FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74  
75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   >>   >|  
far _such consent_ would enable the treaty authority to exert its powers. _Citizens_ might be made the subjects of a treaty transfer, and these citizens owing allegiance to the State and to the Union, and allegiance and protection being reciprocally binding, the right to transfer a citizen to a foreign government, to _sell_ him, might well be questioned as being inconsistent with the spirit of our free institutions. But be this as it may, Maine will never concede the principle that the President and two-thirds of the Senate can transfer its territory, much less its citizens, without its permission, given by its constitutional organs. Your committee, however, deem it but fair to admit that they have discovered no inclination in the General Government, or any department of it, to assume this power. On the contrary, the President has repeatedly declined the adoption of a conventional line deviating from the treaty of 1783, upon the express ground that it could not be done without the consent of Maine. It is due, nevertheless, to the State of Maine to say that the committee have no evidence that any conventional line has been proposed to them for their consent. It indeed appears that the consent of Maine had not been given to the adoption of any other boundary than that prescribed by the treaty of 1783 up to the 29th February, 1836, and we are well assured that no proposition for a different boundary has since that time been made to any department of the government of this State. The President of the United States on the 15th June last communicated to the Senate, in compliance with their resolution, a copy of the correspondence relative to the northeastern boundary. This correspondence embraced a period from the 21st July, 1832, to the 5th March, 1836. The opinion and advice of the King of the Netherlands, to whom the controversy was referred by the provisions of the treaty of Ghent, was made on the 10th January, 1831, and of the three questions submitted, viz, _the northeastern boundary, the northwesternmost head of Connecticut River_, and _the forty-fifth parallel of latitude_, he seems to have determined _but one_. He did decide that the source of the stream running into and through Connecticut Lake is the true northwest head of that river as intended by the treaty of 1783; and as to the rest, he _advises_ that it will be _convenient (il conviendra)_ to adopt the "Thalweg," the deepest channel of the St. John an
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74  
75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

treaty

 

consent

 
boundary
 

President

 

transfer

 

Connecticut

 

Senate

 
committee
 

correspondence

 

conventional


adoption

 

northeastern

 

department

 
citizens
 
government
 

allegiance

 

embraced

 
convenient
 

period

 

intended


proposition
 

advises

 
relative
 

conviendra

 

channel

 

States

 

deepest

 

Thalweg

 

resolution

 
communicated

compliance

 

United

 

opinion

 
assured
 

northwesternmost

 
source
 
stream
 

questions

 

submitted

 
decide

parallel

 
latitude
 
determined
 

January

 

Netherlands

 

northwest

 

advice

 
controversy
 
running
 

provisions