446 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
boundary disputes, there is, except for scanty references in local works, 
nothing by any New Brunswicker ; while the history of the Quebee, 
of the Nova Scotia, of the County and Parish Boundaries, has hither- 
to been entirely unwritten. Most important of works relating to our 
boundaries is unquestionably Professor J. B. Moore’s “History and 
Digest of the International Arbitrations to which the United States 
has been a party,” which treats so fully and judiciously all of the In- 
ternational boundary controversies in which New Brunswick has been 
concerned, as to well-nigh exhaust that subject from the general point 
of view. Next to this come the summaries in Winsor’s America, in- 
valuable bibliographically and cartographically, but not always im- 
maculate in statement of minor facts. Of much value too are the 
recently published Winslow Papers, with their scholarly annotations, 
the most important volume which has yet appeared upon New Bruns- 
wick history. These few works represent one, but a very valuable 
one, of three classes of literature relating to our boundaries, the other 
two of which include respectively the original charters and other docu- 
ments on the one hand and the partizan comments upon the other. 
As to the original documents, I have referred to them often in the 
text. As to the partizan comments, I have for the most part left them 
out of attention, as containing nothing new and as being rather of 
psychological than of historical interest. One may read Washburn’s 
discussion from the American side, and Weatherbe’s from the British 
without being any the wiser as to the merits of the boundary ques- 
tions, and these are but representatives of an immense literature which 
is quite negligible in studies whose first aim is to get at the actual facts 
of a subject. 
While I have tried to cover the ground of my subject with some 
fulness and proportion, I am aware that the study is in many points 
deficient, and there are some minor points, especially relating to the 
earlier boundaries, still needing investigation. I am not sure that all 
the statements in my summary of the parish boundaries are correct, for 
I have not myself had access to the Acts after 1836, though I hope the 
errors are few. I have been able to clear up some points of local in- 
terest, but among them are two or three of much wider importance. 
Thus I have been able to prove that the St. Croix of Mitchell’s map is 
not the Magaguadavic as American writers claim to this day, but is 
really the present St. Croix, and hence that, from every point of view, 
the decision of the commission in 1798 was perfectly just and correct. 
Further I have shown that in all probability the western source of the 
St. Croix of the Alexander Charter and later documents was really the 
western source of the northern or Chiputneticook branch and not of 
