The enumeration of the settlers on the Madawasca, as a part of the population of the United States, which took place in 1820, was not under the authority of the state of Maine; it was made in virtue of the laws of the United States, and by officers duly commissioned by them. Mr. Vaughan says, there was a remonstrance against it at the time; no trace of any such remonstrance is discernible in the records of this department.

In the note which Mr. Vaughan addressed to the undersigned, on the 21st day of November last, it was stated that the Lieut. Governor of New-Brunswick had resolved to maintain the disputed territory in the state in which it was at the conclusion of the treaty of Ghent that treaty was signed on the 24th of December, 1814, and the exchange of its ratifications was made on the 17th day of Feb. ruary, of the ensuing year. More than seven years thereafter, and four years after the interview between Sir Charles Bagot and the Secretary of State, certain persons, without authority, settled them. selves on the waste and uninhabited lands of the Aroostook, within the disputed territory, supposing that they were occupying American ground. Within only three or four years past, the provincial government has undertaken to issue civil process against the settlers, for the purpose of enforcing the collection of debts, and the performance of other social duties. The undersigned, in his note of the 20th ultimo, has stated that he could not reconcile this exercise of jurisdiction with the above resolution of the Lieutenant Governor of New-Brunswick, and he is still unable to perceive their compati. bility. If the Lieut. Governor had

applied to the government of the United States, to remove the settlers, he would have manifested a disposition to preserve the disputed territory in the state in which it was at the conclusion of the treaty of Ghent. But, by treating the settlers as British subjects, and enforcing on them British laws, there is, at the same time, a manifest departure from the resolution formed by the Lieut. Governor, and a disregard of the lawful rights of the United States. If a succession of illegal settlements can be made within the territory, and of these unauthorized intru. sions lay a just ground for the exercise of British authority, and the enforcement of British laws, it is obvious that, so far from maintaining the country in the uninhabited state in which it was at the date of the Treaty of Ghent, the whole of it may become peopled, and be brought, with its inhabi tants, under British subjection.

Mr. Vaughan supposes that the acts of British authority, to which the undersigned, in the course of this correspondence, has had occasion to object, can in no shape affect the final settlement of the boundary, nor tend to strengthen the claims of Great Britain, nor in any manner to invalidate the rights of the United States. If there were an absolute certainty of a speedy settlement of the boundary within a definite time, Mr. Vaughan might be correct in supposing that the rights of the respective parties would not be ultimately affected by those acts of jurisdiction. But it is now near half a century since the conclusion of the treaty of peace, out of which the controversy grows, and it is more than thirteen years since the final rati. fication of that of Ghent, providing

a mode of amicably settling the dis. pute. It remains unadjusted. Mr. Vaughan, himself, has repeatedly expressed regret, in which the undersigned has fully participated, on account of the delay. Judging from past experience, as well as the uncertainty of human affairs in general, we are far from being sure when a decision will take place. If, in the mean time, Great Britain were to be allowed quietly to possess herself of the disputed territory, and to extend her sway over it, she would have no motive for co-operating in quickening the termination of the settlement of the question. Without imputing to her a disposition to procrastination, she would, in such a state of things, be in the substantial enjoyment of all the advantages of a decision of the controversy in her favour. The President of the United States cannot consent to this unequal condition of the parties: and the undersigned, in conclusion, is charged again to protest against the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction, on the part of the government of the province of New. Brunswick; and to announce to Mr. Vaughan, that that government will be responsible for all the consequences, whatever they may be, to which any of those acts of jurisdiction may lead.

The undersigned requests Mr. Vaughan to accept the renewed assurances of his high consideration. H. CLAY.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, 17th March, 1828.

Mr. Vaughan to Mr. Clay. The Hon. HENRY CLAY, &c. &c. &c.-The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extra. ordinary and Minister Plenipoten

tiary, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note of the Secretary of State of the United States, dated the 17th instant, in which, in order to guard against any misrepresention of his silence, he has taken occasion to express his decided dissent from the principles and opinions advanced by the undersigned, in justification of certain acts of jurisdiction which have been exercised in the disputed territory by the provincial authorities of New Brunswick.

