390 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
into evidence. He is upon firm ground again, however, when he 
claims that New Brunswick had no legal right west of the due north 
line. He thus founds the arguments used in all the later discussions, 
and indeed I have been surprised to see how little the later agents for 
Quebec were able to add to his reasoning. He then claims as the 
boundary the highlands from Mars Hill to Dalhousie (see Map No. 32), 
south of the Tobique. He considers the position of the head of the 
Bay Chaleur and finds it (unanswerably) at Dalhousie, and then indi- 
cates more exactly the course of the boundary to Mars Hill and be- 
yond. He comments upon Gesner’s report to Governor Colebrooke 
of 1842, upon Wilkinson’s Boundary Report, and upon Governor 
Golebrooke’s statements in letters to Lord Stanley. He then considers 
the claims of the two provinces based upon possession and jurisdiction, 
asserting unwarranted extension in these respects by New Brunswick. 
There follow 44 documents in the appendices, some of considerable 
length, and a few of some local interest, together with six excellent 
maps, and a reprint of Baillie’s supplementary report of Dec., 1844.* 
Later in the same year (Dec. 1844), Mr. Baillie made a “ Sup- 
plementary Report,” which is published in the Appendix to the 
Journals of the House of Assembly of New Brunswick for that year. 
This report combats very skillfully, Mr. Wells’ claim for a bound- 
ary on the highlands south of the Tobique. Its most important 
matter, however, consists in the effort to prove a right of New 
Brunswick to the territory west of the due north line. He 
quotes the Treaty of Washington to show that the right of New 
Brunswick to the territory in dispute is recognized in that document, 
which speaks of Maine and New Brunswick only, never of Canada, in 
the disputed territory. He shows by quotation from documents 
(already cited in this work), that the claim to this territory in dispute 
was first advanced by Canada, not as a matter of legal right, but upon 
the basis of convenience, and the unfavorable effect the New Bruns- 
wick claim would have upon the settlement of the international 
boundary. He claims it further on the ground that the New Bruns- 
wick claims to it in 1785 and 1787 were not “ peremptorily resisted ” 
by Canada, upon the ground of uninterrupted jurisdiction since, and 
upon her vigorous defence of the territory, without any aid from 
Canada, in the Aroostook war. He makes, however, no attempt to 
show a legal claim, aside from occupation, to the territory west of the 
north line. 



1 Since the latter was in reply to the present report, it shows that there 
must have been an earlier edition than the one here considered ; it was prob- 
ably in English, for the titles of the maps are all in English. 

