Books for you

John
and Restigouche are to be regarded in reference to that question.
Sir Charles Vaughan, in his note to Mr. McLane of February 10, 1834,
alleged that although the arbiter had not decided the first of the three
main questions proposed to him, yet that he had determined certain
subordinate points connected with that question upon which the parties
had entertained different views, and among others that the rivers St.
John and Restigouche could not be considered, according to the meaning
of the treaty, as "rivers flowing into the Atlantic." The undersigned,
in his note to Sir Charles R. Vaughan of the 28th of April, 1835,
questioned the correctness of the interpretation which had been given by
Sir Charles to the award of the arbiter in this particular, and after
quoting that part of the award to which Sir Charles was supposed to
refer as containing the determination by the arbiter of the point just
mentioned observed that it could not but appear from further reflection
to Sir Charles that the declaration that the rivers St.


Pages:
343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367