individuals. For the security of rights, whether of states or individuals, long possession under a claim of title is protected. And there is no controversy in which this great principle may be invoked with greater justice and propriety than in a case of disputed boundary.' 6 "Vattel, in his Law of Nations, speaking on this subject, says: 'The tranquility of the people, the safety of states, the happiness of the human race do not allow that the possessions, empire, and other rights of nations should remain uncertain, subject to dispute and ever ready to occasion bloody wars. Between nations, therefore, it becomes necessary to admit prescription founded on length of time as a valid and incontestable title.' (Book II., c. 11, sec. 149.) And Wheaton, in his International Law, says: The writers on natural law have questioned how far that peculiar species of presumption, arising from the lapse of time, which is called prescription, is justly applicable as between nation and nation; but the constant and approved practice of nations shows that by whatever name it be called, the uninterrupted possession of territory or other property for a certain length of time by one state excludes the claim of every other in the same manner as, by the law of nature and the municipal code of every civilized nation, a similar possession by an individual excludes the claim of every other person to the article of property in question.' (Part II., c. 4, sec. 164.) "There are also moral considerations which should prevent any disturbance of long recognized boundary lines; considerations springing from regard to the natural sentiments and affections which grow up for places on which persons have long resided; the attachments to country, to home and to family, on which is based all that is dearest and most valuable in life." Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), 148 U. S. 503. April 30, 1900, a decree was entered ordering the appointment of commissioners to ascertain, re-trace, re-mark, and reestablish the boundary line between the States of Virginia and Tennessee, as established by the decree in Virginia r. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503, but without authority to run or establish any other or new line. (Tennessee v. Virginia (1900), 177 U. S. 501.) III. BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 1. WITH THE BRITISH POSSESSIONS. $158. The history of the settlement of the boundary between the United States and the British possessions in America is given in Moore's History and Digest of International Arbitrations, as follows: The St. Croix River, I. c. i. 1-43. Islands in the Bay of Fundy, I. c. ii. 45–63. The Northeastern Boundary, I. c. iii. 65–83; c. iv. 85–161. Boundary through the River St. Lawrence, and Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron, I. c. v. 162-170; VI., maps. Boundary from Lake Huron to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, I. c. vi. 171-195; VI., maps. San Juan Water Boundary, I. c. vii. 196–235. As to the Alaskan boundary, see supra, § 107, pp. 466-475; and for the final award, Oct. 20, 1903, For. Rel. 1903, 543. Though the ownership of the islands in the Bay of Fundy was determined in 1817, no step was taken to mark the water boundary in that quarter till 1891. July 22, 1892, a treaty was concluded between the United States and Great Britain, by Article II. of which the high contracting parties agreed to appoint two commissioners, one to be named by each party" to determine upon a method of more accurately marking the boundary line between the two countries in the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay in front of and adjacent to Eastport, in the State of Maine, and to place buoys or fix such other boundary marks as they may determine to be necessary." President Cleveland, in his annual message of December 2, 1895, said: "The commissioners appointed to mark the international boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay according to the description of the treaty of Ghent have not yet fully agreed." ... “Having carefully considered and examined . . . the subject, I feel no hesitancy in stating that, by the terms of the second article of the treaty of 9th August, 1842, between the United States and Her Britannic Majesty, Jona's or Squirrel Island is a British possession, and that the United States have no right or claim to jurisdiction over the same." Mr. Buchanan, Sec. of State, to Mr. Pakenham, Brit. min., Dec. 26, 1846, As to the floating light at Lime Kiln Crossing, Detroit River, see Mr. In the President's annual message of December 2, 1895, attention was also called “to the unsatisfactory delimitation of the respective jurisdictions of the United States and the Dominion of Canada in the Great Lakes at the approaches to the narrow waters that connect them." The waters in question, it was said, were frequented by fishermen of both nationalities, and owing to the uncertainty and ignorance as to the true boundary, vexatious disputes and injurious seizures of boats and nets by Canadian cruisers had often occurred, while any settlement of such cases by an accepted standard was not easily to be reached. A joint commission to determine the line in those quarters, on a practical basis, by measured courses following range marks on a Moore, Int. Arbitrations. I. 62-63. shore was declared to be " a necessity for which immediate provision should be made." While the line from the river St. Lawrence to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods was settled by the treaty of Ghent and the commissions thereunder, and by the Webster-Ashburton treaty, it should be observed that there has been no joint survey of the line from Pigeon River to the Lake of the Woods." In consequence of this defect, questions have at times arisen as to the precise extent of jurisdiction. A question as to the nationality of Coleman and Hunters islands, in Lac La Croix, under Article II. of the Webster-Ashburton treaty, gave rise to a correspondence in 1895. The line therein described "is distinct to Ile Royale on the western shore of Lake Superior, but from this point to the Lake of the Woods the description is not sufficiently minute to designate the exact boundary through the tortuous water communication, which presents a chain of lakes and rivers filled with numerous islands." The United States declared that not only was the position of Coleman Island well to the south of any natural boundary passing through the waters of Lac La Croix (otherwise called Nequowquon), but that by continued occupation and governmental survey a presumption of title on the part of the United States had been established, "not to be set aside save upon the most absolute proof to the contrary." Reference was also made to the fact that, although no chart of that portion of the boundary had ever been made by the two Governments jointly, the British commissioner, under Article VII. of the treaty of Ghent, had traced on a map, filed October 23, 1826, by James Ferguson, American principal surveyor to the commission, a tentative line of demarcation through the waters and islands of Lac La Croix, and that Hunters and Coleman islands appear designated by the numbers 25 and 27 to the south of the British commissioner's proposed line. The United States therefore proposed that the two Governments endeavor to reach an exact agreement for the precise marking of the boundary in question, “ in accordance with the true intent of the contracting parties expressed in the treaty of 1842, and having due regard to the prescriptive rights of undisputed occupation within the reasonable limits of such boundary." October 17, 1895, Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, wrote to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassador, stating that representations a II. Report 1310, 54 Cong. 1 sess.; Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 236. Mr. Uhl, Acting Sec. of State, to Lord Gough, British chragé, July 3, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, 1. 