Obrázky stránek

the United States and Great Britain, at the Hague. In this award, however, the arbiter did not undertake to decide the questions submitted to him, but recommended a new boundary, not contemplated by either party. Instead of ascertaining the northwest corner of Nova Scotia, and determining which were the highlands in question, he commences an inquiry as to what line would be most convenient to the parties, and finding that a line running due north from the source of the St Croix to the highlands, would cut off the communication between Canada and New Brunswick, he undertakes to lay down a boundary not designated in the treaty. The range of highlands claimed by the United States, the arbiter perceived to be those referred to in the treaty. Being satisfied of that, his duty was to cause a line to be drawn due north from the monument at the bead of the St Croix, to the place where it should intersect those highlands. This was the plain import of the treaty, and on this part of the boundary it was the point in dispute.

Instead of doing this, he says, that it will be proper (il conviendra) to adopt as the boundary of the two States, a line drawn due north from the source of the river St Croix to the point where it intersects the middle of the thalweg of the river St John, thence the middle of the thalweg of that river, ascending it, to the point where the river St Francis empties itself into the river St John, thence the middle of the thalweg of the river St Francis,

ascending it, to the source of its southwesternmost branch, which source we indicate, on the map A, by the letter X, authenticated by the signature of our minister of Foreign Affairs; thence a line drawn due west, to the point where it unites with the line claimed by the nited States of America, and delineated on the map A, thence said line to the point at which according to said map, it coincides with that claimed by Great Britain, and thence the line traced on the map by the two powers, to the northwesternmost source of Connecticut river.'

He then proceeds to determine the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river, which he decides to be the northwesternmost stream falling into the northernmost of the three lakes, the last of which, bears the name of Connecticut lake. The third duty to be performed by the arbiter, was to run the line west from the head of the Connecticut along the 45th degree of latitude to the St Lawrence. In performing this duty, he considered that the principle of observed latitude ought to be followed, but that inasmuch as the American Government had erected fortifications at Rouse's Point, under a mistaken impression that it was below the 45th degree of latitude, he therefore determined to make the import of the treaty bend to the convenience, of the parties, and determined that it will be proper (il conviendra) to proceed to fresh operations to measure the observed latitude, in order to mark out the boundary from the river Connecticut along the parallel of the 45th

degree of north latitude to the river St Lawrence, named in the treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy; in such a manner, however, that, in all cases, at the place called Rouse's Point, the territory of the United States of America shall extend to the fort erected at that place, and shall include said fort and its kilometrical radius [rayon kilometrique.]'

Against this decision the American ministers at the Hague immediately protested, as being beyond the authority of the arbiter, -he having decided upon questions not submitted to him, and left undecided the questions in dispute.*

The line drawn by the arbiter, was one never contemplated by the parties to the submission, nor was it laid down in the treaty; but it was one adjusted upon those principles of convenience and equity, which probably ought to

*For a very able and minute examination of the controversy respecting the Northeast Boundary, vide North American Review, No. 75,

have prevailed in the absence of a treaty. His decision, therefore, was an assumption of power beyond the powers granted by the parties to the convention, and the Government of the United States expressed great doubts as to the validity of the award.

The British Government, on the contrary, having gained the principal object for which it contended, i. e. an uninterupted communication between its provinces, signified its willingness to carry the award into effect.

The State of Maine on its part, protested against the award as invalid, and denied the authority of the Federal Government, to cede any portion of the territory of a State by treaty or convention. In this unsettled state the controversy remained at the termination of the year 1831, and the result of the arbitration forcibly brought to mind the description in a celebrated epic, of that contest, where

'Chaos umpire sits,

And by decision more embroils the fray.'


Opening of Congress.-President's Message.-Impeachment of Judge Peck.-Trial.-Acquittal. Act declaring law of Contempts.-Bill to repeal the twentyfifth Section of Judiciary Act. -Judicial System of United States.-Mode of executing Resolutions of Continental Congress.-Mode provided by Federal Constitution.-Chisholm vs Georgia.-Amendments to Constitution.-Twentyfifth Section.-Cohens vs Virginia.-Decision of Court.-Discontent.-Rejection of Bill to Repeal.

THE second session of the twentyfirst Congress commenced on the 6th of December, 1830. Thirtyfive senators appeared at the commencement of the session, and Samuel Smith, President protem, resumed the chair. In the House, one hundred and seventy members answered to their names at the call of the roll. Six new members appeared, to supply vacancies occasioned by deaths and resignations, and one new member to fill the vacancy in the delegation from Maine. (The Speaker) Mr Stevenson, being indisposed, did not attend the first day, and the house adjourned over to the 7th, when the Speaker took the chair and the President of the United States having been informed of the organisation of Congress, the annual message was the same day communicated to both Houses.

