e State of Massachusetts Bay
formerly called the Province of Maine and the colony of Nova Scotia,
agreeably to their respective rights, comprehending all islands within
20 leagues of the shores of the United States and lying between lines to
be drawn due east from the points where the aforesaid boundaries between
Nova Scotia on the one part and East Florida on the other part shall
respectively touch the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic Ocean."

The proposal in the first alternative was to appearance a perfectly fair
one. From an estimate made by Dr. Tiarks, the astronomer of Great
Britain under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, in conformity
with directions from Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, it was
ascertained that the whole disputed territory contained 10,705 square
miles; that the territory bounded by the St. John to its mouth contained
707 square miles less, or 9,998 square miles. The difference at the time
was probably believed to be insensible. The first alternative was,
however, rejected by Great Britain, and obviously on grounds connected
with a difference in supposed advantage between the two propositions.
The American commissioners were satisfied that they could urge no legal
claim along the coast beyond the river St. Croix; they therefore treated
on the other alternative in their instructions--the admitted limits
between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. Even in the former alternative,
Nova Scotia would still have had a northwest angle, for the very use of
the term shows that by the St. John its northwestern and not the
southwestern branch was intended.

At that moment, when the interior of the country was unknown, the
adoption of the St. John as the boundary, even admitting that the
Walloostook, its southwestern branch, is the main stream, would have
given to the United States a territory of more immediate value than
that they now claim. For this very reason the proposition was instantly
rejected by Great Britain, and the State of Massachusetts was forced
to be contented with the distant region now in debate--a region then
believed to be almost inaccessible and hardly fit for human habitation.

Even now, were there not vested private rights on both sides which might
render such a plan difficult of application, the undersigned would not
hesitate to recommend that this line should be accepted in lieu of the
one which is claimed under the treaty of 1783.

It is finally obvious, from the most cu