702. In Mr. Uhl's note reference is made to a series of maps published by the ordnance survey office at Southampton in 1868, reproducing the original maps filed before the commission under the treaty of Ghent. When these reproductions were made, the duplicate originals belonging to the United States were supposed to have been lost. These originals, however, have since been found and are now in the Department of State. had been made to the United States that the department of marine and fisheries of Canada was taking steps to secure evidence as to the channel in the Lake of the Woods around Oak Island, with the intention of claiming that island. Mr. Olney referred to the fact that Article II. of the Webster-Ashburton treaty described the boundary in the Lake of the Woods as running from "that point in Lac la Pluie, or Rainy Lake, at the Chaudière Falls, from which the commissioners traced the line to the most northwestern point of the Lake of Woods." He stated that on the original signed map prepared by the commissioner under Article VII. of the treaty of Ghent, Oak Island, which was marked No. 1, was designated as belonging to the United States; that its American character and occupancy had not admitted of any doubt, and that the reported action of the Canadian authorities in extending their surveys to the westward of the island was therefore an intrusion upon the territory of the United States which had disquieted the occupants and was likely to give rise to conflicts." The Canadian government replied that the information which had reached the Department of State at Washington as to the reported action of the department of marine and fisheries was entirely without foundation, no survey of the kind having been undertaken, but that the report might have resulted from the issuance of fishing licenses in the Lake of the Woods. It had been claimed by certain parties, and supported by the opinion of a number of old settlers, that the boundary line followed the steamboat channel, which was south of Oak Island, and inquiries were at the same time made as to the identity of the island laid down as No. 1 on the boundary map with that commonly known as Oak Island. "Beyond the authoritative establishment of the boundary as laid down in the conventions cited by Mr. Secretary Olney, and of the identity of the island designated as No. 1, the department of marine and fisheries has," concluded the Canadian reply, "had no concern whatever; neither has it in any way suggested an expansion of territory or jurisdiction beyond that conventionally conferred upon the Crown." By the act of Congress of March 19, 1872, the President was authorized to cooperate with the Government of Great Britain in the appointment of a joint commission to survey and mark the boundary between the United States and the British possessions from the Lake of the Woods to the summit of the Rocky Mountains. The labors of the commission were concluded in 1876. The final records and maps were signed in London on the 29th of May in that year, and a protocol was drawn up and signed setting forth the commission's final proceedings.c a For. Rel. 1895, I. 724. For. Rel. 1895, I. 725-726. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 235-236; S. Ex. Doc. 41, 44 Cong. 2 sess. The line from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Georgia, under the treaty of 1846, was surveyed and marked by commissioners prior to 1870. On the 24th of February in that year Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, and Mr. Thornton, British minister, signed a protocol declaring that seven maps, which were duly certified and authenticated under the signatures of the American and British commissioners and on which the boundary in question was traced, were approved, agreed to, and adopted by both Governments." When the survey was made, however, many places along the frontier were uninhabited and virtually inaccessible which have since attracted a considerable number of settlers, and proposals have been discussed for the restoration of the original monuments, where these were defective, and for the erection of supplementary ones." 66 Provision should be made for a joint demarcation of the frontier line between Canada and the United States, wherever required by the increasing border settlements, and especially for the exact location of the water boundary in the straits and rivers." (President Harrison, Dec. 9, 1891, annual message.) For information as to the topography of the country along the border and the extent to which recognizable boundary marks exist, see Bulletin No. 174 of the U. S. Geological Survey. "A more complete marking of parts of the boundary” between the United States and the British possessions was one of the subjects referred to the Joint High Commission of 1898-99, whose labors were suspended in consequence of differences as to the Alaskan boundary.c 2. WITH MEXICO. (1) LAND LINES. $159. [See supra, §§ 103, 105, 106.] By the treaty of limits of January 12, 1828, the United States and Mexico engaged each to appoint a commissioner and a surveyor to run the line, and they also agreed to accept the result reached by them. a Treaties and Conventions of the United States, 1776–1887, p. 440. Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Treasury, Jan. 28, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 431, enclosing copy of a note from the British ambassador of Jan. 14, 1901; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Foster, M. C., Jan. 29, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 441; Mr. Hay, Sec. of State, to Sec. of Interior, Jan. 30, 1901, 250 MS. Dom. Let. 463. © President McKinley, annual message, Dec. 5, 1899. See report of Senator Clark, of Wyoming, from the Com. on For. Rel., Feb. 23, 1900, on a joint resolution (S. R. 71) authorizing the President to invite Great Britain to join in creating an international commission to examine and report on the diversion of the waters that form the boundary between the two countries. (S. Rep. 461, 56 Cong. 1 sess.) H. Doc. 551- 48 |