[GANONG] BOUNDARIES OF NEW BRUNSWICK 389 
territory west of the due north line. That New Brunswick did not 
advance a claim to the disputed territory on the basis of her long occu- 
pation of Madawaska is no doubt explained by the fact that such a 
claim would not have held good west of the Madawaska and north of its 
mouth, whereas she desired to hold the country to the international 
boundary at the St. Francis, and north to the Temiscouata portage. 
Quebec had retreated from her claim for a boundary on the southern 
highlands and accepted the Restigouche, but she could still claim the 
whole of the disputed territory as within her ancient limits, for it was 
north of her boundary previously claimed and west of the due north 
line limiting New Brunswick. As a matter of fact, neither province 
had, according to the other, any right to the disputed territory, and, in 
my opinion, as already mentioned, both were entirely right in this con- 
tention, for it belonged to neither of them, but to the United States. 
The report of the Hon. Thomas Baillie, the New Brunswick com- 
missioner, was handed to Governor Colebrooke Oct. 13, 1843. For 
some reason the Canadian commissioner, Mr. Wells, did not receive 
his instructions until Oct. 18, and hence he did not reach New Bruns- 
wick until long afterwards. In his correspondence (Northern Bound- 
ary, CXIX, CXX), with Mr. Baillie, after his arrival at Fredericton, 
he learned that the latter considered his work as commissioner closed, 
and further that there was such divergence in their views upon the 
location of the boundary that it would be impossible for them to come 
to any agreement. Mr. Wells accordingly gathered what information 
he could in New Brunswick and elsewhere, and returned to Canada. 
In August, 1844, he made a report to Governor Metcalfe, which report 
is published in the Journaux de L’Assemblée Legislative du Canada, 
Appendice No. 1, 1844-45.1 
This report (in French) is a lengthy document, occupying with 
its argument 27, and with its appendices 45, closely printed folio pages 
illustrated by six maps. I agree with Falconer’s opinion expressed in 
1851 (Blue-book), that itisavery able report. With very great skill 
he makes out the best possible case for Quebec. After a general in- 
troduction, he gives a broad discussion of the question, asserting that 
the same highlands claimed by Great. Britain prior to 1842 as the 
rightful international boundary should form, when extended east- 
wardly, the southern boundary of Quebec, a point logically unanswer- 
able. When he tries to substantiate the claim of Quebec to those 
highlands upon other grounds, however, he is upon very uncertain 
ground, and here the familiar methods of the special pleader come 
1 For the use of a copy of this Journal, I am indebted to the kindness of 
Dr. N. E. Dionne, Librarian of the Legislative Library of Quebec. 
