, by the common consent of charters, nor possession, if held adversely and mankind, are the basis of the intercourse of the without consent, could sustain the respondent's civilized world. claim; nor is it material to inquire how this The high demand of the plaintiff is that your would be, because in truth and fact the title honors will “restore and confirm to him his of the respondent rests on neither one of those violated rights of jurisdiction and sovereignty." pillars alone, but on both; upholding, strength. These are rights which no private party ever ening, confirming, and supporting each other, could possess, and over which no other judiand forming together a foundation of irresist. cial tribunals ever held jurisdiction. The light ible strength. They have not been separated which is to guide the conscience of the court in for more than a century, and ought not to be this new field comes not from books of plead. separated now in the matter before the court. ing, or reports of adjudicated cases between The true character of the plea is, title derived citizens or subjects. Such matters belong not in part from two sources, and concentrating to them. It is to be found only in the source into one point, that of indefeasible right. i of eternal justice, as it comes from intelligence Chitty's Pleading, 612, and the cases there col. and truth. lected.

The case, examined in the character which But before this plea can be overruled for any it thus properly assumes, however important technical exception of this or any other sort, in principle, is one of easy solution. the court will come to the consideration of a The parties to the suit were once colonies of much more important and interesting question Great Britain. The relation thus sustained is than yet has been presented; full of novelty matter of public history, and familiar to the and grandeur, and suited to the cause, the court. Nominally in a state of vassalage, they parties, and the court.

were in reality free; and professing a formal The question thus presented is this: By what allegiance to the British crown, actually ascode of laws, by what forms of proceeding, by sumed *and exercised the prerogatives (* 226 what principles of judicial construction, is this of sovereignty. They made war and peace; controversy to be settled? It is impossible not coined money; entered into confederacies; and 225*] to perceive *that the case before the made treaties of alliance, offensive and defen. court is not one of ordinary judicial cognizance. sive, with each other. The proceedings of It is not the boundary of a farm or a water-lot 1710 terminated in a treaty of boundary, differ. that is in dispute, but the limit of a nation. It ing in nothing from that of 1783 between Great is not a question of ownership in the soil that Britain and the United States except in extent. is presented, but of jurisdiction over a territory No earthly power but the contracting parties and its inhabitants. The parties, too, are not ever attempted to interfere with it. It was made ordinary suitors in a court of justice: they are by negotiators of each party, with unlimited States, called by the plaintiff “sovereign powers to compromise and settle the boundary. States;” and standing in that relation to each The terms are plain and incontrovertible. The other, before this high tribunal, which, like the treaty, thus made, established the station of ancient Areopagus, is to adjudicate on the tran- Woodward and Saffrey in latitude 41 degrees, quility and peace of mankind.

55 minutes, to be three English miles from The court, on solemn consideration, has de Charles River, and “that, agreeable to the let. cided that on these great interests of territorial ters patent for the Massachusetts Province, it jurisdiction and State sovereignty, and on the be accompted and allowed on both sides the transfer of the allegiance of five thousand peo- commencement of the line between Missachu. ple from one civil government to another, es. setts and the Colony of Rhode Island.". sentially different in many of its institutions, It is obvious from the whole of the plaintiff's customs, and laws, it has a constitutional pow. bill that this treaty only confirmed and estaber to pronounce judgment and decree justice. lished what had always before been admitted Be it so: this point is not now to be contro in point of fact. verted. But whence does the court derive this In 1718 another treaty was negotiated, con: power? Not from its ordinary judicial authori. firming the treaty of 1710, and more fully carty; not as a branch of that prerogative by rying it into effect. which it is to decide “cases in law and equity;" These titles to the territory, founded on the but by a special provision of the Constitution, solemn faith of two formal treaties, under and for the administering of which no forms are by force of which the respondent has always provided; a power above and beyond the reach held “unmolested possession,” are presented of any other judicial tribunal in the world; to this court, thus held over sovereigns, on a wholly without precedent in the principles of question exclusively of international law, as a the civil, the canon, or the common law; and bar in equity and justice to further molestation vesting in this high tribunal a discretion and and disturbance. authority, which yet has been limited by no Whether, being negotiated between colonies, legislation of Congress, nor by any rules or acts they are entitled by the law of nations to be of its own.

termed treaties, or only conventions, agreeIn a case where "the file affords no prece ments, or pactions, they are by that law equal. dent," and there is neither common nor statutely sacred. Vattel, 193, sec. 154, 155; 227, law to guide the proceedings of the court, the sec. 215. counsel of the respondent respectfully contends Why are they not binding? The suggestion that the case brings with it into this tribunal in the plaintiff's bill that they were not ratified its own law, in the principles of an elevated and by the mother country, is a poor attempt at perfect justice, unfettered—as in their nature self-stultification. They needed no ratification. they are incapable of being fettered— by tech- They were not repudiated by Great Britain; nical subtleties and petty forms. It stands upon 'and, like all acts of the colonies, were in force

antil disallowed. If it were otherwise, it would tried. But, it would not be departing from the be more consistent with the high character of merits of the law question of the sufficiency of rur esteemed fellow citizens of Rhode Island to the plea in bar, for the plaintiff to show the mainitate the Roman honor of the Consul Fabius terial facts he would be able to prove, if not Maximus, who, when the senate would not rat. precluded by the defects of the plea. At presify his agreement with the enemy, sold his pri lent, however, I ask leave to appeal to facts, vate property to make good his word: or that only so far as may be necessary to correct the other Consul, Postumius, who, because the sen. erroneous statements made by the defendant. ate would not confirm his treaty with the Sam. I understood the counsel to say, that he renites, adjudged that he himself and his col- sorted to the merits of the cause, and to one of leagues should be delivered into their hands. the charges in our bill, for the purpose of

