possession of Great Britain. Sir Charles denied that the acquiescence of
the United States in the seven subordinate points lately submitted by
His Majesty's Government would confine the negotiation to a conventional
line, to which the President had no authority to agree, and affirmed
that not a step could be taken by the commissioners to be appointed
according to Mr. Livingston's proposition, notwithstanding the
unlimited discretion which it was proposed to give them, unless the
two Governments agreed upon two of the seven subordinate points--"the
character of the land they are to discover as dividing waters according
to the treaty of 1783 and what are to be considered as Atlantic rivers."
In answer to Mr. McLane's observation that on many points the reasoning
of the arbiter had been more favorable to the United States than to
Great Britain, and that therefore acquiescence should equally apply to
all the premises assumed, Sir Charles expressed his confidence that if
acquiescence in them could facilitate the object which now occupied both
Governments they would meet with the most favored consideration. Sir
Charles adverted to the obligations contracted under the seventh article
of the convention, to the opinion of His Majesty's Government that they
were binding and its willingness to abide by the award of the arbiter.
He referred to the small majority by which he supposed the award to have
been defeated in the Senate of the United States and a new negotiation
advised to be opened, to the complicated nature of the plan proposed
by the United States for another attempt to trace the boundary of
the treaty, to the rejection of the points proposed by the British
Government to render that plan more practicable, etc., and regretted
sincerely that the award of the arbiter, which conferred upon the United
States three-fifths of the disputed territory, together with Rouses
Point--a much greater concession than is ever likely to be obtained
by a protracted negotiation--was set aside. An alleged insuperable
constitutional difficulty having occasioned the rejection of the award,
Sir Charles wished to ascertain previously to any further proceedings
how far the General Government had the power to carry into effect any
arrangement resulting from a new negotiation, the answer of Mr. McLane
upon this point having been confined to stating that should a new
commission of survey, freed from the restriction of following the due
north line of t