most material point in the line of the true boundary, both as it
respects the difficulty of the subject and the extent of territory and
dominions of the respective Governments, the arbiter not only failed to
decide, but acknowledged his inability to decide, thereby imposing upon
both Governments the unavoidable necessity of resorting to further
negotiation to ascertain the treaty boundary and absolving each party
from any obligation to adopt his recommendations. The Secretary also
declined to admit that of the three main points referred to the arbiter
as necessary to ascertain the boundary of the treaty he had decided two.
On the first point, Mr. McLane said, it was not contended a decision was
made or that either the angle or the highlands called for by the treaty
was found, and on the third point an opinion merely was expressed that
it would be suitable to proceed to fresh operations to measure the
observed latitude, etc.

The Secretary admitted that if the American proposition should be
acceded to by His Majesty's Government and the commission hereafter to
be appointed should result in ascertaining the true situation of the
boundary called for by the treaty of 1783, that it would be afterwards
necessary, in order to ascertain the true line, to settle the other two
points according to which it should be traced. He therefore offered,
if the American proposition should be acceded to, notwithstanding the
obligatory effect of the decision of the arbiter on the point is denied,
"to take the stream situated farthest to the northwest among those which
fall into the northernmost of the three lakes, the last of which bears
the name of Connecticut Lake, as the north-westernmost head of the
Connecticut River according to the treaty of 1783;" and as it respects
the third point referred to the arbiter, the line of boundary on the
forty-fifth degree of latitude, but upon which he failed to decide, the
President would agree, if the proposition as to the first point was
embraced, to adopt the old line surveyed and marked by Valentine and
Collins in 1771 and 1772.

The Secretary then proceeded to state further and insuperable objections
to an acquiescence by the United States in the opinions supposed to have
been pronounced by the arbiter in the course of his reasoning upon the
first point submitted to him. He remarked that the views expressed
by the arbiter on these subordinate matters could not be regarded as
decisions within the m