The answer to all this by Rhode Island is showing that, at the time of the Roxbury agreethat the negotiators made a mistake. To this ment of 1710, 1711, there was a serious misunthe reply is that it is denied in the plea. But derstanding between the parties as to what was if the allegation be admitted, the mistake of the most southerly part of Charles River, at the negotiators never was, and on principle never distance of three English miles south from can be, a just cause for violating the stipula- which the southern boundary "line of (*228 tions of a treaty. Of this principle the diplo- Massachusetts was to be run east and west, matic history of the United States is full of agreeably to her charter; Rhode Island claim. examples, and conforms to the diplomacy of ing to measure from Charles River proper, as civilized Europe.

it is now known; while Massachusetts insisted 227') *Possession, or, as it is called in books upon taking the head of a brook called Jack's on international law, usucaption, for a long Pasture Brook, or Mill Brook, as the most period of time, is the best evidence of a nation- southerly part of Charles River; and that this al right. Vattel, 187, 191, etc.

misunderstanding led to a compromise which The possession of Massachusetts began be was effected by the agreement at Roxbury, fore Rhode Island was created, and has never But the charge referred to negatives instead of been interrupted for a day. This is an insu- countenancing this supposition. For it speaks perable bar to the long-delayed claim of the of the pretense about Jack's Pasture Brook as plaintiff. Of itself, it is invincible. The only one that is set up against the present claim of answer to it now is that it is joined with an Rhode Island, which was made upon Massaother title, equally strong, which two are not chusetts, in 1748, and has since been adhered to be united in the same plea. One reply to to and prosecuted to the present time. But bethis objection has already been given; but there sides this, it is plain from the reports of all the is a stronger one in the present aspect of the committees from 1710, 1711, and 1718, to 1791, case. Under the law of nations forms cannot that Mill Brook was never thought of as in any obstruct justice. There are no technicalities. way affecting the question of the boundary line, and no Common Pleas practice, in a congress until the idea occurred to, and was for the first of nations; nor can any be admitted before time started by the Massachusetts committee of this august tribunal, sitting under its high con. that last year, 1791. In the old reports of 1710, stitutional commission, to settle the rights of 1711, and 1718, no mention is made of any such Bovereignties, and to administer justice in brook; and it is not likely that the committees political controversies between independent knew of its existence, for they took no view states.

even of Charles River itself. They adopted Mr. Hazard, with whom was Mr. Whipple, the supposed Woodward and Saffrey Station for the State of Rhode Island.

because set up (they said) by skillful and apI had endeavored to prepare myself to argue proved artists, so far back as 1642, and be. the questions of law which the state of the lieved to be on the true charter line. The pleadings presented to the court; intending to same ground was taken by the Massachusetts confine myself strictly to those questions, that committee of 1750, which was appointed, as I might not trespass upon the time or patience the report shows, to run the line from the preof the court. I did not anticipate, for I could tended Woodward and Saffrey stake. Not to not believe that the defendant's counsel would, ascertain what was Charles River, nor where himself, bring into view the merits of the main the true boundary line was or ought to be, nor cause, in a trial upon his own plea in bar to to run any such line. But, after the Rhode those merits, interposed to prevent their being Island committee of 1750 had by actual view put in issue or tried. But, finding myself mis- and survey ascertained the true charter line, taken in this, it becomes necessary for me to and found that the line chalked out by Massapay some attention to the statements made by chusetts for herself was really eight, instcad of the counsel, lest he should consider them as be- three miles off from Charles River, and gave ing acquiesced in.

to that colony a part of the Rhode Island terThe facts stated in the plaintiff's bill, we ritory averaging five miles in breadth by twen. think, constitute a good cause for the relief ty-three in length, it would not do any longer asked for. And we believe that we can prove to rest upon the naked authority of the imagin. those facts. The defendant, while, by his ary Woodward and Saffrey stake, which had pleading, he excludes those facts from the issue been acquiesced in only because it had been asand from trial, himself makes statements which serted to be on the true line, and nothing to the we are not permitted to disprove; because they contrary was known. The Massachusetts comalso are excluded by him from the issue and mittee of 1791, therefore, cast about for some. from trial. But there is this distinction be- thing to give a color of pretense for adhering tween the statements made by the respective to the old position, after it had been thus ex: parties. The defendant has no right to state posed. And in their difficulty, they quit tacts which he refuses to put in issue, or havel Charles River, and run up into Mill Brook and

