not be authorized, after the recent proceedings in the
Senate, to venture now to agree upon a conventional line without such
consent, whilst the proposition submitted in April afforded not only a
fair prospect, but in his opinion the certain means, of ascertaining the
boundary called for by the treaty of 1783 and of finally terminating all
the perplexities which have encompassed that subject.

In February, 1834, Sir Charles R. Vaughan, after submitting certain
observations intended to controvert the positions assumed by the United
States on the subject of the constitutional difficulty by which the
American Government was prevented from acquiescing in the arrangement
recommended by the King of the Netherlands for the settlement of the
boundary in the neighborhood of the St. John, asserted that the two
Governments bound themselves by the convention of September, 1827,
to submit to an arbiter certain points of difference relative to the
boundary between the American and British dominions; that the arbiter
was called on to determine certain questions, and that if he has
determined the greater part of the points submitted to him his decision
on them ought not to be set aside merely because he declares that one
remaining point can not be decided in conformity with the words of the
treaty of 1783, and therefore recommends to the parties a compromise on
that particular point; that the main points referred to the arbiter were
three in number; that upon the second and third of these he made a plain
and positive decision; that upon the remaining point he has declared
that it is impossible to find a spot or to trace a line which shall
fulfill all the conditions required by the words of the treaty for the
northwest angle of Nova Scotia and for the highlands along which the
boundary from that angle is to be drawn; yet that in the course of his
reasoning upon this point he has decided several questions connected
with it upon which the two parties had entertained different views, viz:

"First. The arbiter expresses his opinion that the term 'highlands' may
properly be applied not only to a hilly and elevated country, but to
a tract of land which, without being hilly, divides waters flowing in
different directions, and consequently, according to this opinion, the
highlands to be sought for are not necessarily a range of mountains,
but rather the summit level of the country.

"Second. The arbiter expresses his opinion that an inquiry a