any further negotiation, claimed from the
Government of the United States an acquiescence in the decisions
pronounced by the arbiter upon all those points which he had decided,
and as a preliminary to any attempt to settle the remaining point by
negotiation to be satisfied that the Federal Government was possessed of
the necessary powers to carry into effect any arrangement upon which the
two parties might agree.

With respect to the proposition made by the American Government, Sir
Charles thought that the difficulty which was found insurmountable as
against the line recommended by the King of the Netherlands, viz., the
want of authority to agree to any line which might imply a cession of
any part of the territory to which the treaty as hitherto interpreted by
the United States might appear to entitle one of the component States of
the Union, would be equally fatal to that suggested by Mr. Livingston,
since a line drawn from the head of the St. Croix to highlands found to
the westward of the meridian of that spot would not be the boundary of
the treaty and might be more justly objected to by Maine and with more
appearance of reason than that proposed by the arbiter.

The reply of Mr. McLane to the preceding note is dated on the 11th of
March. He expressed his regret that His Britannic Majesty's Government
should still consider any part of the opinion of the arbiter obligatory
on either party. Those opinions, the Secretary stated, could not have
been carried into effect by the President without the concurrence of the
Senate, who, regarding them not only as not determining the principal
object of the reference, but as in fact deciding that object to be
impracticable, and therefore recommending to the two parties a boundary
not even contemplated either by the treaty or by the reference nor
within the power of the General Government to take, declined to give
their advice and consent to the execution of the measures recommended by
the arbiter, but did advise the Executive to open a new negotiation for
the ascertainment of the boundary in pursuance of the treaty of 1783,
and the proposition of Mr. Livingston, submitted in his letter of 30th
of April, 1833, accordingly proceeded upon that basis. Mr. McLane denied
that a decision, much less the expression of an opinion, by the arbiter
upon some of the disputed points, but of a character not to settle the
real controversy, was binding upon either party, and he alleged that
the