t
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 part of the United States. Admitting that the
words had been originally used as a mistranslation of terms in the Latin
grant of James I to Sir William Alexander, the misconception was equally
shared by both parties to the treaty of 1783; and it will be shown
hereafter that this misconception, if any, had its origin in British
official papers. Were it capable of proof beyond all possibility of
denial that the limit of the grant to Sir William Alexander was intended
to be a line drawn toward the northwest instead of the north it would
not affect the question. So far as that grant was used by American
negotiators to illustrate the position of the northwest angle of Nova
Scotia it would have failed to fulfill the object, but such failure in
illustration does not involve the nullity of the treaty itself.

That the translation which has hitherto been universally received as
correct of the terms in the grant to Sir William Alexander is the true
one, and that the new construction which is now attempted to be put upon
it is inaccurate, will be shown in another place,[45] where will also be
exhibited an error committed in rendering the sense of another part of
that instrument. The consideration of the correctness or incorrectness
of the several translations can form no part of the present argument.
While, therefore, it is denied that Messrs. Mudge and Featherstonhaugh
have succeeded in showing that the grant to Sir William Alexander has
been mistranslated, it is maintained that an error in the translat