Among the changes which occurred in the foreign relations of the country since the last session, the message stated that an amica

ble arrangement had been made with Great Britain, by which the trade with her colonies was placed upon a mutually advantageous footing. A treaty with Turkey, was also stated to have been concluded, and it was intimated, that the preliminary steps to the formation of that treaty had been taken by the present administration, upon the suggestion of the President.

Allusion was made to the situation of the legation at St Petersburg, and the President informed Congress, that the minister lately commissioned at that Court, (Mr Randolph) had been compelled by extreme indisposition to exercise a privilege, which in consideration of the extent to which his constitution had been impaired in the public service, was committed to his discretion of leaving temporarily his post for the advantage of a more genial climate.'

A cursory glance was given to the state of our relations with other powers, and the bills for the improvement of certain harbours,

&c. and authorising a subscrip- they should have been forthwith

tion for stock in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company were then adverted to.

These bills had been retained by the President at the close of the last session, for more mature consideration. Some doubts were at that time expressed, as to the propriety of that course. According to the Constitution, the President has the right of returning any bill to the House where it originated, with his objections, and unless two thirds of both Houses vote in favor of its passage, notwithstanding these objections, it does not take effect as a law. In order to prevent any abuse of this prerogative, it is also provided, that unless the bill be returned within ten days after it has been presented to the President, it shall become a law, except Congress by adjourning, prevents its return within that time, in which case it shall not become a law.

The intention of the Constitution, was, to prevent the President on the one hand, from impeding the legislation of Congress by any procrastination of his decision in relation to the expediency or constitutionality of any law beyond ten days; and on the other hand, to prevent Congress, by a sudden adjournment before the lapse of that period, from defeating the prerogative of the Executive, to refer the law back for the re-consideration of Congress.

In this instance the laws referred to were presented at the close of the session, and in order to give to Congress an opportunity of reconsidering its decisions,

returned. By not doing that, the President converted the qualified veto conferred upon him by the Constitution into an absolute veto, which was never contemplated by that instrument. The want of time however at the close of the session having prevented deliberations upon these laws, they were retained during the vacation, and now they were returned with his objections to their passage. Among the reasons urged against the passage of such laws was one representing that it would produce contests in Congress among the States for the surplus revenue, and in order to obviate all danger from that source, a distribution of the surplus revenue was recommended among the States in proportion to their representations, instead of applying it to works of internal improvement.

An alteration of that part of the Constitution regulating the election of President and Vice President, was earnestly recommended, and so strongly were the dangers of an improper influence on the part of the Executive over the legislature pourtrayed, that Congress was strongly solicited to urge an amendment rendering him ineligible after one term of service.

The attention of Congress was then called to the Tariff, and Congress was recommended, in laying duties with a view to protection, to confine the bill to one particular interest, by which all danger of improper combinations would be avoided.

An account was next given of

the prosecution, and the Senate having been informed by the managers of the impeachment, it resolved itself into a court of impeachment. The President and Senators were sworn to do impartial justice according to the law, and on the 4th of May, 1830, the Senate having resolved itself into a high court of impeachment, the managers appeared on the part of the House and presented the articles of impeachment.

the condition of the several de- peachment. After the articles partments of the government, were reported, the same commitconcluding with a recommenda- tee were appointed to manage tion to place the Attorney General on the same footing with the other departments. At the close of the message, the attention of Congress was again called to the United States bank; the doubts expressed in his last message as to the constitutionality of this institution were reiterated; and as a substitute for the bank, the President recommended that a branch of the treasury department be authorised to sell bills of exchange based on the credit and revenues of the Government. It was not however to be empowered to purchase property, nor to make loans; but was to be confined to selling bills of exchange and receiving money on deposit. The message itself will be found at length in the second part of the volume, 47th page, to which we refer our readers.

The first topic which engaged the attention of Congress was the trial of the impeachment of James H. Peck, Judge of the district court of Missouri.

A complaint had been made to the House of Representatives, at the last session, against this officer, by Luke E. Lawless, for having committed him to prison for contempt; and after a full investigation it was resolved by a vote of 123, to 49, that Judge Peck be impeached of high misdemeanors in office. Messrs Buchanan, Storrs of New York, M'Duffie, Spencer of New York, and Wickeliffe, were appointed a committee to prepare articles of im

A summons was then issued to Judge Peck to appear and answer to the accusation, and his answer was put in on the 25th of May. It being necessary to procure the attendance of witnesses from Missouri, the trial of the impeachment was postponed to the next session of Congress, to the second Monday of which, the court was adjourned. At that time the court, having opened, the managers attended and requested an adjournment on account of the absence of a necessary witness.

The 20th of December the court was again opened, and the managers, accompanied by the House of Representatives, attended, and the trial commenced.

During part of the trial the House accompanied the managers each day to the Senate as attending the trial; but finding that unnecessary, and the proceedings proving long and tedious, the House finally concluded to attend only during the argument of the counsel and managers, and to demand judgment

« PředchozíPokračovat »