NormalizeHEADmain

9 files changed, 17 insertions, 2619 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d7b82bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+*.txt text eol=lf
+*.htm text eol=lf
+*.html text eol=lf
+*.md text eol=lf
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a01732
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #63443 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63443)
diff --git a/old/63443-0.txt b/old/63443-0.txt
deleted file mode 100644
index 4cf8a19..0000000
--- a/old/63443-0.txt
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1135 +0,0 @@
-The Project Gutenberg EBook of Twenty Unsettled Miles in the Northeast
-Boundary, by T. C. Mendenhall
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
-almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
-re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
-with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
-
-
-Title: Twenty Unsettled Miles in the Northeast Boundary
-       [From the Report of the Council of the American Antiquarian
-       Society, presented at the Annual Meeting held in Worcester,
-       October 21, 1896]
-
-Author: T. C. Mendenhall
-
-Release Date: October 12, 2020 [EBook #63443]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN ***
-
-
-
-
-Produced by Donald Cummings and the Online Distributed
-Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
-produced from images generously made available by The
-Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Transcriber’s Note:
-
-This ebook was created in honour of Distributed Proofreaders’ 20th
-Anniversary.
-
-
-
-
-                        TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES
-                                IN THE
-                          NORTHEAST BOUNDARY.
-
- [From the Report of the Council of the American Antiquarian Society,
-          presented at the Annual Meeting held in Worcester,
-                          October 21, 1896.]
-
-                         By T. C. MENDENHALL.
-
-
-                      Worcester, Mass., U. S. A.
-                      PRESS OF CHARLES HAMILTON.
-                           311 MAIN STREET.
-                                 1897.
-
-
-
-
-TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY.
-
-
-For nearly three hundred years, and almost without cessation, there
-has raged a conflict of jurisdiction over territory lying near to
-what is known as the Northeast Boundary of the United States. It has
-been generally assumed, however, that the Webster-Ashburton treaty of
-1842, together with the Buchanan-Packenham treaty of 1846, settled all
-outstanding differences with Great Britain in the matter of boundaries,
-and few people are aware that there is an important failure in these
-and earlier treaties, to describe and define _all_ of the line which
-extends from ocean to ocean and fixes the sovereignty of the adjacent
-territory. From the mouth of the St. Croix River to the ocean outside
-of West Quoddy Head is a distance of about twenty-one miles, if the
-most direct route through Lubec Channel be taken. Somewhere, from the
-middle of the river at its mouth to a point in the ocean about midway
-between the island of Campobello and Grand Menan, the boundary between
-Maine and New Brunswick must go, and, inferentially, for about one
-mile of this distance it is tolerably well fixed. But this is only an
-inference from the generally accepted principle that where two nations
-exercise jurisdiction on opposite sides of a narrow channel or stream
-of water, the boundary line must be found somewhere in that stream.
-That this has not been a universally accepted principle, however, will
-appear later. Throughout the remaining twenty miles, the territory
-under the jurisdiction of the United States is separated from that
-under the dominion of Great Britain by a long, irregularly shaped
-estuary, almost everywhere more than a mile in width and over a large
-part of its length opening into Passamaquoddy Bay and other extensive
-arms of the sea. This large body of water, with an average depth of
-twenty-five fathoms and everywhere navigable for vessels of the largest
-size, flows with the alternations of the tides, the rise and fall of
-which is here eighteen to twenty feet, now north, now south, with a
-current in many places as swift as five and six miles per hour. Nothing
-like a distinct channel or “thread of stream” exists, and it can in no
-way be likened to or regarded as a river. When once the mouth of the
-St. Croix is reached, the boundary line is defined by the treaty of
-1783 to be the middle of that river, up to its source, but literally,
-as well as figuratively, we are at sea as to its location from that
-point to the open ocean. It is the purpose of this paper to give
-some account of the circumstances which gave rise to such a curious
-omission; the incidents which led to a diplomatic correspondence and
-convention relating to the matter, in 1892, between the two governments
-interested; and the attempt which was made during the two or three
-years following the convention to determine and mark the missing
-boundary.
-
-The present controversy really had its beginning nearly three hundred
-years ago. Up to the end of the 16th century, not much attention had
-been given by European colonists to the northeastern coast of America,
-although it had been visited by Cabot before the beginning of that
-century. The coast was tolerably well known, however, and it had been
-explored to some extent by both English and French, who were alive
-to the importance of the extensive fishing and other interests which
-it represented. In 1603, the King of France (Henry IV.) made the
-famous grant to De Monts of all the territory in America between the
-fortieth and forty-sixth degrees of north latitude, thus furnishing a
-beautiful example of the definition of a most uncertain quantity in
-a most certain and exact manner, an example which later boundary-line
-makers might wisely have followed. The Atlantic coast-line covered by
-this extensive charter, extends from a point considerably below Long
-Island to another point on Cape Breton Island and includes all of Nova
-Scotia. In the spring of 1604, De Monts sailed for his new domain, to
-which the name Acadia had been given, carrying with him Champlain as
-pilot. After landing on the southern coast of what is now known as
-Nova Scotia, he sailed around Cape Sable to the northward, entered the
-Bay of Fundy, discovered and named the St. John River, and afterward
-entered Passamaquoddy Bay, and ascended a large river which came into
-the bay from the north. A little distance above its mouth, he found a
-small island, near the middle of the stream, which at that point is
-nearly a mile and a half wide. As this island appeared easy of defence
-against the natives, he determined to make a settlement there, and
-proceeded to the erection of buildings, fortifications, _etc._ A few
-miles above the island, the river was divided into two branches nearly
-at right angles to the main stream, and the whole so resembled a cross,
-that the name “St. Croix” was given to the new settlement, and the
-same name came, afterward, to be applied to the river. The subsequent
-unhappy fate of this first attempt to plant the civilization of Europe
-upon the northern coast of America is so well known that further
-reference is unnecessary. This most interesting spot is now partly
-occupied by the United States Government as a lighthouse reservation,
-about one-third of the island having been purchased for that purpose.
-The St. Croix River lighthouse, carrying a fixed white and 30-sec.
-white flashlight of the fifth order, now stands where in 1605 stood the
-stone house and palisade of the dying Frenchmen, who found in disease
-a worse enemy than the aborigines. The area of the whole is only a few
-acres, and it has apparently wasted away a good deal since the French
-settlement, relics of which are occasionally found even at this day.
-The island has borne various names, that first given having long since
-attached itself to the river. On modern Government charts, it is known
-as Dochet’s Island, derived, doubtless, from Doucet’s, one of its early
-names, but it is, perhaps, more generally known as Neutral Island. The
-significance of its discovery and settlement as affecting the question
-in hand, will appear later.
-
-Very shortly after the grant of the French King in 1603, King James
-of England issued a charter to all of the territory in America
-extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, included between
-the thirty-fourth and forty-sixth degrees of north latitude, covering
-and including the previous grant of the French King, and thus setting
-fairly in motion the game of giving away lands without consideration
-of the rights or even claims of others, in which the crowned heads
-of Europe delighted to indulge for a century or more. Colonization
-was attempted, and now one power, now another, was in the ascendant.
