ber, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, with the following amendment: Strike out of article 3 the following words: "Or embezzlement by any person or persons, hired or salaried, to the detriment of their employe(r)s."

(Ex. Jour., vol. 12, pp. 126, 149, 227.)

March 5, 1862.

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the message of the President transmitting a note addressed to the Secretary of State by the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the Granadian Confederation, with a communication from the special commissioner of that Republic and a letter from the special commissioner of the United States, under the convention of September 10, 1857, setting forth the impracticability of disposing of the cases submitted to the joint commission now in session under that convention within the period described therein, have given the subject mentioned most careful attention, and beg to report the accompanying resolution and to recommend its adoption:

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring), That in pursuance of the recommendation of the President of the United States, as set forth in his message of the third instant, the Senate advise and consent to the extension of the time fixed for the termination of the labors of the joint commission under the convention between the United States and New Granada of the tenth September, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, for the additional period of six months: Provided, That the Government of the Granadian Confederation shall duly assent to such extension, and that meanwhile it shall not be discharged from liability for claims before the commission and undecided by reason of the inability of the commission to pass upon them within the time prescribed by the convention.

(Ex. Jour., vol. 12, p. 151.)

May 7, 1862.

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the message of the President communicating certain proceedings of the Government of Nicaragua relative to amendments of the treaty of friendship and commerce between the United States of America and Nicaragua, concluded on the 16th of March, 1859, beg to report the same to the Senate and to recommend the adoption of the following amendment:

After the following amendment, adopted by the Senate to the sixteenth article of the said treaty, "but no duty or power imposed upon or conceded to the United States by the provisions of this article shall be performed or exercised except by authority and in pursuance of laws of Congress hereafter enacted," add the following clause, viz: it being understood that such laws shall not affect the protection and guarantee of the neutrality of the routes of transit nor the obligation to withdraw the troops which may be disembarked in Nicaragua directly; that,

in the judgment of the Government of this Republic, they should no longer be necessary nor in any manner bring about new obligations on Nicaragua nor alter her rights in virtue of the present treaty.

And also that the Senate advise and consent to the extension of the time for the ratifications of the aforesaid treaty and all the amendments hereby and heretofore duly made thereto and adopted by the respective Governments for twelve months from and after the date of the adoption of this resolution, anything contained in the aforesaid treaty to the contrary notwithstanding.

(Ex. Jour., vol. 12, p. 283.)

May 29, 1862.

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the message of the President, of the 5th of March, relating to the award made by the joint commission under the convention between the United States and Paraguay, of the 4th of February, 1859, desiring further information on the subject, beg to report the following resolution and to recommend its adoption:

Resolved, That the President be requested to communicate to the Senate copies of all correspondence between the present Secretary of State and the minister of the United States at Paraguay, relating to the claims of American citizens on that country; and also all instructions to the said minister.

June 18, 1862.

On the extradition treaty with Salvador, Mr. Sumner reported as follows:

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the general treaty of amity, consular privileges, and extradition between the United States of America and the Republic of Salvador, concluded at the city of Washington the twenty-ninth May, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, with the following amendment: In article 38 strike out the following words: "or by persons hired or salaried, to the detriment of their employers.'

(Ex. Jour., vol. 12, pp. 361, 369.)

THIRTY-SEVENTH CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION.

February 13, 1863.

[Senate Report No. 88.]

Mr. Doolittle made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, having been instructed by the Senate to inquire what further legislation, if any, is required to carry into effect the fourth article of the treaty with Great Britain of August 9, 1842, submit the following report:

The fourth article of the treaty of Washington concluded between

Great Britain and the United States on the 9th of August, 1842, is in the following words:

All grants of lands heretofore made by either party within the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the dominions of the other party shall be held valid, ratified, and confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants to the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were made; and all equitable possessory claims arising from a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty shall in like manner be deemed valid and be confirmed and quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto of the title to such lot or parcel of land so described as best to include the improvements made thereon: and in all other respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most lil eral principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has heretofore been in dispute between them.

