《INTERNATIONAL ADJUDICATIONS VOLUME VI》求取 ⇩

PART Ⅰ.—PROCEEDINGS AND AWARD3

Ⅰ.TREATY STIPULATIONS3

Ⅱ.ORIGIN OF THE DISPUTE6

Stipulation as to islands， 17836

The King-Hawkesbury convention8

Attitude of New Brunswick8

Ⅲ.PROVISION FOR A MIXED COMMISSION9

Arbitral stipulations， 18149

Appointment of commissioners10

Instructions of the British commissioner10

British commissioner’s doubts as to Grand Menan11

The Alexander grant11

Specific relation to present dispute15

Commissions of governors of Nova Scotia16

Ⅳ.PROCEEDINGS OF THE MIXED COMMISSION17

The journey to St.Andrews17

Organization of the commission17

American and British agents19

Secretary to the commission22

The governments’ claims22

Agreements as to evidence24

Adjournment to Boston26

Meeting at Boston26

Memorials and arguments26

Replies27

Agreement of the commissioners30

Adjournment to New York34

Ⅴ.THE AWARD35

Announcement of award to Congress37

Marking of the water boundary37

Ⅵ.EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION37

PART Ⅱ.—THE ARGUMENTS47

1.THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES47

PART Ⅰ47

The resort to arbitration47

Claim of United States48

Treaty of 1783； general clause and exception48

British claim based on exception； burden of proof49

Disputed islands not within exception49

St.Croix River Award （1798） decisive49

Island of Grand Menan50

Island of Campo Bello51

Moose Island51

Deer Island52

Dudley and Frederick islands52

St.Andrews Island52

Ship channels52

Disputed islands part of Massachusetts53

Charter of November 3， 162053

Patent from Council of Plymouth， 162754

Dissolution of Council of Plymouth， 163554

Historical inferences56

Projected union of twelve New England provinces56

Grant to Duke of York， 166458

Massachusetts charter， 169160

Territory of Sagadahock， and the islands65

Massachusetts and Nova Scotia69

British official acts supporting Massachusetts’ claim to the islands69

Fort Pemaquid73

Treaty of Utrecht， 171375

The Belcher-Dunbar controversy77

Grant of Mount Desert to Governor Bernard， 176279

The Hutchinson report， 176382

Position of Lords of Trade83

Grant of land to Bernard by Nova Scotia， 176585

Grant made under a mistake86

Bernard’s proclamation， 176889

Brattle-Bowdoin-Hubbard report， 177191

Letter of Governor Hancock， 178493

PART Ⅱ94

The limits of Nova Scotia94

The treaty of 178395

Nova Scotia a term of indefinite meaning97

The grant to Sir W.Alexander void ab initio98

Title by occupancy99

The language of the grant100

Adverse possession of the French acknowledged101

Vesting of Alexander’s interest in La Tour103

Conclusions deduced from the preceding arguments104

Denial that the treaty of 1783 recognized the Alexander grant104

British use of the phrase “Acadia or Nova Scotia”106

Discussions at Paris， 1755106

The Alexander grant and the treaty of 1783107

Meaning of the treaty of 1783108

Nova Scotia’s “ancient and former limits” a subject of dispute110

The contests between England and France111

The right of postliminium114

The Alexander grant and British legislation115

British commissions to governors of Nova Scotia118

Commission to Governor Wilmot， 1763119

The St.Croix River and the Alexander grant121

St.Croix River the eastern boundary of Massachusetts125

Examination of limits under the Alexander grant134

Text of the grant134

Appropriation of islands137

The conjectural St.Croix of the grant138

The River Merrimack140

The St.Croix of 1783， and award of 1798142

The island of Grand Menan144

The Alexander grant and the islands147

Reasons for omitting the islands150

The contradictory provisions of ancient charters152

Reasonableness of the American claim154

Treaty of Utrecht， and treaty of 1783154

Northwest angle of Nova Scotia158

The award of 1798159

Treaty of 1783， Article Ⅲ161

The intention of the treaty of 1783163

Summary of the argument166

Appendices167

