In reply to the observation of Mr. Fox that it was difficult to understand upon what ground an expectation could have been entertained that the proposition to make the St. John the boundary would be received by Her Majesty’s Government, he was informed that the suggestion had been offered, as the proposition on the part of Great Britain that led to it was supposed to have been, with regard to the extent of territory lost or acquired by the respective parties, and in the hope that the great importance of terminating this controversy by establishing a definite and indisputable boundary would be seen and acknowledged by the British Government, and have a correspondent weight in influencing its decision; that the suggestion in Mr. Bankhead’s note of 28th December, 1835, of a part of the river St. John as a portion of the general outline of a conventional boundary, apparently recognized the superior advantages of a river over a highland boundary, and that no difficulty was anticipated on the part of Her Majesty’s Government in understanding the grounds upon which such a proposal was expected to be entertained by it, since the precedent proposition of Mr. Bankhead just alluded to, although based upon the principle of an equal division between the parties, could not be justified by it, as it would have given nearly two-thirds of the disputed territory to Great Britain; that it was therefore fair to presume that the river line, in the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, presented advantages sufficient to counterbalance any loss of territory by either party that might accrue from its adoption; and it was also supposed that another recommendation of this line would be seen by Great Britain in the fact that whilst by its adoption the right of jurisdiction alone would have been yielded to the United States over that portion of New Brunswick south of the St. John, Great Britain would have acquired the right of soil and jurisdiction of all the disputed territory north of that river.

To correct a misapprehension into which Mr. Fox appeared to have fallen, the distinctive difference between the American proposition for a commission and that proposition as subsequently modified by Great Britain was pointed out, and he was informed that although the proposal originated with this Government, the modification was so fundamentally important that it entirely changed the nature of the proposition, and that the supposition, therefore, that it was rather for the Government of the United States than for that of Great Britain to answer the inquiry preferred by the Secretary of State for information relative to the manner in which the report of the commission as proposed to be constituted and instructed by the British Government might tend to a practical result was unfounded.  Mr. Fox was also given to understand that any decision made by a commission constituted in the manner proposed by the United States and instructed to seek for the highlands of the treaty of 1783 would be binding upon this Government and could be carried into effect without unnecessary delay; but if the substitute presented by Her Majesty’s Government should be insisted on and its principles be adopted, it would then be necessary to resort to the State of Maine for her assent in all proceedings relative to the matter, since any arrangement under it can only be for a conventional line to which she must be a party.