of the 11th and 28th of March, 1834, on this subject, in which it will be seen that the Government of the United States appears to have contemplated as one of the possible results of the proposed commission of exploration that such additional information might possibly be obtained respecting the features of the country in the district to which the treaty relates as might remove all doubt as to the impracticability of laying down a boundary in accordance with the letter of the treaty.

And if the investigations of the proposed commission should show that there is no reasonable prospect of finding a line strictly conformable with the description contained in the treaty of 1783, the constitutional difficulties which now prevent the United States from agreeing to a conventional line may possibly be removed, and the way may thus be prepared for the satisfactory settlement of the difference by an equitable division of the disputed territory.

But if the two Governments should agree to the appointment of such a commission it would be necessary that their agreement should be first recorded in a convention, and it would obviously be indispensable that the State of Maine should be an assenting party to the arrangement.

The undersigned, in making the above communication by order of Her Majesty’s Government to the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, has the honor to renew to him the assurance of his high respect and consideration.

H.S.  FOX.

Mr. Forsyth to Mr. Fox.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, February 6, 1838.

HENRY S. FOX, Esq., etc.: 

The undersigned, Secretary of State of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the note of Mr. Fox, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, of the 10th ultimo, in which he presents, by direction of his Government, certain observations in respect to the construction to be given to that part of the award of the arbiter on the question of the northeastern boundary which relates to the character in which the rivers St. John and Restigouche are to be regarded in reference to that question.  Sir Charles Vaughan, in his note to Mr. McLane of February 10, 1834, alleged that although the arbiter had not decided the first of the three main questions proposed to him, yet that he had determined certain subordinate points connected with that question upon which the parties had entertained different views, and among others that the rivers St. John and Restigouche could not be considered, according to the meaning of the treaty, as “rivers flowing into the Atlantic.”  The undersigned, in his note to Sir Charles R. Vaughan of the 28th of April, 1835, questioned the correctness of the interpretation which had been given by Sir Charles to the award of the arbiter in this particular, and after quoting that part of the award to which Sir Charles was supposed to refer as containing the