a. Grand Portage the point of departure from Lake Superior 20 20 Testimony of Wm. McGillvray. Petition of Frobisher 21 21 UNITED STATES-Continued: III. Running the Line: 1. Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty of Ghent.. 2. Commissioners appointed... 3. Manner of determining the line. 4. Work of the commissioners criticised 5. Report of General Porter.. 6. Completion of the line through Lake Huron.. 7. Work under the 7th article.. a. Interpretation of the treaty. b. Disagreement regarding St. George's Island c. Disagreement regarding point of departure from Lake Superior . British claim St. Louis river.... Americans claim Kamanistiqua.. Attempts to compromise. Failure to determine the line 8. Michigan admitted. 9. Need of determining the line.... 10. Webster-Ashburton Treaty. IV. Review.. a. Proposals regarding St. George's Island. b. Proposals regarding point of departure from Lake Superior. c. The line settled.... d. Criticism of the line... President's message Senator Benton... V. The Fabulous Island. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY LINE OF MICHIGAN. Michigan The French, following in the wake of their intrepid leaders, Joliet and Marquette, were the first Europeans to explore and so to under the claim the region of which Michigan now forms a part.1 In 1613 the name "New France" was given to the region with indefinite boundaries, but probably extending from the Ohio river to the north of the Great Lakes and from the Atlantic west of the same lakes.3 In those days exact boundaries were impossible in the little known west, nor were they needed while the country was still only a hunting and fishing ground. For a hundred years after New France was named, nothing was done by France or England to define the boundaries of their North American possessions. In 1713, when the Treaty of Utrecht was drawn up, provision was made for a commission to settle the boundary of the Hudson Bay Company and "in like manner, the boundaries between the other British and French colonies in those parts."5 These commissioners are supposed to have suggested the 49° parallel as a dividing line between the western possessions of the two countries, but Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis says there is no evidence in either French or English archives of such a commission being appointed." It is, however, of little consequence whether the commissioners were appointed or not. Certainly nothing was done to establish a dividing line between French and English territory. Nor was the Commission, which we know was appointed according to a provision of the Treaty of Aix le Chapelle, any more successful. This Commission worked for three years to establish a line of division but, as France claimed "All countries watered by streams falling into the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi;" and England's claim would have reduced the French possessions "to the patch on the American map now represented by the province of Quebec, or rather by a part of it," their labors were in vain. 8 1 Winsor, "Narrative and Critical History of America," Vol. IV, Chap. V. 2 Jeffery's "French Dominions in North and South America," p. 99. 3 Hart, Epoch Maps," Nos. 2 and 4. Winsor, "Narrative and Critical History of America," Vol. IV, pp. 208, 228, 258-259; Vol. V, p. 84. Winsor, "From Cartier to Frontenac," gives a series of maps illustrating the growth of knowledge about these regions. 4 Mills, "Report on the Boundaries of Ontario," p. 229. 5 Treaty of Utrecht, article X, in Jenkinson's "Collection of Treaties," Vol. II, p. 34. 6 State Papers, "Foreign Relations," Vol. III, p. 97. 7 Treaties and Conventions," p. 1324. Treaty, article IX. Mills, "Report on the Boundaries of Ontario," pp. 95, 109, 119. Annual Register 1761, p. 254. 9 Parkman, "Montcalm and Wolfe," Vol. I, pp. 124-126.. 76 |