356 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
which the boundaries of the United States had been drawn in a strong 
red line, agreeing in every respect with the boundaries admitted by both 
nations except as to the north-west angle of Nova Scotia, in which the 
British and not the American line was represented. Aside from the 
fact that this map showed the boundaries of the United States in a red 
line, there was nothing whatever to connect it with Franklin’s letter. A 
copy of the map was communicated to Webster, who showed it to the 
Maine commissioners, and it is believed to have played some part in 
securing their assent to the Ashburton Treaty. It has been made a 
ground of reproach against Webster that he did not communicate its 
contents to Lord Ashburton, but it is unlikely that any of Webster’s 
detractors would have felt themselves bound under similar circumstances 
to communicate such information to the opposite party. Two attempts 
have been made to explain this map. Sir Francis Hincks, according to 
Winsor, in his paper of 1885, accepts the red line as genuinely by 
Franklin, but considers that Franklin had some motive in deceiving 
Vergennes, and hence drew the line as he did. Winsor attempts to 
explain it as showing an old French claim, and cites other maps showing 
the French claim to a boundary south of the St. John. He does not, 
however, explain why this old French claim should have formed a part 
of a line otherwise describing exactly the boundaries of the United States 
according to the treaty of 1783. Unhappily the original red-line map 
seems to have disappeared from the French archives so that the subject 
cannot be again investigated, and the true origin of the red line remains, 
to my mind, still unexplained. The North American Review article, 
above cited, mentions a map of the United States by Lattré, published 
in 1784 in Paris, also showing the boundary according to the British 
claim. There is, however, very much evidence on the other side, some 
of which has already been cited. Thus, there is in the British Museum 
a copy of Mitchell’s map, formerly belonging to King George III., hav- 
ing upon it a line showing the American claim, and marked by the 
King’s own hand as “the boundary described by Mr. Oswald,’ and 
including changes by Mr. Strachey. This map more than offsets the 
testimony of the very doubtful red-line map. 

1 Compare also Moore, Arbitrations, page 156, where Everett’s description 
of it is cited. Presumably this map is identical with the Jay map published 
by Gallatin in his ‘“ Memoir on the North-Eastern boundary ” in the Proc. 
New York Historical Society for 1843. Gallatin considers that the placing on 
this map of the north-west angle on the Madawaska source of the St. John 
is ample evidence that this was the source of the St. John meant in the 
Instructions of 1779 and later. But this by no means follows, for the 
negotiators deviated from their instructions whenever they thought fit, and 
would naturally desire to place the angle as far east as possible. 