-Occasional treaties in Europe arrested petty warfare on this side, and
-out of it all came a general recognition of the St. Croix River as the
-boundary between the French possessions and those of the English. It is
-impossible and would be improper to go into these historical details,
-most of which are so generally known. It is only important to note
-that the province known as Nova Scotia by the one nation, as Acadia
-by the other, after various vicissitudes became the property of the
-English, and that it was assumed to be separated from the province of
-Massachusetts Bay by the river St. Croix.
-
-While the latter province remained a colony, loyal to the King, and the
-former a dominion of the Crown, there was naturally no dispute over
-boundary lines. In the provisional peace treaty of 1782, between the
-United States and Great Britain, and in the definitive treaty of peace
-in 1783, it is declared that in order that “all disputes which might
-arise in future, on the subject of the boundaries of the said United
-States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared that the
-following are and shall be their boundaries,” and in this embodiment
-of peaceful intent is to be found the origin of international
-controversies which lasted more than a half a century, and which were
-often provocative of much bitterness on both sides. The phrase in which
-reference is made to the line under consideration is as follows: “East
-by a line to be drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from
-its mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source.” During the last days of
-the Revolutionary War many who had been loyal to the King during its
-continuance fled from the Colonies to Nova Scotia, and naturally they
-were not much in favor among those who had risked all in the founding
-of a new republic. It was believed by them that the loyalists were
-encroaching on the territory rightfully belonging to the province of
-Massachusetts, and even before the definitive treaty of peace had been
-proclaimed, Congress had been appealed to to drive them away from their
-settlement and claim what was assumed to be the property of the United
-States of America. There at once developed what proved to be one of
-the most interesting controversies in the history of boundary lines.
-It was discovered that although the St. Croix River had long served as
-a boundary, “between nations and individuals,” its actual identity was
-unknown. The treaty declared that the line of demarcation between the
-two countries should be “drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix
-from its mouth in the Bay of Fundy,” but it was found that there were
-several rivers debouching into this bay and that several of them had
-been, at one time or another, known as the St. Croix. In accordance
-with time-honored diplomatic practice, the English were for taking
-the most westerly of all these, and the Americans contended with much
-vigor and no small amount of justice that it was the most easterly. The
-St. John, a large river emptying into the Bay of Fundy, had been so
-long and so well known that it was out of the question. There remained
-three considerable streams, which, beginning with that farthest east,
-were known as the Magaguadavic, or popularly at the present day, the
-“Magadavy,” the Passamaquoddy and the Cobscook, all pouring their
-waters into the Passamaquoddy Bay.
-
-In the Grenville-Jay Treaty of 1794, the settling of this dispute is
-provided for in an agreement to appoint three commissioners, one each
-to be named by the respective governments and the third to be selected
-and agreed upon by these two, whose duty it was to “decide what river
-is the river St. Croix intended by the treaty,” and to declare the
-same, with particulars as to the latitude and longitude of its mouth
-and its source, and the decision of these commissioners was to be
-final. In a supplementary treaty of 1798, this commission was relieved
-from the duty of determining latitude and longitude, having, for
-some reason or other, found difficulties in the same, or, possibly,
-recognizing the absurdity of defining a boundary in two distinct and
-independent ways. It was not until 1798 that the commissioners made
-their report. As is usual, indeed, almost universal in diplomatic
-affairs, it represented a compromise. There seems to be little
-doubt that the river which was called St. Croix at the time of the
-negotiation of the treaty of peace in 1783 was really the most easterly
-river or the “Magadavy,” this being the testimony of the commissioners,
-Adams, Jay and Franklin. But at the same time it cannot be denied that
-the stream finally accepted as the St. Croix was the real river of that
-name, referred to in the traditions and treaties of two centuries,
-and the discovery of the remains of the French settlement on Dochet’s
-Island quieted all doubt in the matter. England gained a decided
-advantage by the not-unheard-of proceeding of adhering to the letter of
-the treaty rather than to its spirit.
-
-But the report of the commission of 1798 fell far short of terminating
-the boundary-line controversy. The identity of the St. Croix River
-was fixed and its mouth and source determined, but from the beginning
-of the line in the middle of the river there were still twenty miles
-before the open ocean was reached. Along this stretch of almost
-land-locked water were numerous islands, several of them large and
-valuable, and on some of them important settlements had already been
-made. The Commissioners of 1794 were urged to continue the line to
-the sea, thus settling the sovereignty of these islands and ending
-the dispute. They declined to do so, however, on account of a lack
-of jurisdiction, as they believed, and it was not then thought that
-these subordinate problems would be difficult of solution. As a matter
-of fact, Great Britain claimed dominion over all of these islands
-and exercised authority over most of them, except Moose Island,
-upon which was the vigorous American town of Eastport. A treaty was
-actually arranged in 1803 between Lord Hawkesbury and Rufus King in
-which the question of the extension of the boundary line to the open
-sea was agreed upon and in a most curious way. It was declared that
-the boundary line should proceed from the mouth of the St. Croix and
-through the middle of the channel between Deer Island and Moose Island
-(which was thus held by the United States) and Campobello Island on
-the west and south round the eastern part of Campobello to the Bay
-of Fundy. This would apparently give the island of Campobello to the
-United States; but it was especially declared that all islands to
-the north and east of said boundary, _together with the island of
-Campobello_, should be a part of the Province of New Brunswick. The
-curious feature of this treaty, providing that an island actually
-included on the American side of the boundary line should remain in the
-possession of Great Britain, resulted from a provision of the treaty of
-1783, which declared that all islands heretofore under the jurisdiction
-of Nova Scotia should remain the property of Great Britain. It is also
-an admission of the fact that the _natural_ extension of the boundary
-line is around the eastern end of Campobello, as described above; and
-while this treaty was never ratified, it is of great significance as
-proving the admission on the part of the English, that the natural
-boundary would include the island of Campobello in American territory.
-
-During the war of 1812 matters remained in _statu quo_, and Moose
-Island (Eastport) continued to be regarded as American, although Great
-Britain had yielded nothing of her claims. Finally, just as peace had
-been declared, an armed English force appeared before the town and
-compelled its surrender. This was undoubtedly to gain that possession,
-which is nine of the ten points, before the meeting of the Commission
-at Ghent; and in the discussion which afterward took place, the British
-Commissioners claimed absolute and complete ownership of Moose Island
-and others near by. To this the Americans would not yield; but they
-finally gave way to the extent of allowing continued possession until
-commissioners, to be appointed under the treaty, could investigate and
-decide the question. Thus the boundary line was thrown into the hands
-of another commission, which was again unfortunate in not being clothed
-with sufficient power to definitely fix it. Indeed, the importance
-and desirability of considering the extension of the boundary line to
-the sea does not seem to have been realized, the commissioners being
-restricted in their duties to the determination of the sovereignty of
-the several islands in Passamaquoddy Bay. The report of this commission
-was made in November, 1817. As this decision has a most important
-bearing on the matter under consideration, it will be well to quote its
-exact language. The Commissioners agreed “that Moose Island, Dudley
-Island and Frederick Island, in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part
-of the Bay of Fundy, do and each of them does belong to the United
-States of America; and we have also decided, and do decide, that
-all other islands and each and every one of them, in the said Bay of
-Passamaquoddy, which is a part of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of
-Grand Menan in the said Bay of Fundy, do belong to his said Britannic
-Majesty, in conformity with the true intent of said second article of
-said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.” A very
-superficial examination of this decision reveals the possibility of
-a decided advantage to Great Britain in consequence of its wording,
-an advantage doubtless foreseen and foresought by the more shrewd and
-accomplished diplomatists by whom that nation was represented in this
-instance, as in almost every other controversy with this country. Here
-is a group of scores of islands, lying in an inland sea, separating
-the two countries. It is true that the sovereignty of one or two of
-the most important is apparently determined by the treaty of 1783,
-but on this the arguments were almost equally strong on both sides.
