Books for you

That the imputation of
such an opinion to the respected arbiter could only be the result
of misinterpretation seemed the more evident, as he had himself
declared that "it could not be sufficiently explained how, if the
high contracting parties intended in 1783 to establish the boundary
at the south of the river St. John, that river, to which the territory
in dispute was in a great measure indebted for its distinctive
character, had been neutralized and set aside." It is under the
influence of the same motives that the undersigned now proceeds to
make a brief comment upon the observations contained in Mr. Fox's note
of the 10th ultimo, and thus to close a discussion which it can answer
no purpose to prolong.
The passage from the award of the arbiter quoted by the undersigned
in his note of the 28th April, 1835, to Sir Charles Vaughan, and the
true meaning of which Mr. Fox supposes to have been misconceived, is
the following: "If in contradistinction to the rivers that empty
themselves into the river St.


Pages:
346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370