Images de page
PDF
ePub

Webster, after reciting the cessions offered by Great Britain to New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, says:

It is probable also that the disputed line of boundary in Lake Superior might be so adjusted as to leave a disputed island within the United States.

These cessions on the part of England would inure partly to the benefit of the States of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, but principally to the United States. The consideration on the part of England for making them would be the manner agreed upon for adjusting the eastern boundary. The price of the cession, therefore, whatever it might be, would in fairness belong to the two States interested in the manner of that adjustment.

In his message of August 11, 1812, communicating the treaty of Washington to the Senate of the United States, President Tyler says:

Connected with the settlement of the line of the northeastern boundary, so far as it respects the States of Maine and Massachusetts, is the continuation of that line along the highlands to the north westernmost head of Connecticut River. Which of the sources of that stream is entitled to that character has been matter of controversy and of some interest to the State of New Hampshire. The King of the Netherlands decided the main branch to be the northwesternmost head of the Connecticut. This did not satisfy the claim of New Hampshire. The line agreed to in the present treaty follows the highlands to the head of Hall's Stream, and thence down that river, embracing the whole claim of New Hampshire and establishing her title to 100,000 acres of territory more than she would have had by the decision of the King of the Netherlands.

By the treaty of 1783 the line is to proceed down the Connecticut River to the 45th degree of north latitude, and thence west by that parallel till it strikes the St. Lawrence. Recent examinations having ascertained that the line heretofore received as the true line of latitude between those points was erroneous and that the correction of this error would not only leave on the British side a considerable tract of territory heretofore supposed to belong to the States of Vermont and New York, but also Rouse's Point, the site of a military work of the United States, it has been regarded as an object of importance not only to establish the right of jurisdiction of those States up to the line to which they have been considered to extend, but also to comprehend Rouse's Point within the territory of the United States. The relinquishment by the British Government of all the territory south of the line heretofore considered to be the true line has been obtained, and the consideration of this relinquishment is to inure, by the provisions of the treaty, to the State of Maine and Massachusetts.

President Tyler notices also the acquisition by this treaty of "Sugar Island, or St. George's Island, lying in St. Mary's River, on the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior,” and observes in respect to this island that "both from soil and position it is regarded as of much value.”

IIe notices also that from Lake Superior to the Lake of the Woods the British commission under the treaty of Ghent had “insisted on proceeding to Fon du Lac, at the southwest angle of the lake, and thence by the river St. Louis to the Rainy Lake,” whereas by the treaty of Washington the line starts from Lake Superior at the mouth of Pigeon River. Upon the additional territory thereby confirmed to the United States President Tyler observes:

The region of country on and near the shore of the lake between Pigeon River on the north and Fond du Lac and the river St. Louis on the south and west, considered valuable as a mineral region, is thus included in the United States. It embraces a territory of 4,000,000 acres northward of the claim set up by the British commission under the treaty of Ghent.

It thus abundantly appears that the $300,000 stipulated by the fifth article of the treaty to be paid to Maine and Massachusetts had no reference to the lands lost by them under the fourth article, but was solely for their assent to a new line of boundary, and their consequent loss of territory north of the St. John's River. And it also appears that this sum was not paid to them either as a gratuity or even as an

indemnity for their loss of territory, but as the assumed value of the cession obtained for it elsewhere by the United States of territory, undoubtedly British, on the north of New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York, and of the settlement in favor of the United States of disputed points in respect to a valuable island in the St. Mary's River and to the boundary line west of Lake Superior. The liberality and patriotism of Maine and Massachusetts in yielding so much for the national good, for a compensation so inadequate, well deserved the following acknowledgment in the message of President Tyler of August 11, 1842:

Ordinarily, it would be no easy task to reconcile and bring together such a variety of interests in a matter in itself difficult and perplexing; but the efforts of the Government in attempting to accomplish this desirable object have been seconded and sustained by a spirit of accommodation and conciliation on the part of the States interested, to which much of the success of these efforts is to be ascribed.