-In any event it would have been easy, and infinitely better to have
-drawn a line through the Bay, from the mouth of the river to the open
-sea, and to have declared that all islands on one side of that line
-should belong to Great Britain and all on the other side to the United
-States. Had this been done, much subsequent dispute would have been
-avoided. With much ingenuity, however (as it seems to me), the American
-Commission was induced to accept three islands, definitely named and
-pointed out, as their share, while the Englishmen, with characteristic
-modesty, contented themselves with everything left. Of the sovereignty
-of Moose, Dudley and Frederick Islands, there was hardly room for
-discussion, notwithstanding the three or four years’ occupancy of the
-town of Eastport by British troops after the War of 1812. Our being
-worsted in the matter, as we unquestionably were, is to be attributed
-to the general indifference of the great majority of our people to the
-future value of outlying territory, the resources of which have not yet
-been explored. This unfortunate indifference is quite as general today
-as it was a century ago, and is in marked contrast with the policy of
-our English ancestors.
-
-It is important to note that this partition of the islands in
-Passamaquoddy Bay, unfair as it unquestionably was, gave no definition
-of the boundary line from the mouth of the St. Croix to the sea, except
-inferentially. In the absence of description it must be inferred that
-the boundary is to be drawn so as to leave on one side all territory
-admitted to be American and on the other all admitted to be British.
-For a distance of about a half a mile the island of Campobello lies so
-close to the American shore that a channel, known as Lubec Channel,
-not more than a thousand feet in width, separates the two countries,
-and the thread, or deepest axis of this channel might well define the
-boundary. For the remaining score of miles, however, as has already
-been explained, the estuary is too wide, its depth too great and too
-uniform to afford any physical delimitation, except that based on equal
-division of water areas.
-
-This ill-defined, or rather undefined boundary line has so remained
-for nearly eighty years. It is true that government chart-makers, both
-English and American, have often indicated by dotted lines their own
-ideas as to its whereabouts, but they have not been consistent, even
-with themselves, except as to making Lubec Channel a part of it, and
-they have had no authority except that of tradition. There has been no
-small amount of commercial activity among the settlements on both sides
-of the Bay, and a considerable proportion of the population have been,
-at one time or another, engaged in fishing. The customs laws of both
-countries, and especially the well-established fisheries regulations
-of the Canadians, and the activity of their fisheries police, have
-led to various assumptions as to the location of the boundary by one
-of the interested parties and to more or less tacit admission by the
-other. It happens that the greater part of the best fishing-grounds
-in the immediate vicinity of the town of Eastport is distinctly within
-Canadian waters, so that most of the trespassing has been done by the
-Americans. This has resulted in a great development of Canadian police
-activity, which necessarily implies assumption as to the existence
-and whereabouts of the boundary. The continued readiness to claim
-that American fishermen were trespassers, accompanied occasionally by
-actual arrest and confiscation, naturally led to a gradual pushing
-of the assumed boundary towards the American side; and there is no
-doubt that during the past twenty-five years, the people on that side
-have acquiesced in an interpretation of the original treaty which
-was decidedly unfavorable to their own interests. On the other hand,
-from Lubec Channel to the sea, through Quoddy Roads, a condition of
-things just the reverse of this seems to have existed. Here certain
-fishing-rights and localities have been stubbornly contended for and
-successfully held by Americans, although the territory involved, is,
-to say the least, doubtful. In the matter of importation of dutiable
-foreign goods into the United States, there existed for many years
-an easy liberality among the people whose occupation at one time was
-largely that of smuggling, for which the locality offers so many
-facilities. It is plain that this condition of things would give
-rise to no great anxiety about the uncertainty of the boundary line,
-although in one or two instances the activity (no doubt thought
-pernicious) of the Customs officers resulted in disputes as to where
-the jurisdiction of one country ended and that of the other began; and
-in at least one notable case, to be referred to at some length later,
-this question was adjudicated upon by the United States courts.
-
-The question was not seriously considered by the two governments,
-however, from the time of the treaty of Ghent to the year 1892. It
-is not an uncommon belief that this part of the boundary line was
-considered in the famous Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842; and many
-people have unjustly held Webster responsible for the continued
-possession by Great Britain of the island of Campobello, which, by
-every rule of physiographic delimitation, ought to belong to the United
-States. But, as already recited, the sovereignty of this island was
-settled in 1817, and practically so in the original treaty of 1783.
-The Webster-Ashburton Treaty was apparently intended to settle the
-last outstanding differences between Great Britain and the United
-States in the matter of boundary lines, but disputes relating to them
-seem difficult to quiet. The treaty of 1842 carried the line only as
-far as the Rocky Mountains, and another in 1846 was necessary for its
-extension to the Pacific. Examining both of these in the light of
-today, there can be no doubt of the fact that the United States was
-seriously at fault in yielding, as she did, her rightful claims at
-both ends of the great trans-continental line. Enormous advantages
-would be hers today, if she had not so yielded; and her only excuse is
-that at the time of negotiation the territory involved did not seem of
-material value, at least when compared with her millions of acres then
-undeveloped.
-
-In all of these controversies nothing was said of the little stretch
-of undefined boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay, and it is quite probable
-that those who had to do with such matters were quite unaware of its
-existence.
-
-On July 16th, 1891, the Canadian cruiser, _Dream_, doing police duty
-in those waters, seized seven fishing-boats, owned and operated by
-citizens of the United States, while they were engaged in fishing at
-a point near what is known as Cochran’s Ledge, in Passamaquoddy Bay,
-nearly opposite the city of Eastport, Maine. It was claimed by Canadian
-authorities that the crews of these boats were engaged in taking fish
-in Canadian waters. On the other hand, the owners of the boats seized
-contended that they were well within the jurisdiction of the United
-States at the time of the seizure, and there was much interest in the
-controversy which followed. The matter was referred to the Department
-of State, where it became evident that future conflict of authority and
-jurisdiction could be avoided only by such a marking of the boundary
-line as would make the division of the waters of the Bay unmistakable.
