Brunswick, and notified the Government of his arrival and official capacity. He was not received in his official capacity. From what cause that arose, whether from their own policy, or their misconstruction of the power and authority of the Governor of this State, is not certain. It seems to us there would have been no objection to the recognition of the agent of this State, had his commission been only to demand a fugitive from justice, or that the Governor of New Brunswick would consider that he was transcending his power, were he to send an agent to this State to demand a fugitive from his own Government. Notwithstanding he was not received in an official character, we are happy to have it in our power to say, that he was politely received by the gentlemen of the place. The object of his agency, therefore, so far as it related to the arrest and imprisonment of Baker, totally failed, as it did also in some other respects. His official capacity embraced two objects: 1st. To demand a delivery of persons. 2d. To obtain public information. If not recognised for any other purpose, he might have been permitted as a person authorized to inquire into the truth of facts, important to the rights of the people of the State, and peace of the country. From all the facts, we cannot perceive on what ground they can justify the violation of the State and National sovereignty in the arrest of Baker, on his own soil and freehold, which he holds in fee under the States of Massachusetts and Maine, and the other acts of their officers on the Aroostook. On the ground of title they have no justification, and they can only justify themselves on the ground of a possession de facto, which cannot by the acknowledged principles of law be extended beyond actual occupation. In the case of Baker the settlement on his lot was commenced not within even a possession de facto, feeble and slender as that would be; and in relation to the Aroostook, there is not even a possession of any kind, unless it has been acquired by the lawless depredations of individuals, for which they have, from time to time, atoned by settlements with the agents of the State of Maine. Even the few, who have settled on the Aroostook, settled there considering it to be within this State, and intending also to settle out of the province of New Brunswick. I he course pursued by the British must be accounted for on another principle, than a cautious abstinence of the exercise of authority which could invite encroachments as a measure of retaliation.' When the British are thus attempting to extend their intrusion, and imprisoning and otherwise harassing by legal process citizens of Maine, they have constitutional claims on her protection; and although Massachusetts and Maine, from the treaty of peace, have exercised the same jurisdiction over all the wild lands which had not been particularly appropriated for cultivation to this time; if such acts are repeated, it cannot be expected that Maine will be a quiet spectator. It will be her duty to enforce her laws within her own jurisdiction, and to protect her own rights and the rights of her citizens. The Government of the United States have a duty to perform towards the State, and its citizens, not less towards those who are forcibly taken from the territory, and imprisoned, than towards those who are taken from the national marine. An agent has been sent to the province of New Brunswick, who has returned, and we have a confidence that the whole business will be adjusted, and that the constitutional rights of the State, and the liberties and rights of the citizens, will be protected and preserved. Your committee, impressed with the importance of the subject to this State, and the United States, and approving most cordially, of the measures taken by the Governor, believe, from the past, that the State has a well founded assurance that its best interests will be protected, and its constitutional rights preserved. JOHN L. MEGQUIER, This report was unanimously adopted by both branches of the Legislature of Maine, February 18, 1832. Official Decision of the King of the Netherlands. Department of State of the U. States, Washington, 18th March, 1831. To his Excellency, Samuel E. Smith, Governor of the State of Maine. SIR: By the President's direction, I have the honor to transmit, herewith, to your Excellency, a copy and translation of the award given in relation to the Northeastern Boundary of the United States, upon the question which was submitted to the King of the Netherlands, by this Government and that of Great Britain concerning that Boundarywhich award was officially delivered to the Minister of the United States at the Hague, on the tenth of January last, and by him forwarded to this Department, where it was received on the 18th instant, with a view of making your Excellency acquainted with the state of this transaction, as received here. I also transmit herewith a copy of the Protest which the Minister of the United States at the Hague thought it his duty, without instructions to that effect from the President, to address to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government to which he is accredited, against the award referred to,-together with extracts from his despatch to this Department, showing the character of his Protest, and the ground upon which it was made; and a copy of the correspondence between himself and Sir Charles Bagot, the Ambassador of Great Britain at the same Court, upon the subject. Mr Preble has asked leave of absence, for the purpose of visit ing the United States, which will be forthwith granted, and expressed an earnest wish that he may be further heard upon the subject, before any measures in regard to it are adopted by the President. I have the honor, likewise, by direction of the President, to repeat the assurance which I made to your Excellency, in his behalf, in my letter of the 9th instant, that the subject of this award will receive all the attention and consideration to which its great importance, and the interests of the State of Maine, so materially involved therein, especially entitle it, in the Councils of the Executive of the United States; and to add that no time will be lost in communicating to your Excellency, the result of his deliberations upon it, as soon as he shall have determined upon the course which a sense of his high and responsible duties may suggest as proper on the occasion. Under these circumstances, the President will rely with confidence under the candor and liberality of your Excellency, and the other constituted authorities of Maine, in appreciating the motives which may influence that course on his part, and in a correspondent interpretation of them to your constituents, in whose patriotism and discretion he has equal confidence. In making this communication to your Excellency, I am instructed by the President to express his desire that, while the matter is under deliberation, no steps may be taken by the State of Maine, with regard to the disputed territory, which might be calculated to interrupt and embarrass the action of the