that of the United
States to come to an understanding with Great Britain upon the river
question, had stated that the King of the Netherlands in his award had
decided that question according to the British interpretation of it and
had expressed his opinion that the rivers which fall into the Bay of
Fundy are not to be considered as Atlantic rivers for the purposes of
the treaty.

Mr. Forsyth, however, in his note to Sir Charles Vaughan of the 28th of
April, 1835, controverts this assertion and maintains that the King of
the Netherlands did not in his award express such an opinion, and Mr.
Forsyth quotes a passage from the award in support of this proposition.

But it appears to Her Majesty's Government that Mr. Forsyth has not
correctly perceived the meaning of the passage which he quotes, for in
the passage in question Mr. Forsyth apprehends that the word "_alone_"
is governed by the verb "_include_" whereas an attentive examination of
the context will show that the word "_alone_" is governed by the verb
"_divide"_ and that the real meaning of the passage is this: That the
rivers flowing north and south from the highlands claimed by the United
States may be arranged in two genera, the first genus comprehending the
rivers which fall into the St. Lawrence, the second genus comprehending
those whose waters in some manner or other find their way into the
Atlantic; but that even if, according to this general classification
and in contradistinction from rivers flowing into the St. Lawrence, the
rivers which fall into the bays of Chaleurs and Fundy might be comprised
in the same genus with the rivers which fall directly into the Atlantic,
still the St. John and the Restigouche form a distinct species by
themselves and do not belong to the species of rivers which fall
_directly_ into the Atlantic, for the St. John and Restigouche are not
divided in company with any such last-mentioned rivers. And the award
goes on to say that, moreover, if this distinction between the two
species were confounded an erroneous interpretation would be applied
to a treaty in which every separate word must be supposed to have a
meaning, and a generic distinction would be given to cases which are
purely specific.

The above appears to be the true meaning of the passage quoted by
Mr. Forsyth; but if that passage had not been in itself sufficiently
explicit, which Her Majesty's Government think it is, the passage which
immediately follows it would