-
-Accordingly, in Article II. of the Convention between the United
-States and Great Britain, concluded at Washington, on July 22, 1892,
-it is agreed that each nation shall appoint a Commissioner, and that
-the two shall “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 and fix such other boundary marks as they may deem to
-be necessary.” The phrasing of this Convention furnishes in itself,
-a most excellent example of how a thing ought not to be done. There
-is no doubt that a large majority of the boundary-line disputes the
-world over, are due to the use of faulty descriptions involving hasty
-and ill-considered phraseology. We are particularly liable to this
-sort of thing in the United States, by reason of the fact that most
-of our diplomatic affairs are too often conducted by men of little
-experience and no training, and who are unaccustomed to close criticism
-of the possible interpretation of phrases and sentences relating to
-geographical subjects. A treaty of this kind is usually satisfactory to
-both parties when entered into, and it is only at a later period, when
-it must be interpreted, that one or the other of them is likely to find
-that it is capable of a rendering and an application very different
-from what had been thought of at the time. Innumerable examples of this
-looseness of language might be given if necessary, but it is important
-to call attention to the inherent weakness of the document now under
-consideration. The first phrase, requiring the commissioners “to
-determine upon a method of more accurately marking the boundary line”
-implies that it was already marked in some unsatisfactory manner, and
-it implies still further, that such a boundary line exists, neither
-of which assumptions is correct. As a consequence of this erroneous
-hypothesis, the description of the part of the line to be marked,
-namely, that in front of and adjacent to Eastport, is vague and
-inadequate, and, indeed, there is nowhere a hint of a recognition of
-the real facts.
-
-Under this convention, Hon. W. F. King, of Ottawa, Canada, was
-appointed commissioner on the part of Great Britain, and the writer of
-this paper represented the United States.
-
-The commissioners were immediately confronted with the fact that they
-were expected to mark a boundary line which really did not exist and
-never had existed; but by a liberal interpretation of that part of the
-convention in which it was agreed that they were “to place buoys or
-fix such other boundary marks as they may determine to be necessary,”
-they found a basis on which to proceed to the consideration of the
-question. Evidently the just and fair principle according to which the
-boundary might be drawn, was that which, as far as was practicable,
-left equal water-areas on both sides. There was no other solution
-of the problem clearly indicated by the physics of the estuary or
-the topography of the shores. Furthermore, there is a precedent for
-adopting this principle, in the treaty of 1846, in which the extension
-of the boundary from the point of intersection of the forty-ninth
-parallel of north latitude with the middle of the channel between
-Vancouver Island and the Continent, to the Pacific Ocean, is along the
-middle of the Strait of Fuca. This was agreed to by both sides; and
-also, that the boundary line should consist, in the main, of straight
-lines, because of the impossibility of marking a curved line on the
-water, or indicating it clearly by shore signals; that the number of
-these straight lines should be as small as possible, consistent with
-an approximately equal division of the water area. In view of the
-great desirability of fixing the line for the whole distance, from the
-mouth of the St. Croix River to West Quoddy Head, the commissioners
-tentatively agreed to so interpret the words “adjacent to Eastport,”
-as to include the entire twenty miles, thus hoping to definitely
-settle a controversy of a hundred years’ standing. Proceeding on these
-principles, the whole line was actually laid down on a large scale
-chart of the region at a meeting of the commission, in Washington, in
-March, 1893, with the exception of a distance of a little over half
-a mile, extending north from a point in the middle of Lubec Channel.
-The omission of this part in the Washington agreement was due to the
-existence of a small island about a quarter of a mile from the entrance
-to the channel, now known as “Pope’s Folly,” but early in the century
-known as “Green” Island and also as “Mark” Island. The sovereignty
-of this island has been almost from the beginning a matter of local
-dispute. It contains barely an acre of ground, and except for possible
-military uses, it has practically no value. Its location is such,
-however, as to form a stumbling block in the way of drawing a boundary
-line, which, if laid down with a reasonable regard to the principles
-enunciated above, would certainly throw it on the side of the United
-States, while a line so drawn as to include it in Canadian waters
-would be unscientific and unnatural. It was agreed to postpone further
-consideration of this question until the meeting of the commissioners
-in the field for the purpose of actually establishing the line, which
-meeting occurred in July, 1893.
-
-Nearly two months were occupied in the surveys necessary to the
-establishment of the ranges agreed upon and in the erection of the
-shore signals. It was agreed that the line should be marked by buoys
-at the turning-points, but as the strong tidal currents which there
-prevail promised to make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold these
-in their places it was determined to mark each straight segment of
-the boundary by prominent and lasting range-signals so that it could
-be followed without regard to the buoys, and cross-ranges were also
-established by means of which the latter could be easily replaced if
-carried away. Permanent natural objects were in a few instances used
-as range signals, but for the most part they were stone monuments,
-conical in form, solidly built, from five feet to fifteen feet in
-height, and painted white whenever their visibility at long range was
-thus improved. At the close of the work, first-class can-buoys were
-placed at the principal turning-points, although with little hope of
-their remaining in place. As a matter of fact, it was found impossible
-to keep in place more than three of the six or seven put down, but,
-fortunately, these are at the most important points in the line. As
-already stated, the commissioners had failed to agree, in Washington,
-as to the direction of the line around Pope’s Folly Island, and on
-further investigation of the facts they were not drawn together on this
-point. As the work in the field progressed, other important differences
-developed which finally prevented the full accomplishment of the work
-for which the commission had been appointed. A brief discussion of
-these differences will properly form a part of this paper.
-
-As to jurisdiction over Pope’s Folly Island, the claim of the British
-Commissioner is, at first blush, the strongest. It rests upon the
-report of the commissioners appointed under the treaty of Ghent for the
-partition of the islands in Passamaquoddy Bay. It will be remembered
-that in this report three, only, of these islands were declared to
-belong to the United States, and Pope’s Folly was not one of them. As
-all others were to be the property of Great Britain it would seem that
-the sovereignty of this small island was hers beyond doubt. There is,
-however, very distinctly, another aspect of the question. In the first
-place, it is highly probable the Commissioners under the treaty of
-Ghent restricted their consideration and action to those islands the
-domain of which was and had been actually in dispute. The language
-of the treaty distinctly implies this and the language of the report
-closely follows that of the treaty. It is true that reference is had
-to “the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of
-the Bay of Fundy,” _etc._, but it is further said that “said islands
-are claimed as belonging to His Britannic Majesty, as having been at
-the time of and previous to the aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven
-hundred and eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova
-Scotia”; for by that treaty all of the important islands of the group
-would have come to the United States, had not exception been made of
-all then or previously belonging to this province. Obviously, then,
-the partition commissioners would consider only those for which such
-a claim could be set up. There is also good reason to believe that
-the island called Pope’s Folly may not have been considered by the
-commission, on account of its trifling importance. It is a significant
-fact that there are many other small islands in the bay, some of
-them much larger and more important than this, of which no mention
-was made by the commission, yet Great Britain has never claimed or
-even suggested that they were rightfully British territory. Their
-sovereignty was probably not even thought of by the commission. In
-short, a literal interpretation of their report is not admissible
-and it has never been so claimed. Its phraseology is another example
-of hasty diplomatic composition, into the acceptance of which the
-Americans may have been led by their more skilful opponents.