So far as the United States are concerned, the foregoing article is an agreement on their part to respect the possessions of all persons found at the date of the treaty upon that part of the before-disputed territory which fell to Maine by the new line of boundary. The extent to which such possessions are to be respected is accurately defined. All persons in possession under grants are to have their grants fully confirmed according to their terms.

All persons holding by mere possession, if their possession dates six years or more prior to the treaty, are to hold their lands run out by metes and bounds so as to cover their improvements, and they are to be "confirmed and quieted by a release to the person entitled thereto of the title to such lot or parcel of land."”

All persons holding by mere possession, if their possession did not commence six years prior to the treaty, are entitled to the benefit of the following stipulation:

And in all other respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has heretofore been in dispute between them.

It appears that in 1843 the States of Maine and Massachusetts instituted a joint commission to examine the claims of persons entitled to be confirmed in their grants and possessions, and authorized deeds of release to be made to the persons found to be thus entitled. The ownership of nearly all the lands in the before-disputed territory was then jointly in those two States. The operations of the commission instituted in 1843 were principally confined to the settlements of the Madawaska French, which were ancient and well known. It soon became apparent, however, that a large number of cases of claims entitled to be quieted existed, and which had escaped attention by being scattered over a great territory little accessible by roads and of which not much was known in Maine until some years after the possession of it was recovered by the treaty. Accordingly, in 1854, Maine, having become in the meantime the owner of all the lands by a purchase of the half belonging to Massachusetts, instituted a new commission to ascertain and report all the cases of possessory rights which had escaped the attention of the commission instituted in 1843.

The first commission reported as entitled to be confirmed 53,822 acres, and this was done by deeds from Maine and Massachusetts, who were the owners of the land. Of this land, 52,300 acres were the joint property of Massachusetts and Maine and 1,521 acres were the separate property of Maine.

The second commission reported as entitled to be confirmed 63,454

acres of land belonging to the State of Maine and 8,107 acres belonging to private proprietors in the Eaton grant and in the Plymouth township.

By an act of the present Congress, passed at the first session, the persons in possession of these 8,107 acres of land in the Eaton grant and in the Plymouth township have been quieted. This act made an appropriation, at the rate of $4 per acre, to induce the private proprietors to execute the "releases to the persons entitled thereto," which the United States are under treaty obligations to procure.

As to the 63,454 acres of the lands of Maine, now in the occupancy of persons entitled to be quieted in their possessions, Maine has indicated her willingness to quiet them by the necessary releases of title, upon receiving from the United States an adequate compensation for these lands and for the lands conveyed under the report of the commission instituted in 1843.

And the call is now made upon the United States to execute the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, by making such an appropriation of money in payment for the lands of Massachusetts and Maine falling within the purview of the article as will compensate their fair value and thus justify Maine in executing the releases of title which are stipulated by the treaty.

The duties of the United States under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington have been acknowledged not only by the passage of the law to quiet titles in the Eaton grant and in the Plymouth Township, but by the payment to Maine and Massachusetts of the expenses of the commissions before referred to, as instituted in 1843 and 1854.

The suggestion may, perhaps, be made that Maine and Massachusetts have already been paid for the lands taken from them by the fourth article, but this suggestion will not bear examination.

By the new line of boundary fixed by the treaty Maine lost 5,012 square miles, or 3,207,680 acres, of the jurisdiction and soil of territory to which her title had been declared indisputable by the Federal Government. The consideration received by Maine and Massachusetts for the soil, nothing being allowed for the jurisdiction surrendered, was $300,000. And it abundantly appears that this payment was proposed for their assent to the new line of boundary and the consequent loss of territory north of the river St. John, and not as the price of lands which they might lose under the fourth article. This payment was proposed by Mr. Webster as the consideration of their assent to the treaty, when it did not contain the provision now contained in the fourth article.