As it is the intention of the undersigned to submit to the consideration of His Majesty's government the correspondence which has taken place between the Secretary of State of the United States and himself, he is not disposed to prolong the discussion respecting the exercise of jurisdiction in the disputed territory.

When he received the complaints against the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor of NewBrunswick, he thought it his duty to suggest the grounds upon which that conduct might be justified, and the irritation might be mitigated which was likely to arise out of it.

The undersigned is at a loss to understand the distinction made by Mr. Clay, between the actual and constructive possession of the disputed territory, previously to the conclusion of the treaty of 1783. Though a part of that territory was uninhabited, and in a state of waste, so far from neither party having the actual possession, the sovereignty and possession of the entire Province of Nova Scotia was vested indisputably in His Britannic Majesty, and it is the received opinion that the Plenipotentiaries engaged in concluding the treaty of 1783, did intend, and did agree to leave untouched, the rights of

His Majesty over the province of Nova Scotia.

The boundary, from the mouth of the river St. Croix to its sources, is clearly defined; the right continuation of the line entirely depends upon the position of the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, which the British commissioners of boundary, under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, have placed at Mars Hill, and the American commissioners have placed at a great distance to the northward, and not far from the right bank of the river St. Lawrence.

The undersigned agrees with Mr. Clay in wishing to avoid any discussion of the claims of the respective governments; but he has ventured to point out the very great difference between the commis. sioners of boundary, as he conceives that, until that difference shall be reconciled, jurisdiction must continue to be exercised within the disputed limits by the original possessors. A joint jurisdiction appears to the undersigned inadmissible, as it must prove impracticable.

The undersigned cannot acquiesce in the opinion given by Mr. Clay, that the issuing of legal process, within the last few years, in a settlement upon the river Aroostook, formed originally in an unau. thorized manner by stragglers from other districts, is to be considered as an infringement of the engagement of the Lieutenant Governor of New-Brunswick to preserve the disputed territory in the state in which it was at the conclusion of the treaty of Ghent. These settlements were established previously to the government of New. Brunswick being confided to Sir Howard Douglas; and the under signed conceives that it was not

optional in his excellency to exercise, or not, jurisdiction within the limits of his province.

Proceedings in a tract of land upon the river Madawasca, in which a settlement was established soon after the treaty of 1783, by French Acadians, have furnished, repeatedly, cause of remonstrance to both governments. From the date of 1786, the laws by which those settlers have been governed, and the magistrates by whom those laws have been executed, have been derived from New-Brunswick. Whether any, and what part of that settlement belongs to the United States, depends upon the provisions of the treaty of 1783. Until the two governments can agree upon the true intent of that treaty, possession and actual jurisdiction remains with Great Britain.

It is true that, in 1820, there was an attempt to invalidate that jurisdiction, when the marshal of the state of Maine sent an agent to enumerate the population of that settlement, under a law enacted by the general government of the Uni ted States. The undersigned learns, with regret, that there is no record in the department of state of a remonstrance against that proceeding by the British government, as he had asserted. Such was the conviction upon his mind, justified by the frequent remonstrances which he has been called upon to make, since the summer of 1825, against proceedings of agents from the state of Maine, authorized to sell lands, and to lay out roads and townships in the same district.

With regard to the arrest of Baker, the Secretary of State, in his last note, seems to think, that as he committed the outrage for which he was taken up under a conviction that he was upon ter.

ritory belonging to the United States, a representation should have been made of his offence to the government of the latter.

The undersigned has only to refer the Secretary of State to his note dated the 27th February, where it is shown that Baker was perfectly aware of his residing within the jurisdiction of New. Brunswick, as he had received the provincial bounty for corn raised upon land newly brought into cultivation.

The undersigned regrets that he should have found himself under the necessity of making the foregoing observations; and he cannot Conclude without expressing his earnest wish that the reference to

arbitration may relieve the Secre. tary of State, and the undersigned, from any further discussion relative to the boundary on the north eastern frontier of the United States.

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Mr. Clay the assurance of his distinguished consideration.