-
-At the time this question was under consideration, the region was
-sparsely settled, many of the islands having no inhabitants at all; and
-the whole dispute was thought, at least on our side, to be a matter
-of comparative little importance. It was natural, therefore, that in
-selecting those islands which were to belong to the United States,
-only the most important would be thought of, it being understood that
-geographical relationship should determine jurisdiction over many small
-islands not named and doubtless not thought worthy of enumerating at
-that time. But if it could be shown that the island was at the time
-of the treaty of 1783, or had been previously, a dependency of the
-Province of Nova Scotia, the claim of the British Commissioner would
-be good. On this point I believe the evidence is entirely with us. It
-goes to show that so far as there has been any private ownership of
-the island it has been vested in American citizens. At the time of my
-investigation, in the summer of 1893, I had the pleasure of a long
-interview with the owner of this little island, Mr. Winslow Bates, who
-was born in the year 1808, in which year Pope’s Folly was deeded to
-his father by one Zeba Pope. A copy of this deed I obtained from the
-records at Machias, but I was unable to find any trace of an earlier
-proprietor than Mr. Pope. It was deeded to Mr. Bates under the name
-of “Little Green Island”; but there is evidence that Pope had erected
-upon it a house and a wharf, the uselessness of which had suggested
-to his neighbors the name by which it is now known. Bates, the father
-of my informant, continued in peaceful possession of the island until
-the British forces came into control at Eastport at the close of the
-war of 1812. In August, 1814, David Owen, of Campobello, posted a
-placard proclamation in the town of Eastport, announcing his assertion
-of ownership of this island. It was hardly posted, however, before it
-was torn down by an indignant American patriot, probably Elias Bates
-himself, for it is now in the possession of Mr. Winslow Bates. It shows
-the holes made by the tacks by which it was originally held and is a
-curious and valuable relic of those troublesome days in the history of
-Eastport. Backed by the British army, Owen took forcible possession
-of the island and removed the buildings to Campobello. The American
-owner, Bates, procured a writ for the arrest of Owen, claiming damages
-to the extent of $2,000. The writ was never served, as Owen was
-careful never to come within the jurisdiction of the Court, after the
-withdrawal of the British troops. After this it was in the continued
-occupancy of Americans; Bates pastured sheep on it, and Canadians
-who had attempted to erect a weir at the east end of the island were
-prevented from doing so by a warning from Winslow Bates, and did not
-further assert their claim. The island was incorporated into the town
-of Eastport, and when that town was divided it was included in that
-part known as Lubec. As long ago as 1823, the sovereignty of the
-island was adjudicated upon by the American courts, on the occasion of
-the confiscation near its shore, of “sundry barrels of rum” by alert
-Customs officers. Judge Ware made an elaborate decision, in which the
-whole case was admirably presented.[1]
-
-[1] Ware’s Reports, 1823.
-
-His construction of the Report of the Commission was “that it assigns
-to each party a title according to its possession, as it was held in
-1812,” and he finds that the island is within the domain of the United
-States.
-
-If further evidence were necessary, it could be found in the early
-cartography of this region.
-
-In a map entitled “A Map of Campobello and other Islands in the
-Province of New Brunswick, the property of Will Owen, Esq., sole
-surviving grantee, _etc._, drawn by John Wilkinson, Agt., to Wm. Owen
-Esq., Campobello, 30th September, 1830,” there is drawn a broken
-straight line extending from the southern end of Deer Island to
-the eastern point of Lubec Neck, which line is designated “Filium
-Aquae” which must be interpreted as meaning water line or boundary.
-Pope’s Folly is on the American side of this line. Moreover, it is an
-historical fact that English and American vessels formerly exchanged
-cargoes on such a line, not far from Eastport, which was assumed to
-be the boundary line. A British Admiral’s chart of that region, dated
-1848, shows a dotted line intended to represent the boundary, which
-runs to the eastward of Pope’s Folly. Moreover, the principal ship
-channel is between the island and Campobello.
-
-In the light of all of this evidence, and more of a similar character,
-it seems unreasonable to suppose that the Commission under the treaty
-of 1814 ever intended this island to be included in the general
-declaration “all other islands shall belong to His Britannic Majesty.”
-According to all recognized geographical principles, to traditional
-ownership and continued possession, and to early and authoritative maps
-and charts, it is a part of the State of Maine. To deflect the boundary
-line so as to bring the island under British control, would distort
-it to an unreasonable degree, and would result in greatly increased
-difficulty and confusion in the administration of customs laws and
-regulations. Against all of this the British Commission could only set
-up a literal interpretation of the report of the Commissioners under
-the treaty of Ghent, to which the representative of the United States
-felt compelled to refuse assent.
-
-Another difference of opinion, almost trivial in magnitude but
-suggestive in character, arose as soon as the range-marks defining the
-line as agreed upon in Washington had been actually located on the
-ground. Nearly opposite the city of Eastport there is rather a sharp
-change in the direction of this line, amounting to about 57° 25′. It
-was discovered that there was included in the angle at this point,
-on the side towards the United States, the better part of a shoal
-known as Cochran’s Ledge, a locality much frequented by fishermen,
-and, indeed, the very spot on which the American fishermen had been
-arrested by the Canadian police in 1891. The result of this discovery
-was that the commissioner representing Canadian interests declared his
-unwillingness to agree to the line as laid down at this point, and
-desired to introduce a new short line cutting off this angle so as to
-throw the ledge into Canadian waters.
-
-In some measure growing out of this controversy was a third, relating
-to the line from Lubec Channel to the sea. For about half of this
-distance the channel now and for many years in use is a dredged
-channel, created and maintained at the expense of the United States.
-Through this it was proposed and agreed at Washington to run the
-boundary line. Previous to the making of this there was a more or less
-complete and satisfactory natural channel, through which all vessels
-passed. It was crooked, and was, for the most part, much nearer the
-Canadian shore than the present channel. It has now largely filled
-up and disappeared; the principal current having been diverted into
-the new channel. In running the boundary line through the latter a
-much more even and, in the judgment of the American Commissioner, a
-much more just division of the water area was secured, but it was
-discovered to have the locally serious disadvantage of throwing to
-the Canadian side certain fishing weirs which had been maintained
-practically in the same spot for many years and which were mostly owned
-and operated by American citizens, resident in the town of Lubec. It
-is true, as suggested in an earlier part of this paper, that their
-continued occupation had been stoutly resisted by the Canadians, and
-serious conflict had once or twice arisen. There was, of course, a
-certain amount of reason in demanding a line following the old channel,
-which undoubtedly was the only channel, when the original treaty was
-made. Adherence to the well-founded principle of equal division of
-water areas, however, was thought to be wiser and more just by the
-representative of the United States, even if it required the surrender
-of a few comparatively valueless fishing-privileges, the right to which
-was of very doubtful origin. Those who thought they would suffer in
-this way made strong appeals to the Department of State and a claim for
-the old channel was afterwards embodied in the propositions made by the
-United States.