2.THE CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN171

PART Ⅰ：171

1.Introduction171

2.Treaty of 1783； Description of islands172

3.No part of Nova Scotia intended to be ceded172

4.Original limits under the Alexander grant173

5.Charter to be construed favorably to grantee173

6.Name of Nova Scotia originated in Alexander grant174

7.Limits in treaty and in charter the same174

8.Mr.Benson’s report and its effect174

9.Inclusion of islands in Alexander grant the only essential question178

10.Charter intended to include them178

11.All the islands clearly within the charter limits178

12.Express inclusion of islands within six leagues of western boundary185

13.Conclusion186

PART Ⅱ：186

1.Preliminary observations186

2.Concluding passage of Benson report187

3.Award of 1798， and the mouth of the St.Croix187

4.Benson report； Speech of the President to Congress190

5.Virtual admission of British right to Moose， Dudley and Frederick islands190

6.First intimation of American claim to Grand Manan192

7.Case of Sloop Falmouth193

8.Inferences to be drawn from Mr.Madison’s letter194

9.American claim to Grand Manan first preferred in 1807196

10.Conclusion197

PART Ⅲ：197

1.Introduction197

2.Preliminary observations197

3.Grants of islands in Passamaquoddy Bay under seal of Nova Scotia198

4.Depositions of witnesses under Article V， treaty of 1794200

5.Property and soil of islands subject to disposition of Nova Scotia before 1783203

6.Conduct and claims of the two nations after 1783204

New Brunswick erected in 1784204

Divided into counties in 1785204

Jurors summoned to attend courts at St.Andrews204

All the islands included in parish of West Isles， 1786204

Depositions taken under Article Ⅳ， treaty of 1814205

Claims of the United States208

Claim confined to Moose， Dudley and Frederick islands211

Ground of that claim211

Total silence as to other islands till 1807212

Just inference from that silence213

Conclusion213

Reservation of right to be further heard214

3.REPLY OF THE UNITED STATES217

Propositions previously advanced217

Summary of British contentions218

Burden of proof on Great Britain219

Controversion of British contentions220

Treaty of 1783 and the Alexander grant220

Treaty of Utrecht223

Nova Scotia’s limits first internationally defined in 1783224

The Benson report226

The unratified convention of 1807236

Views of Mr.Madison237

Treaty of 1783； no reference to Alexander grant240

Islands not within Alexander’s charter241

Alexander’s “Treatise”241

Testimony of Sir Ferdinando Gorges243

Rule for interpreting Alexander grant244

Language of charter analyzed245

Meaning of clause including islands249

Line from St.Mary’s Bay to St.Croix River253

Fact of jurisdiction before 1783 not material255

Crown grants disprove claim of original title in Alexander256

Alienation of soil for benefit of the Crown257

Nova Scotia， Massachusetts， and the St.Croix boundary258

Inclusion of islands in Massachusetts259

Errors as to St.Croix’s mouth and Passamaquoddy Bay262

Effect of Treaty of Ghent264

Situation as to islands after 1783266

Letter of John Allan266

Resolution of Congress268

Letter of Rufus Putnam269

Letter of James Avery274

Advice of Massachusetts Executive Council276

Report of Secretary Jay276

Official acts of Massachusetts277

Petition from inhabitants of Moose Island281

Continuous American claim to all the islands284

Examination of adverse British claims284

Shift from Cobscook to Scoodic291

British claims never admitted293

Unratified conventions of 1803， 1807294

American claim under Article V， Jay Treaty297

Not concerned with islands299

Proper classification of islands in dispute300

Review of claims300

4.THE REPLY OF GREAT BRITAIN307

PART Ⅰ：307

1.Introduction307

2.Inconsistencies and admissions in American Case308

3.Identity of Nova Scotia in Alexander grant （1621） and Massa-chusetts Bay charter （1691） virtually admitted309