Executive branch of this Government upon the subject. I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, your Excellency's most ob't servant, M. VAN BUREN. Translation. WILLIAM, by the Grace of God, King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, &c. &c. &c. Having accepted the functions of Arbitrator conferred upon us by the note of the Charge d' Affaires of the United States of America, and by that of the Embassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, to our Minister of Foreign Affairs, under the date of 12th January, 1829, agreeably to the 5th article of the Treaty of Ghent, of the 24th December, 1814, and the 1st article of the Convention concluded between those Powers, at London, on the 29th September, 1827, in the difference which has arisen between them on the subject of the boundaries of their respective possessions: Animated by a sincere desire of answering, by a scrupulous and impartial decision, they have testified to us, and thus to give them a new proof of the high value we attach to it: Having, to that effect, duly examined and maturely weighed the contents of the first statement, as well as those of the definitive statement of the said difference, which have been respectively delivered to us on the 1st of April of the year 1830, by the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, and the Embassador Extraordinary of the Britannic Majesty, with all the documents thereto annexed in support of them : Desirous of fulfilling, at this time, the obligations I have contracted in accepting the functions of Arbitrator in the aforesaid difference, by laying before the two High Interested Parties the result of our examination, and our opinion on the three points into which, by common accord, the contestation is divided: Considering, That the three points above mentioned ought to be decided according to the treaties, acts, and conventions concluded between the two Powers; that is to say the Treaty of Peace of 1783, the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1794, the Declaration relative to the river St Croix of 1798, the Treaty of Peace signed at Ghent in 1814, the Convention of the 29th September, 1827, and Mitchell's Map, and the Map A. referred to in that Convention: We declare that, As to the first point, to wit, the question, which is the place designated in the treaties as the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and what are the highlands dividing the rivers that empty themselves into the river St Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, along which is to be drawn the line of boundary, from that angle to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river. claim that line of boundary at the south, and at the north river St John; and having each indicated, upon the map, A. the line which they claim: Considering, That according to the instances alleged, the term highland applies not only to a hilly or elevated country, but also to land which, without being hilly divides waters flowing in different directions, and that thus the character more or less hilly and elevated of the country through which are drawn the two lines respectively claimed, at the north and at the south, of the river St John, cannot form the basis of a choice between them. That the text of the 2d Article of the treaty of 1783, recites, in part, the words previously used, in the Proclamation of 1763, and in the Quebec act of 1774, to indicate the southern boundaries of the Government of Quebec, from Lake Champlain, in forty five degrees of north latitude, along the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea, and also along the north coast of the Bay des Chaleurs.' That in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 1782, it was established that Nova Scotia should be bounded at the north, as far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleurs, by the southern boundary of the province of Quebec; that this delimitation is again found, with respect to the province of Quebec, in the commission of the Governor General of Quebec of Considering, That the High 1786, wherein the language of Interested Parties respectively the Proclamation of 1763, and of the Quebec act of 1774, has been used, as also in the commissions of 1786, and others of subsequent dates of the Governors of New Brunswick, with respect to the lastmentioned province, as well as in a great number of maps anterior and posterior, to the treaty of 1783; and that the 1st Article of the said treaty specifies, by name, the States whose independence is acknowledged: But that this mention does not imply (implique) the entire coincidence of the boundaries between the two Powers, as settled by the following Article, with the ancient delimitation of the British provinces, whose preservation is not mentioned in the treaty of 1783, and which owing to its continual changes, and the uncertainty which continued to exist respecting it, created, from time to time, differences between the provincial authorities: That there results from the line drawn under the treaty of 1783, through the great lakes, west of the river St Lawrence, a departure from the ancient provincial charters, with regard to those boundaries: That one would vainly attempt to explain why, if the intention was to retain the ancient provincial boundary, Mitchell's map, published in 1755, and consequently anterior to the Proclamation of 1763, and to the Quebec act of 1774, was precisely the one used in the negotiation of 1783: That Great Britain proposed, at first, the river Piscataqua as the eastern boundary of the United States; and did not subse quently agree to the proposition to cause the boundary of Maine, or Massachusetts bay, to be ascertained at a later period : That the treaty of Ghent stipulated for a new examination on the spot, which could not be made applicable to an historical or administrative boundary : And that, therefore, the ancient delimitation of the British provinces, does not, either, afford the basis of a decision : That the longitude of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which ought to coincide with that of the source of the St Croix river, was determined only by the Declaration of 1798, which indicated that river: That the treaty of Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation of 1794, alludes to the doubt which had arisen with respect to the river St Croix, and that the first instructions of the Congress, at the time of the negotiations which resulted in the treaty of 1783, locate the said angle at the source of the river St John : That the latitude of that angle is upon the banks of the St Lawrence, according to Mitchell's map, which is acknowledged to have regulated the combined and official labors of the negotiators of the treaty of 1783; whereas, agreeably to the delimitation of the Government of Quebec, it is to be looked for at the highlands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St Lawrence, from those which fall into the sea: That the nature of the ground east of the beforementioned angle not having been indicated by |