-
-The differences between the Commissioners regarding the three points
-above referred to were the only differences that were at all serious,
-and these, it is believed, might have been removed had they enjoyed
-absolute freedom and full power of adjustment. Thus restricted, the
-Commissioners could not and did not come to an agreement. At their
-meeting on December 30th, 1894, the American Commissioner submitted
-three propositions, to any one of which he was willing to subscribe.
-The first proposed the entire line as originally laid down in
-Washington, with an additional section throwing Pope’s Folly Island
-into the United States; the second suggested a literal interpretation
-of the Convention of July 22nd, 1892, restricting the marking to three
-lines “in front of and adjacent to Eastport”; the third recommended
-an agreement on portions of the line, with alternative propositions
-as to Pope’s Folly and Lubec Channel, to be afterwards determined by
-such methods as the two governments might agree upon. None of these
-was acceptable to the British Commissioner and in turn he submitted
-five propositions, none of which was satisfactory to the representative
-of the United States. They all involved non-action as to Pope’s Folly
-Island, but included action favorable to Canadian interests below Lubec.
-
-At the last meeting, in April, 1895, it was finally agreed to disagree,
-and the preparation of a joint report, setting forth the principal
-lines of agreement and disagreement was undertaken. It was at last
-resolved, however, to report separately, and a full and detailed report
-of all operations was made by the American Commissioner and submitted
-to the Department of State.
-
-What was actually accomplished by this joint Commission was the laying
-out in Washington of a rational boundary line, extending over the
-entire twenty miles of undetermined boundary, and the actual erection
-on the ground of range-signals and monuments indicating this line.
-These still remain and, as a matter of fact, are quite generally
-accepted as authoritative in the immediate vicinity, thus making
-it every day easier for a future convention to fix definitely the
-direction of the boundary and thus quiet a dispute which has already
-continued a century longer than was necessary.
-
-[Illustration: Sketch Map of Passamaquoddy Bay showing proposed
-Boundary with alternate lines below and above Lubec.]
-
-
-
-
- Transcriber’s Notes:
-
- ――Text in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
-
- ――Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.
-
-
-
-
-
-End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Twenty Unsettled Miles in the
-Northeast Boundary, by T. C. Mendenhall
-
-*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN ***
-
-***** This file should be named 63443-0.txt or 63443-0.zip *****
-This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
-        http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/4/4/63443/
-
-Produced by Donald Cummings and the Online Distributed
-Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
-produced from images generously made available by The
-Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
-
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
-will be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
-one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
-(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
-permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
-set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
-copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
-protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
-Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
-charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
-do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
-rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
-such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
-research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
-practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
-subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
-redistribution.
-
-
-
-*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
-Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
-http://gutenberg.org/license).
-
-
-Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works
-
-1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
-all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
-If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
-terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
-entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
-
-1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
-paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
-and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
-works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
-or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
-collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
-individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
-located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
-copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
-works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
-are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
-Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
-freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
-this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
-the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
-keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
-Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
-a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
-the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
-before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
-creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
-Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
-the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
-States.
-
-1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
-access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
-whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
-copied or distributed:
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
-almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
-re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
-with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
-
-1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
-from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
-posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
-and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
-or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
-with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
-work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
-through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
-Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
-1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
-terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
-to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
-permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
-word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
-distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
-"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
-posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
-you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
-copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
-request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
-form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
-that
-
-- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
-     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
-     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
-     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
-     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
-     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
-     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
-     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
-     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
-     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-     License.  You must require such a user to return or
-     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
-     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
-     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
-     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
-     of receipt of the work.
-
-- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
-forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
-both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
-Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
-Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
-collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
-works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
-"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
-corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
-property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
-computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
-your equipment.
-
-1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
-your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
-the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
-refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
-providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
-receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
-is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
-opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
-WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
-WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
-If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
-law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
-interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
-the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
-provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
-with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
-promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
-harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
-that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
-or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
-work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
-Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
-
-
-Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
-including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
-because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
-people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
-To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
-and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
-and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
-
-
-Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
-Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
-http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
-permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
-Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
-throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
-809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
-business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
-information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
-page at http://pglaf.org
-
-For additional contact information:
-     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
-     Chief Executive and Director
-     gbnewby@pglaf.org
-
-
-Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
-spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
-SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
-particular state visit http://pglaf.org