4.Recession of Nova Scotia by Massachusetts to Crown ad-mitted309

5.Inclusion of islands in Alexander grant the only question left309

6.Denials in American Case that identity of St.Croix of 1621 with St.Croix of 1783 had been settled310

7.Inferences from these denials311

8.Nova Scotia of 1783 and 1621 the same， and includes the islands in dispute311

9.Duke of York’s patent the Sagadahock territory of 1691311

10.York’s patent expressly bounded on Alexander’s313

11.York’s patent and the geographical situation of the islands313

12.Geographical situation cannot control positive grant314

13.Only islands due south， within limited distance， included in York’s patent315

14.Report of Brattle， Bowdoin and Hubbard316

15.Mr.Austin’s observations on this report316

16.Inferences from report confirmed by these observations317

17.Further observations of American agent318

18.Governor Hancock’s letter318

19.The Magaguadavie then considered to be the true St.Croix318

20.Decision under Article V， treaty of 1794318

21.Inferences from this decision318

22.Fatal to present claim of United States319

23.Islands in dispute were within Alexander’s patent320

24-30.Massachusetts Bay charter， 1691； Duke of York’s patent，1664320

31.The islands in question remained with Nova Scotia323

32.These islands the same as those in Alexander grant324

33.Extravagant pretensions of American agent under insular clause of 1691324

34.Pretensions in effect treat the Magaguadavie as the true St. Croix325

35.And would deprive Nova Scotia even of the mainland between that river and the St.Croix326

36.This interpretation confirmed by agent’s remarks327

37.Pretensions violate Article V， treaty of 1794328

38.Alleged resignation of islands by Plymouth Council to the Crown328

39-69.Further discussions of the foregoing subjects328

70.Reliance of United States on discrepancy as to branch of river332

71.Refutation of the foregoing contentions333

72.Land grants to Americans saved by altering branch334

73.Original draft of decision under Article V （1794） invoked334

74.Draft of map intended to be annexed335

75.Mr.Liston’s letter on the subject335

76.Mr.Benson’s synoptical view of the whole argument336

77.Present contention of American agent unexpected337

78.Not believed to be supported by his government337

79.Mr.Benson’s report and President Adams’s speech to Con-gress338

80.Inferences therefrom339

81-85.Unratified boundary conventions， 1803， 1807339

86.Inclusion of islands in Alexander grant the only open question345

87.Present propriety of even this inquiry questioned345

88.Reopening of whole controversy under Article V （1794）346

89.The facts as to the islands down to 1783346

90.The controversy before the commissioners under Article V348

91.Their proceedings and Mr.Benson’s report349

92.Conduct of the two governments349

PART Ⅱ：350

1.American agent’s assertions that Alexander grant was void ab initio350

2.The same subject continued350

3.Answered by the American agent himself350

4.His assertions supported only by the French commissaries350

5.Comparative merits of English and French memorials351

6.British memorials invoked as part of Reply351

7.Alexander grant not void ab initio； Argall’s expedition351

8.Settlements under the grant352

9-16.Descent of title under Alexander grant to 1763352

17.United States’ boundary based on Alexander’s； Testimony of maps and historians356

18.Accuracy of the grant’s boundary descriptions356

19.Inferences from these claims357

20.Evidence of the map358

21.Limits of Alexander grant the only question359

22.The Island of Mattanwake359

23.Same subject continued360

24.Terms “Acadia，” “Nova Scotia”； confused， indiscriminate use361

25.Certain results summarized365

26.Relation to pending controversy366

27.Arbitrary criterion of “relative situation” and “natural or geographical dependency”367

28.Its application in American memorial367

29.Fallacy of the reasoning370

30.Discussion of documents introduced by American agent370

31.Meaning of Article Ⅱ， treaty of 1783373

32-37.Miscellaneous points373

38.Concluding remarks374