[GANONG ] BOUNDARIES OF NEW BRUNSWICK 333 
now in existence. Yet they are documents of much importance to our 
local history, and I shall here briefly summarize them from that point 
of view. The American statement is entitled STATEMENT ON THE PART 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF THE CASE REFERRED IN PURSUANCE OF THE 
CONVENTION OF 29TH SEPTEMBER, 1827, BETWEEN THE SAID STATES AND 
GREAT BRITAIN 10 His MAJESTY THE KING OF THE NETHERLANDS FOR 
HIS DECISION THEREON. PRINTED BUT NOT PUBLISHED. WASHINGTON. 
PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TELEGRAPH, 1829. It 
contains 45 pages, 37 of which relate to the north-west angle, and is a 
succinct and admirable statement of the United States position. The 
first British statement is thus entitled: First STATEMENT ON THE 
PART OF GREAT BRITAIN, ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CON- 
VENTION CONCLUDED BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES 
ON THE 29TH SEPTEMBER, 1827, FOR REGULATING THE REFERENCE TO 
ARBITRATION OF THE DISPUTED POINTS OF BOUNDARY UNDER THE FIFTH 
ARTICLE OF THE TREATY OF GHENT. It consists of 43 pages, of which 
34 relate to the north-west angle, and it is as clear and strong a pre- 
sentation of the British case as Gallatin’s is of the American. Indeed, 
for a summary of the two sides of the discussion freed as largely as pos- 
sible from controversial matter, nothing equals these two presentations, 
giving the matured positions of both parties. 
To the British statement the United States replied in a “ Definitive 
Statement,” a formidable document of 447 pages, mostly appendices, 
many of which are of great value in our local history. The first 82 
pages are concerned with the north-west angle, and answer in detail the 
British claim, but without, as far as I can see, adducing anything really 
new.t Then follow some 61 valuable appendices to the two American 
statements, giving in full (or nearly so) all of the treaties, conventions, 
declarations, decisions, acts, charters, grants, commissions of governors, 
surveyors’ reports, extracts from correspondence and from arguments of 
agents to commissions, and many other documents, apparently all 
printed with great care. Of particular interest to students of New 
Brunswick and Nova Scotia history are the commissions of the governors 
of Nova Scotia in full from 1719 to 1782 and of Governor Carleton of 

1 Two exceptions are to be noted. Gallatin appears to have had some- 
what fuller information than the American Agent before the Commission, 
upon the claim of New Brunswick in the interprovincial boundary dispute 
to a boundary on the northern highlands, and he lays greater emphasis upon 
it as substantiating the American claim. To this Great Britain replied that 
an interprovincial boundary dispute, to be settled by a British tribunal, could 
have no bearing upon an international question. The second was the point 
that the ‘‘ source of the St. John”’ in the instructions of 1779 and later meant 
the source of the Madawaska, already examined earlier, page 327. 