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
-To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
-
-
-Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
-works.
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
-concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
-with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
-Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
-
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
-unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
-keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
-
-
-Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
-
-     http://www.gutenberg.org
-
-This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/old/63443-0.zip b/old/63443-0.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index c39fb5e..0000000
--- a/old/63443-0.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/63443-h.zip b/old/63443-h.zip
deleted file mode 100644
index d119f28..0000000
--- a/old/63443-h.zip
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/63443-h/63443-h.htm b/old/63443-h/63443-h.htm
deleted file mode 100644
index 93aef55..0000000
--- a/old/63443-h/63443-h.htm
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,1484 +0,0 @@
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
-    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
-  <head>
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
-    <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
-
-    <title>
-      Twenty Unsettled Miles in the Northeast Boundary, by T. C. Mendenhall
-    </title>
-
-    <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" />
-
-    <style type="text/css">
-
-/* DACSoft styles */
-
-body {
-    margin-left: 10%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-}
-
-/* General headers */
-h1 {
-    text-align: center; /* all headings centered */
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-/* Chapter headers */
-h2 {
-    text-align: center;
-    font-weight: bold;
-    line-height: 1.5em;
-}
-
-div.chapter {
-    page-break-before: always;
-}
-
-h2.nobreak {
-    page-break-before: avoid;
-}
-
-/* Indented paragraph */
-p {
-    margin-top: .51em;
-    margin-bottom: .49em;
-    text-align: justify;
-    text-indent: 1em;
-}
-
-/* Unindented paragraph */
-.noi { text-indent: 0em; }
-
-/* Centered unindented paragraph */
-.noic {
-    text-indent: 0em;
-    text-align: center;
-}
-
-/* Non-standard paragraph margins */
-.p2 { margin-top: 2em; }
-.p4 { margin-top: 4em; }
-
-/* Horizontal rules */
-hr {
-    width: 33%;
-    margin-top: 2em;
-    margin-bottom: 2em;
-    margin-left: 33.5%;
-    margin-right: 33.5%;
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;}
-
-/* Physical book page and line numbers */
-.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */
-    /*  visibility: hidden;  */
-    position: absolute;
-    right: 3%;
-/*    left: 92%;  */
-    font-size: x-small;
-    font-style: normal;
-    font-weight: normal;
-    font-variant: normal;
-    text-align: right;
-    color: gray;
-} /* page numbers */
-
-/* Text appearance */
-.smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
-
-.oldenglish {font-family: "Old English Text MT",
-                          "Engravers Old English BT",
-                          "Old English",
-                          "Collins Old English",
-                          "New Old English",
-                          serif;
-}
-
-/* Small fonts and lowercase small-caps */
-.smfont {
-    font-size: .8em;
-}
-
-.tinyfont {
-    font-size: .65em;
-}
-
-/* Illustration caption */
-.caption  {
-    font-size: .75em;
-    font-weight: bold;
-}
-
-/* Images */
-img {
-    max-width: 100%; /* no image to be wider than screen or containing div */
-    height: auto;    /* keep height in proportion to width */
-}
-
-.figcenter   {
-    margin: auto;
-    text-align: center;
-    page-break-inside: avoid;
-    max-width: 90%; /* div no wider than screen, even when screen is narrow */
-}
-
-/* Footnotes and sidenotes */
-.footnote         {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;}
-
-.footnote .label  {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;}
-
-.fnanchor {
-    vertical-align: top;
-    font-size: .65em;
-    text-decoration: none;
-    white-space: nowrap;
-}
-
-/* Transcriber's notes */
-.tnote {
-    background-color: #E6E6FA;
-    margin-left: 10%;
-    margin-right: 10%;
-    padding-bottom: .5em;
-    padding-top: .5em;
-    padding-left: .5em;
-    padding-right: .5em;
-}
-
-.tntitle {
-    font-size: 1.25em;
-    font-weight: bold;
-    text-align: center;
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-/* Title page borders and content. */
-.author {
-    font-size: 1.25em;
-    text-align: center;
-    clear: both;
-}
-
-    </style>
-  </head>
-<body>
-
-
-<pre>
-
-The Project Gutenberg EBook of Twenty Unsettled Miles in the Northeast
-Boundary, by T. C. Mendenhall
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
-almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
-re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
-with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
-
-
-Title: Twenty Unsettled Miles in the Northeast Boundary
-       [From the Report of the Council of the American Antiquarian
-              Society, presented at the Annual Meeting held in Worcester,
-              October 21, 1896]
-
-Author: T. C. Mendenhall
-
-Release Date: October 12, 2020 [EBook #63443]
-
-Language: English
-
-Character set encoding: UTF-8
-
-*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN ***
-
-
-
-
-Produced by Donald Cummings and the Online Distributed
-Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
-produced from images generously made available by The
-Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-</pre>
-
-
-
-<div class="tnote">
-<p class="noi tntitle">Transcriber’s Note:</p>
-
-<p class="smfont">This ebook was created in honour of Distributed Proofreaders’ 20th
-Anniversary.</p>
-</div>
-
-
-
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="figcenter" id="cover">
-  <img src="images/cover.jpg" alt="cover" title="cover" />
-</div>
-
-
-
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<h1>TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES<br />
-<span class="tinyfont">IN THE</span><br />
-NORTHEAST BOUNDARY.</h1>
-
-<p class="p2 noic">[<span class="smcap">From the Report of the Council of the American Antiquarian Society,
-presented at the Annual Meeting held in Worcester,
-October 21, 1896.</span>]</p>
-
-<p class="p4 noi author"><span class="smcap">By T. C. MENDENHALL.</span></p>
-
-<p class="p4 noic oldenglish">Worcester, Mass., U. S. A.</p>
-
-<p class="noic">PRESS OF CHARLES HAMILTON.<br />
-<span class="smcap">311 Main Street.</span><br />
-1897.</p>
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-
-<div class="chapter">
-<p><span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_3"></a>[3]</span></p>
-
-<h2 class="nobreak">TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN THE NORTHEAST
-BOUNDARY.</h2>
-</div>
-
-
-<p>For nearly three hundred years, and almost without cessation,
-there has raged a conflict of jurisdiction over territory
-lying near to what is known as the Northeast Boundary of
-the United States. It has been generally assumed, however,
-that the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842, together
-with the Buchanan-Packenham treaty of 1846, settled all
-outstanding differences with Great Britain in the matter of
-boundaries, and few people are aware that there is an
-important failure in these and earlier treaties, to describe
-and define <em>all</em> of the line which extends from ocean to ocean
-and fixes the sovereignty of the adjacent territory. From
-the mouth of the St. Croix River to the ocean outside
-of West Quoddy Head is a distance of about twenty-one
-miles, if the most direct route through Lubec Channel
-be taken. Somewhere, from the middle of the river at its
-mouth to a point in the ocean about midway between the
-island of Campobello and Grand Menan, the boundary between
-Maine and New Brunswick must go, and, inferentially,
-for about one mile of this distance it is tolerably well
-fixed. But this is only an inference from the generally
-accepted principle that where two nations exercise jurisdiction
-on opposite sides of a narrow channel or stream of
-water, the boundary line must be found somewhere in that
-stream. That this has not been a universally accepted principle,
-however, will appear later. Throughout the remaining
-twenty miles, the territory under the jurisdiction of the
-United States is separated from that under the dominion of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_4"></a>[4]</span>
-Great Britain by a long, irregularly shaped estuary, almost
-everywhere more than a mile in width and over a large part
-of its length opening into Passamaquoddy Bay and other
-extensive arms of the sea. This large body of water, with
-an average depth of twenty-five fathoms and everywhere
-navigable for vessels of the largest size, flows with the alternations
-of the tides, the rise and fall of which is here eighteen
-to twenty feet, now north, now south, with a current in
-many places as swift as five and six miles per hour. Nothing
-like a distinct channel or “thread of stream” exists, and
-it can in no way be likened to or regarded as a river. When
-once the mouth of the St. Croix is reached, the boundary
-line is defined by the treaty of 1783 to be the middle of
-that river, up to its source, but literally, as well as figuratively,
-we are at sea as to its location from that point to the
-open ocean. It is the purpose of this paper to give some
-account of the circumstances which gave rise to such a
-curious omission; the incidents which led to a diplomatic
-correspondence and convention relating to the matter, in
-1892, between the two governments interested; and the
-attempt which was made during the two or three years
-following the convention to determine and mark the missing
-boundary.</p>
-
-<p>The present controversy really had its beginning nearly
-three hundred years ago. Up to the end of the 16th
-century, not much attention had been given by European
-colonists to the northeastern coast of America, although
-it had been visited by Cabot before the beginning of that
-century. The coast was tolerably well known, however,
-and it had been explored to some extent by both English
-and French, who were alive to the importance of
-the extensive fishing and other interests which it represented.
-In 1603, the King of France (Henry IV.) made
-the famous grant to De Monts of all the territory in
-America between the fortieth and forty-sixth degrees of
-north latitude, thus furnishing a beautiful example of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_5"></a>[5]</span>
-definition of a most uncertain quantity in a most certain and
-exact manner, an example which later boundary-line makers
-might wisely have followed. The Atlantic coast-line
-covered by this extensive charter, extends from a point
-considerably below Long Island to another point on Cape
-Breton Island and includes all of Nova Scotia. In the
-spring of 1604, De Monts sailed for his new domain, to
-which the name Acadia had been given, carrying with him
-Champlain as pilot. After landing on the southern coast of
-what is now known as Nova Scotia, he sailed around Cape
-Sable to the northward, entered the Bay of Fundy, discovered
-and named the St. John River, and afterward entered
-Passamaquoddy Bay, and ascended a large river which
-came into the bay from the north. A little distance above
-its mouth, he found a small island, near the middle of the
-stream, which at that point is nearly a mile and a half wide.