. Upon the whole case, the committee believe that the United States are under obligations to quiet the settlers upon the public lands of Massachusetts and Maine, under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington, by procuring for them releases of the titles to their lots, and that for this purpose an appropriation should be made equal to the fair value of these lots.

In 1852 the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate reported that this fair value would be $1.50 per per acre.—(Senate Reports, No. 361, Thirty-second Congress, second session.)

An agent of the United States who visited the Eaton grant and Plymouth Township, under authority of a resolution adopted by the Senate on the 18th of July, 1856, reported as his own opinion, which is confirmed by the evidences accompanying his report that the value, in a state of nature, of the lots taken by settlers in those tracts, was $2 per acre.

It is not probable that the value of the lots taken by settlers in those tracts exceeds the average value of the lots taken by them upon the lands of Maine and Massachusetts. They are all selected and choice lots, in a region of great fertility.

The committee, however, have reason to suppose that under the difficulties of the times an appropriation at the rate of $1.25 per acre, the minimum price of the lands of the United States, will be sufficient to obtain the releases of title which the United States are bound to procure.

The committee have also considered it expedient to require as a condition that Maine shall assume to quiet any further rights of settlers under the fourth article of the treaty of Washington which may hereafter be discovered to exist.

It appears from the testimony taken by the agent of the United States, appointed under the Senate resolution of July 18, 1856, that the prosperity of the late disputed territory in Maine has been considerably retarded by the delays, already long, which have occurred in quieting the titles of settlers. The agent says, in his report, that “the value of the improvements has not materially increased since the making of the treaty, and the reason assigned for the absence of improvements is the uncertain tenure by which they hold their lands.”

The treaty of Washington having been concluded in 1842, and the final ascertainment of possessory rights under the fourth article having been made in 1854, the committee believe that the duty of the United States in the premises should be discharged without further delay; and therefore report the accompanying bill.

February 17, 1863.

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

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Peru for the settlement of the pending claims of the citizens of either country against the other, signed at Lima, January twelfth, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, with the following amendment:

In Article I, strike out the words “the claims of the American citizens, Dr. Charles Easton, Edmund Sartori, and the owners of the whaleship William Lee, against the Government of Peru, and the Peruvian citizen Stephen Montano against the Government of the United States,” and insert all claims of citizens of the United States against the Government of Peru, and of citizens of Peru against the Government of the United States, which have not been embraced in conventional or diplomatic agreement between the two Governments or their plenipotentiaries, and statements of which, soliciting the interposition of either Government, may, previously to the ratification of this convention, have been filed in the Department of State at Washington or the department of foreign affairs at Lima.

(Ex. Jour., vol. 13, pp. 140, 143, 144.)

THIRTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

March 8, 1864.

[Senate Report No. 29.)

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.

[See Senate Report 88, Thirty-seventh Congress, first session, p. 138.]

THIRTY-NINTH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

March 13, 1866.

[Senate Report No. 33.]

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.

[See Senate Report 88, Thirty-seventh Congress, first session, p. 138.]

FORTIETH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION.

April 17, 1867.

On the resolution of Mr. Howe of March 25, 1867, relative to the resignation of J. Lothrop Motley as minister to Austria, Mr. Sumner reported as follows:

Strike out all after the word Resolved,and in lieu thereof insert:

That upon consideration of the correspondence between the Secretary of State and Mr. Motley, minister of the United States at Vienna, the Senate do not regard it as showing a desire on the part of Mr. Motley to retire from the mission, but as the expression of a sensitive nature when repelling injurious charges which he knew to be false; and the Senate advise the President that in their opinion for the present no other nomination should be made for this mission.

(Ex. Jour., vol. 15, pp. 519, 750.)

FORTIETH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.

December 17, 1867.

On the message of the President as to proposed modification of treaty with China, Mr. Sumner reported as follows:

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring), That the Senate do advise and consent to the modification of the treaty between the United States and China concluded at Tientsin on the eighteenth of June, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight, so that the nineteenth article shall be understood to include hulks and store-ships of every kind under the term merchant vessels; and so that it shall provide that if the supercargo, master, or consignee shall neglect, within fortyeight hours after a vessel casts anchor in either of the ports named in the treaty, to deposit the ship's papers in the hands of the consul or person charged with his functions, who shall then comply with the requisitions of the nineteenth article of the treaty in question, he shall be liable to a fine of fifty taels for each day's delay. The total amount of penalty, however, shall not exceed two hundred taels.