In a letter to the commissioners of those States of July 15, 1842, Mr. Webster says:

Under the influence of these considerations, I am authorized to say that if the commissioners of the two States assent to the line as described in the accompanying paper the United States will undertake to pay these States the sum of $250.000, to be divided between them in equal moieties; and also to undertake for the settlement and payment of the expenses incurred by these States for the maintenance of the civil posse, and also for a survey which it was found necessary to make. The line as suggested, with the compensations and equivalents, which have been stated, is now submitted for your consideration.

The pecuniary equivalents proposed were for the assent of Maine and Massachusetts to a new line of boundary. The "accompanying paper" referred to by Mr. Webster did not contain the provisions set out in the fourth article. That was added as one of the conditions of the assent of Maine.

In the acceptance (July 20, 1842) of Mr. Webster's proposition by the commissioners of Massachusetts the following language is used:

The State of Massachusetts, through her commissioners, hereby relinquishes to the United States her interest in the lands which will be excluded from the dominion of the United States by the establishment of the boundary aforesaid.

The treaty itself, in the fifth article, defines with precision for what the sum of $300,000 was paid to Maine and Massachusetts, in the following language:

The Government of the United States agreeing with the States of Maine and Massachusetts to pay them the further sum of $300,000, in equal moieties, on account of their assent to the line of boundary described in this treaty, and in consideration of the conditions and equivalents received therefor from the Government of Her Britannic Majesty.

The treaty of Washington, so far as boundaries were concerned, was, in fact, an exchange of territory in Maine for territory added to New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, and for territory acquired by the United States in the Northwest, while the $300,000 paid to Maine and Massachusetts was the assumed value of these territorial advantages obtained elsewhere at the expense of Maine. This is so expressly stated in the treaty itself, but will be illustrated by some reference to the correspondence which preceded it.

In his note of June 21, 1842, to Mr. Webster, Lord Ashburton says: It may be well at the same time to state my views respecting the adjoining boundary of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, because they made part of the reference to the King of the Netherlands, and were, indeed, the only part of the subject in dispute upon which a distinct decision was given.

The question here at issue between the two countries was as to the correct determination of the parallel of latitude and the true source of the Connecticut River. Upon both these points decisions were pronounced in favor of Great Britain. * I am nevertheless disposed to surrender the whole of this case, if we should succeed in settling, as proposed, the boundary of Maine.

* *

In their note of June 29, 1842, to Mr. Webster, the Maine commissioners say:

It appears, by his (Lord Ashburton's) communication to you that his lordship proposes to yield the disputed territory claimed by New Hampshire at the sources of the Connecticut River; the strip of disputed territory, embracing Rouse's Point, on Lake Champlain, north of the same parallel, in the possession of the State of New York, notwithstanding they have been decided by the arbiter to belong of right to Great Britain.

Now, the undersigned are fully aware of the importance of having all those difficulties in regard to boundaries amicably adjusted, and that it is highly desirable to have them so adjusted, and to the particular States interested to be confirmed and quieted in their respective limits and possessions. But it can not have escaped your attention that all this is proposed to be done partly at the expense of Massachusetts, but principally at the expense of Maine.

In his note of July 8, 1842, to Lord Ashburton, Mr. Webster says: Your lordship intimates that, as a part of the general arrangement of boundaries, England would be willing to surrender to the United States Rouse's Point, and all the territory heretofore supposed to be within the boundaries of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but which a correct ascertainment of the forty-fifth parallel of north latitude shows to be included within the British line. This concession is, no doubt, of some value. If made, its benefits would inure partly to those three States and partly to the United States, and none of it to the particular interests of Maine and Massachusetts. If regarded, therefore, as a part of the equivalent for the manner of adjusting the northeastern boundary, the two last States would perhaps expect that the value, if it could be ascertained, should be paid to them.

In his letter of July 15, 1842, to the Maine commissioners, Mr.