Doubts in respect to the particular river intended to be understood by the name of the St. Croix having arisen, an article was inserted in the treaty of commerce signed in London in November, 1794, by Lord Grenville on the part of Great Britain and by John Jay on the part of the United States.[41] This article, the fifth of that treaty, provided for the appointment of a joint commission with full powers to decide that question.  This commission was constituted in conformity, and the award was accepted by both Governments.[42] The river designated in this award became thenceforth the true St. Croix, however erroneous may have been the grounds on which it was decided so to be.  When, therefore, in the fourth article of the treaty of Ghent it is declared that the due north line from the source of the St. Croix has not been surveyed, and when in this and the other articles of the same treaty all other uncertain parts of the boundary are recited, the validity of the decision of the commissioners under the fifth article of Jay’s treaty is virtually acknowledged.  Nay, more; the acknowledgment is completed by the stipulation in the second article of the treaty of Ghent that “all territory, places, and possessions taken by either party during the war,” with certain exceptions, shall be forthwith restored to their previous possessors.[43] The only exceptions are the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay; and had it been believed that any uncertainty in respect to the adjacent territory existed it would not have been neglected.  Nay, more; all the settlements lying within the line claimed by Great Britain before the commission created by the treaty of 1794 had been taken, and were in her actual possession at the time the treaty of Ghent took effect, and were forthwith restored to the jurisdiction of the United States.  When, also, it became necessary to proceed to the investigation of the second point of the discussion, the agents and surveyors of both parties proceeded as a matter of course to the point marked in 1798 as the source of the St. Croix.[44] This point is therefore fixed and established beyond the possibility of cavil, and the faith of both Governments is pledged that it shall not be disturbed.

[Footnote 41:  See Note I, pp. 141,142.]

[Footnote 42:  See Note II, p. 142.]

[Footnote 43:  See Note III, pp. 142,143.]

[Footnote 44:  See Note IV, p. 143.]

II.—­DUE NORTH LINE FROM THE SOURCE OF THE ST. CROIX.

The treaty of 1783 provides that the boundary from the source of the St. Croix shall be drawn “directly north.”  In relation to this expression no possible doubt can arise.  It is neither susceptible of more than a single meaning nor does it require illustration from any extrinsic source.  The undersigned, therefore, do not consider that so much of the argument of Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh as attempts to show that this line ought to be drawn in any other direction than due north requires any reply on the