e of New Brunswick, which has grown
out of these occurrences and is likewise herewith communicated, the
former is requested to recall the armed party advanced into the disputed
territory for the arrest of trespassers, and is informed that a strong
body of British troops is to be held in readiness to support and protect
the authority and subjects of Great Britain in said territory. In answer
to that request the provincial governor is informed of the determination
of the State of Maine to support the land agent and his party in the
performance of their duty, and the same determination, for the execution
of which provision is made by a resolve of the State legislature, is
communicated by the governor to the General Government.

The lieutenant-governor of New Brunswick, in calling upon the governor
of Maine for the recall of the land agent and his party from the
disputed territory, and the British minister, in making a similar demand
upon the Government of the United States, proceed upon the assumption
that an agreement exists between the two nations conceding to Great
Britain, until the final settlement of the boundary question, exclusive
possession of and jurisdiction over the territory in dispute. The
important bearing which such an agreement, if it existed, would have
upon the condition and interests of the parties, and the influence it
might have upon the adjustment of the dispute, are too obvious to allow
the error upon which this assumption seems to rest to pass for a moment
without correction. The answer of the Secretary of State to Mr. Fox's
note will show the ground taken by the Government of the United States
upon this point. It is believed that all the correspondence which has
passed between the two Governments upon this subject has already been
communicated to Congress and is now on their files. An abstract of
it, however, hastily prepared, accompanies this communication. It is
possible that in thus abridging a voluminous correspondence, commencing
in 1825 and continuing to a very recent period, a portion may have been
accidentally overlooked; but it is believed that nothing has taken
place which would materially change the aspect of the question as
therein presented. Instead of sustaining the assumption of the British
functionaries, that correspondence disproves the existence of any such
agreement. It shows that the two Governments have differed not only in
regard to the main question of title to the territory