CHAS. R. VAUGHAN. Washington, March 25, 1828.

MR. CLAY TO MR. LAWRENCE. Department of State, Washington, March 31, 1828. Wm. B. Lawrence, Chargé d'Af.

faires, London.

SIRI transmit herewith a copy of a correspondence which has passed between Mr. Vaughan, the British minister, and this de. partment, respecting the exercise. of jurisdiction, on the part of the province of New-Brunswick, within the territory respectively claimed by the United States and Great Britain, on our northeastern bor. der. In the course of it you will

remark, that we have demanded the liberation of John Baker, a citizen of the United States, and full indemnity for the wrongs which he has suffered by the seizure of his person within the limits of the state of Maine, and his subsequent abduction and confinement at Frederickton in jail. We have also demanded, that the government of New-Brunswick shall cease from the exercise of all and every act of exclusive jurisdiction within the disputed territory, until the question of right is settled by the two governments. The considerations which have led to those demands are so fully set out in the correspondence, that it is not deemed necessary now to repeat them. The President charges me to instruct you to address an official note to the British government, calling upon it to interpose its au. thority with the provincial government to enforce a compliance with both demands. The government of the United States cannot consent to the exercise of any sepa. rate British jurisdiction within any part of the state of Maine, as the limits of that state are defined by the treaty of 1783, prior to the decision of the question of title. And if there be a perseverance in the exercise of such jurisdiction, this government will not hold itself responsible for the consequences. It may, and probably will be urged, that if the province of New-Brunswick should abstain from exerting its authority over the inhabitants situated on the controverted ground, disorder and anarchy amongst them will ensue. Should such an argument be brought forward, you will reply, that the inhabitants will, no doubt, institute some form of go. vernment themselves, adapted to

their condition, as they did for a long time on the Madawaska; that whether they do or not, however, it will be competent to the governments of Maine and New-Bruns. wick, within their respective acknowledged limits, to guard against any disorders; that the government of the United States cannot consent to the exercise of any exclusive British authority within the contested territory, founded on the plea of necessity; and that many of the settlers being intruders upon the soil, can have no right to com. plain of any disorders among themselves, resulting from their own unauthorized intrusion. The President hopes that the British government, participating in the desire which he most anxiously feels to avoid all collision on account of a temporary occupation of the territory in contest, will effectually interpose its authority to restrain the provincial government from the exercise of any jurisdiction over it. Such an interposition alone will supersede those precautionary measures which this government will otherwise feel itself constrained to adopt.

I also transmit herewith copies of the report of Mr. Barrell, and of Mr. Davis, who were respectively deputed by the governments of the United States, and the state of Maine, to proceed to the disputed territory, and to ascertain on the spot the causes of the recent disturbances which have occurred there.

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, H. CLAY.

MR. LAWRENCE TO LORD Dudley.

Rt. hon. the Earl of Dudley, &c.

The undersigned, chargé d'af fairs of the United States of Ame

rica, regrets that he is compelled to call to the notice of his majesty's principal Secretary of State for foreign affairs, to acts on the part of the government of the province of New-Brunswick, within the territory claimed by the United States and Great Britain respectively, not only wholly inconsistent with that mutual forbearance which, it has been understood, should govern the proceedings of both countries during the pendency of the question of boundaries, for the decision of which arrangements have recently been made, but of a character to lead, by inviting retaliation, to difficulties of the most serious nature.

The proceedings complained of, to which it will be the duty of the undersigned particularly to refer, took place in settlements near the Aroostook and St. John's rivers, within the territory which is, and always has been, considered by the United States as a part of the present state, formerly district, of Maine. It appears from official documents, that, in this section of country, various attempts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction have been made by the Lieutenant Governor of New-Brunswick; that American citizens residing within the territory in dispute have been subjected to an alien tax; that they have been compelled to serve in the British militia; that the provincial government has undertaken to issue civil process against them for enforcing the collection of debts, and for other purposes; that they have been summoned to appear be fore the tribunals of New-Brunswick for intrusion on the land occupied by them, as if it was the uncontested property of the British crown; and that they have been prosecuted before these foreign