(Ex. Jour., vol. 16, p. 111.)

December 17, 1867.

[Executive F.1

Mr. Sumner made the following report:

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred the convention for commercial reciprocity between the United States and His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, concluded at the city of San Francisco the 21st of May, 1867, beg leave to report the accompanying papers and to recommend that they be printed in confidence for the use of the Senate:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 11, 1867. Sir: In compliance with that part of the request contained in your note of the 7th instant, asking for copies of papers having reference to the reciprocity treaty

S. Doc. 231, pt 8--10

lately negotiated between the Governments of the United States and the Hawaiian Islands, I have the honor to transmit to you the documents described in the inclosed list. I am, sir, your obedient servant,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Hon. CHARLES SUMNER,

Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Senate.

[List of documents remitted to the Hon. Charles Sumner, chairinan of the Senate Committee on

Foreign Relations, on the 12th of December, 1867.) Dispatch, No. 16, of James McBride, United States minister resident at Honolulu,

to Secretary of State, December 10, 1863.
Reply of Secretary of State to above, February 8, 1864.
Secretary of State to Secretary of the Treasury, January 17, 1867.
Secretary of the Treasury to Secretary of State, January 26, 1867.
Secretary of State to Edward M. McCook, esq., United States minister resident at

Honolulu, February 1, 1867.
Mr. McCook to Secretary of State, May 29, 1867.
Mr. McCook to Secretary of State, June, 1867.

No. 16.)

UNITED STATES LEGATION,

Honolulu, December 10, 1863. Sir: Doubtless you will remember that a proposal from the Hawaiian Government was made to the Government of the United States for a reciprocity treaty March 1, 1852, which was finally rejected by the United States.

The conditions were that “all flour, fish, coal, lumber, staves, and headings, the produce or manufacture of the United States, shall be admitted free of all duty, provided the Government of the United States will admit the sugar, sirup of sugar, molas-es, and coffee, the produce of the Hawaiian Islands, into all the ports of the United States on the same terms.” Believing, as I do, that a reciprocity treaty, embracing the articles above specified, would be more or less beneficial to most if not all the States, and particularly beneficial to the States and Territories on the Pacific slope and injurious to none, I avail myself of this opportunity to urge upon the Government the very great importance and propriety of now accepting the proposal made by the Hawaiian Government in 1852.

1. It would enable many to purchase their groceries, or a part of them, with the growth, manufa tures, or produce of their own States-the proceeds of their own labor-by an exchange of products, without paying the cash to be transported to another country.

2. It would stimulate commerce between the two countries, and give a more vigorous impulse to the production and manufacture of all the articles specified as articles of exchange free of duty. Whatever stimulates industry and enterprise, though in but a limited degree, should not be overlooked by American statesmen.

Such a treaty would be singularly beneficial to the States and Territories bordering on the Pacific Ocean. It should be remembered that those States and Territories have a superabundance of the finest and most useful timber in the world, which, without some additional advantages held out, will in the nature of things remain useless to the country of their growth and to the world; whereas it is there ready for the axman's labor, an inexhaustible source of wealth if a sufficient market can be found for it.

In connection with these facts it should be remembered that this group of islands is comparatively destitute of useful timnher, while the calmest and safest ocean for navigation on the face of the globe l'es between these two countries, inviting a fair and free exchange of products, as though nature herself, with a logic not to be misunderstood. suggested the propriety of the most amicable relations by reciprocal favors and obligations.

In my opinion, it would give a fresh or vigorous impetus to industry and improvements in both countries, and would furnish useful and honorable employment for hundreds in the Pacific States who otherwise would be comparatively idle,

It would also furnish additional motives to the inhabitants of these islands to be more energetic in raising and preparing produce for market, building houses,

« PrécédentContinuer »