through Whiting's Pond, two and a half miles, but under her jurisdiction. Whether that teroff, and then into another brook still further ritory does or does not justly belong to Rhode on. Their report (annexed to the bill) shows | Island, by her charter, and equally so by the this. After mentioning that the Rhode Island charter of Massachusetts, is the question which committee measured from Charles River as it constitutes the merits of the main cause, and now is, they say, "we have inserted our own can only be tried when those merits are put in survey of what we conceive to be the most issue. southern part of Charles River," etc. And the Some further disclosures are made in the re. report then tells how they made the matter out, port of the Massachusetts committee of 1791, as has just been related. Here it appears that which ought not to be overlooked. Having the pretense about Mill Brook was a new one, mentioned that Old Plymouth Colony and and their own. They do not speak of it as hav- Rhode Island had the same northern boundary ing ever before been thought of, but as a con- on Massachusetts, the report says: “The erecception of their own.

tion of a third government, referring to the The allegation, therefore, that there had been same bounds * (the Rhode Island char- (* 230 229*] a dispute about this *brook in 1710, ter of 1663 had then just been granted), seems 1711, which had led to a compromise then to have rendered it necessary for Plymouth and made, is wholly unsupported and unfounded. Massachusetts to ascertain their bounds.” AcIndeed, the idea that Charles River ever could cordingly commissioners were then (in 1664) aphave been mistaken for Mill Brook, or the pointed, who "fixed upon a large tree, called brook for the river, or that they ever could | the Angle Tree, as the north line of Plymouth have been identified and taken for one and, and the south line of Massachusetts,” etc. “This the same, appears to me to be preposterous. (says the report) the commissioners apprehend Charles River had its present name, the only to have been the true and original boundary, name it has ever had, even before the first set- and is three miles south of the most southerly tlement was made by the Massachusetts Colony. part of Charles River.” They then mention It was so named in the first charter by King the appointment of commissioners by MassaCharles I. to that colony, in 1629. Whoever chusetts and Rhode Island in 1718, “who fixed first went there and saw it, marked it as one of a new station, about two miles north of the the great natural boundaries for the colony. A Angle Tree,” called Woodward and Saffrey boundary definite and permanent, about which Station. “This Commonwealth, then, lost two there could be no uncertainty or dispute. Hav. miles in width along the northern line of Rhode ing the broad river before their eyes, although Island.” in the wilderness, and not far to be seen, it is Thus these Massachusetts commissioners not likely that they spied out the particular themselves falsify the pretended Woodward and tributary brook, much less that they groped Saffrey Station, which they call a "new statheir way through the bushes and swamps, to tion,” fixed upon in 1718. And it is a striking see where it came from, that they might honor fact that although the settlement with Plyit, Whiting's Pond, Jack's Pasture Brook, and mouth was only twenty-two years after the all, up to the big chestnut tree, with the name date now assigned to the Woodward and Safof the king

frey Station, yet, in that settlement, not a The counsel thinks that he sees evidence of a word was said about any such station. The compromise in the clause of the Roxbury agree-plain inference is either that none such existed, ment, leaving five thousand, or the land within or that Massachusetts concealed it for the one mile north, to the inhabitants of Provi-purpose of gaining two miles more upon Ply. dence or others. But the committee assigned | mouth; and that with a view to fixing a line their own, and a different reason, for that for Rhode Island, without giving Rhode Island clause; which was, that some of the inhabitants any notice of her doings, or allowing her to be of Providence had laid out lots there. But it is a party to them. The probability is that no not pretended that any notice was taken of that such station was ever heard of until Colonel clause by the government of Rhode Island, or Dudley asserted that there was or had been that it was ever acted upon by either govern- one. The report in my hand states that no ment. Again, if the Roxbury committee had record of it had been preserved. The Massabeen making a compromise instead of ascer. chusetts committee of 1750 say that they found taining and fixing the charter line, their report none, and it is plain from all the other reports would have shown it, and the grounds of it. that none existed at their dates. Even DudThey were bound to show this; for their re- ley himself did not pretend that he had ever spective legislatures had a right to know what seen any. And there is not, in the whole case, they did, and why they did it. Now, the re- a particle of evidence that there ever was any port of this committee, on the face of it, nega- such station in existence. tives the supposition of a compromise. It pro- It is necessary that I should now take one fesses to go by the charters; and that the sta- more look at this now important Jack's Pasture, tion agreed upon was on the true charter line, or Mill Brook, and notice the use which the and no more than three English miles from Massachusetts committee of 1791 endeavored Charles River. And so the General Assembly to make of it, and which the defendant endeavof Rhode Island was led to believe, and not ors to make of it, since it was then brought into that anything was done by way of compromise. notice. That committee, in its report, says: A singular compromise it would have been "It may not be necessary to observe that at the certainly, had it been so intended, by which northern head of what we call Charles River, Massachusetts took to herself five miles of the is a place known by large chestnut tree; Rhode Island territory, and in consideration thence the stream descends to Whiting's Pond, thereof, allowed the inhabitants of Providence where it forms a considerable lake, and after. or others, to retain the land within one mile, wards resuming its proper shape (and now

« ПретходнаНастави »