NO. 5,
{"character_count": 4866, "word_count": 841, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9769999980926514], "ccnet_perplexity": [1747.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
The President had perceived, Mr.. Me-
Lane said, in all the previous efforts to adj
just the boundary in accordance with the
terms of the treaty of 1888, that natural
and uniform rule, in the settlement ofdis-
puted questions of location, had been quite
overlooked; that the chief, if not only diff
iculty, arose from supposed necessity cf
finding highlands corresponding with the
treaty description in due north line from
the monument; but it was plain, that if such
highlands could be any where discovered,
it would be a legal execution Of the treaty
TO draw line to them from the head of the
St. Croix, without regard to the precise
course gwen in the treaty. 1t therefore be-
came his duty to urge the adoption ofthis
principle upon the Government ofhis Bri-
tannic Majesty, as perhaps the best expe-
dent which remained for ascertaining the
boundary of the treaty of 1888. The Sec
retary could not perceive, in the plan pro-
posed, any thing SO complicated as Sir
Charles appeared to suppose; on the con-
trary it was recommended to appreciation
and confidence by its entire simplicity II
chiefly required the discovery ofthe high
lands, called for by the treaty, and mode
ofreaching them upon the principle sug-
gesed was so simple that no observations
could make it palmer. The difficulty of
discovering such highlands, Mr.. McLane
said, was presumed not to be insuperablc.
The arbiter himself was not understood to
have found it impracticable to discover
highlands answering the description of the
highlands of the treaty, though unable to
find them due north from the monument.
aud certainly it could not be more difficult
+ for commissioners on the spot to arrive
at conclusion satisfactory to their own
Judgment as to the locality Of the high
lands.


Mr.. LcLane, in answer to Sir Charles's
request for information on the subject, sta
ted that the difficulty in the way of the
! adoption Of the line recommended by the
arbitel, was the want of authority in the
Government of the United States to agree
to line, not only confessedly different
from the line called for by the treaty, but
which would deprive the State Of Name Of
portion of territory to which ishe would
be entitled according to the line OF the de-
fnitive treaty; that, by the Presidents pro-
position, commission would be raised,
not to establish new line differing from
the treaty of 1898, but to determine what
the true and original boundary was, and in
which of the two disagreeing parties the
right to the disputed territory originally
was; that, for this purpose, the authority Of
the original commissioners. if they could
have agreed, was complete under the Ghent
treaty, and that of the new commission
proposed to be constituted could not be
less.


Sir Charles R. Vaughan explained UNI
der date of the 24th of March, with regard
to his observation ,I'' that the mode in which
it was proposed by the United States to
settle the boundary, was complicated; that
he did not mean to apply it to the adoption
of rule in the settlement of disputed ques-
lions oT location, but in the manner in
which j. was proposed by the United States
that a new commission Of survey shall be
selected and constituted


On the 9TH of December, 1884, Sir
Charles r. Vaughan transmitted note TO
the Department of State, in which, after
passing expression of the regret of his Ma
iesty's Government, that the American
Government still declined to come to sep
ara.e understanding on the several points
of difference with respect to which the ele-
ments of decision were fully before both
Governments; but, without abandoning the
argument contained in his note Of 10th
February last, he addressed himself exclu-
siyely to the American proposition for the
appointment of a new commission to be
empowered to seek westward Of the meri-
di n of the ST. Croix, highlands answering
to the description of those mentioned il the
treaty Of 1883. He stated, with regard to-
the rule Of surveying, on which the propo-
stion was founded, that however just and
reasonable in might be, MS Majesty Cow
ernment did not consider i SO generally
established andrecognised sMr. McLane
assumed it to be; that, indeed, no similar
case was recollected in which the princi-
pie asserted had been put in practice; yet,
on the contrary, one was remembered, not
only analogous to that under discussion,
but arising out of the same article of the
i same treaty, in which the supposed rule
was inverted by the agents Of the Ameri-
can Government itself; that the treaty Of
1888 declared that the line of boundary
was to proceed from the Lake Of the
Woods .'in due west course 10 the Mis-
sissippi;" but il being ascertained that such
line could never reach that river, since
its sources lay south ofthe latitude Of the,
/ Lake of the Woods, the commissioners
i instead Of adhering to the natural object,
al M.ossos,o,.f and f4rH<rfuf o.