-As this island appeared easy of defence against the natives,
-he determined to make a settlement there, and proceeded
-to the erection of buildings, fortifications, <i>etc.</i> A few miles
-above the island, the river was divided into two branches
-nearly at right angles to the main stream, and the whole so
-resembled a cross, that the name “St. Croix” was given
-to the new settlement, and the same name came, afterward,
-to be applied to the river. The subsequent unhappy fate
-of this first attempt to plant the civilization of Europe upon
-the northern coast of America is so well known that further
-reference is unnecessary. This most interesting spot is
-now partly occupied by the United States Government as a
-lighthouse reservation, about one-third of the island having
-been purchased for that purpose. The St. Croix River
-lighthouse, carrying a fixed white and 30-sec. white flashlight
-of the fifth order, now stands where in 1605 stood
-the stone house and palisade of the dying Frenchmen,
-who found in disease a worse enemy than the aborigines.
-The area of the whole is only a few acres, and it has
-apparently wasted away a good deal since the French<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_6"></a>[6]</span>
-settlement, relics of which are occasionally found even at
-this day. The island has borne various names, that first
-given having long since attached itself to the river. On
-modern Government charts, it is known as Dochet’s Island,
-derived, doubtless, from Doucet’s, one of its early names,
-but it is, perhaps, more generally known as Neutral Island.
-The significance of its discovery and settlement as affecting
-the question in hand, will appear later.</p>
-
-<p>Very shortly after the grant of the French King in 1603,
-King James of England issued a charter to all of the territory
-in America extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific
-Ocean, included between the thirty-fourth and forty-sixth
-degrees of north latitude, covering and including the previous
-grant of the French King, and thus setting fairly in
-motion the game of giving away lands without consideration
-of the rights or even claims of others, in which the
-crowned heads of Europe delighted to indulge for a century
-or more. Colonization was attempted, and now one power,
-now another, was in the ascendant. Occasional treaties
-in Europe arrested petty warfare on this side, and out of it
-all came a general recognition of the St. Croix River as the
-boundary between the French possessions and those of the
-English. It is impossible and would be improper to go
-into these historical details, most of which are so generally
-known. It is only important to note that the province
-known as Nova Scotia by the one nation, as Acadia by the
-other, after various vicissitudes became the property of the
-English, and that it was assumed to be separated from the
-province of Massachusetts Bay by the river St. Croix.</p>
-
-<p>While the latter province remained a colony, loyal
-to the King, and the former a dominion of the Crown,
-there was naturally no dispute over boundary lines. In
-the provisional peace treaty of 1782, between the United
-States and Great Britain, and in the definitive treaty of
-peace in 1783, it is declared that in order that “all disputes
-which might arise in future, on the subject of the<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_7"></a>[7]</span>
-boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it
-is hereby agreed and declared that the following are and
-shall be their boundaries,” and in this embodiment of
-peaceful intent is to be found the origin of international
-controversies which lasted more than a half a century, and
-which were often provocative of much bitterness on both
-sides. The phrase in which reference is made to the line
-under consideration is as follows: “East by a line to be
-drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its
-mouth in the Bay of Fundy to its source.” During the
-last days of the Revolutionary War many who had been
-loyal to the King during its continuance fled from the
-Colonies to Nova Scotia, and naturally they were not much
-in favor among those who had risked all in the founding of
-a new republic. It was believed by them that the loyalists
-were encroaching on the territory rightfully belonging to
-the province of Massachusetts, and even before the definitive
-treaty of peace had been proclaimed, Congress had
-been appealed to to drive them away from their settlement
-and claim what was assumed to be the property of the
-United States of America. There at once developed what
-proved to be one of the most interesting controversies in
-the history of boundary lines. It was discovered that
-although the St. Croix River had long served as a boundary,
-“between nations and individuals,” its actual identity
-was unknown. The treaty declared that the line of demarcation
-between the two countries should be “drawn along
-the middle of the river St. Croix from its mouth in the Bay
-of Fundy,” but it was found that there were several rivers
-debouching into this bay and that several of them had
-been, at one time or another, known as the St. Croix.
-In accordance with time-honored diplomatic practice, the
-English were for taking the most westerly of all these, and
-the Americans contended with much vigor and no small
-amount of justice that it was the most easterly. The St.
-John, a large river emptying into the Bay of Fundy, had<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_8"></a>[8]</span>
-been so long and so well known that it was out of the question.
-There remained three considerable streams, which,
-beginning with that farthest east, were known as the
-Magaguadavic, or popularly at the present day, the “Magadavy,”
-the Passamaquoddy and the Cobscook, all pouring
-their waters into the Passamaquoddy Bay.</p>
-
-<p>In the Grenville-Jay Treaty of 1794, the settling of this
-dispute is provided for in an agreement to appoint three
-commissioners, one each to be named by the respective
-governments and the third to be selected and agreed upon
-by these two, whose duty it was to “decide what river is
-the river St. Croix intended by the treaty,” and to declare
-the same, with particulars as to the latitude and longitude
-of its mouth and its source, and the decision of these
-commissioners was to be final. In a supplementary treaty
-of 1798, this commission was relieved from the duty of
-determining latitude and longitude, having, for some reason
-or other, found difficulties in the same, or, possibly, recognizing
-the absurdity of defining a boundary in two distinct
-and independent ways. It was not until 1798 that the
-commissioners made their report. As is usual, indeed,
-almost universal in diplomatic affairs, it represented a compromise.
-There seems to be little doubt that the river
-which was called St. Croix at the time of the negotiation of
-the treaty of peace in 1783 was really the most easterly
-river or the “Magadavy,” this being the testimony of the
-commissioners, Adams, Jay and Franklin. But at the
-same time it cannot be denied that the stream finally
-accepted as the St. Croix was the real river of that name,
-referred to in the traditions and treaties of two centuries,
-and the discovery of the remains of the French settlement
-on Dochet’s Island quieted all doubt in the matter. England
-gained a decided advantage by the not-unheard-of
-proceeding of adhering to the letter of the treaty rather
-than to its spirit.</p>
-
-<p>But the report of the commission of 1798 fell far short<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_9"></a>[9]</span>
-of terminating the boundary-line controversy. The identity
-of the St. Croix River was fixed and its mouth
-and source determined, but from the beginning of the
-line in the middle of the river there were still twenty
-miles before the open ocean was reached. Along this
-stretch of almost land-locked water were numerous islands,
-several of them large and valuable, and on some of them
-important settlements had already been made. The Commissioners
-of 1794 were urged to continue the line to the
-sea, thus settling the sovereignty of these islands and ending
-the dispute. They declined to do so, however, on
-account of a lack of jurisdiction, as they believed, and it
-was not then thought that these subordinate problems
-would be difficult of solution. As a matter of fact, Great
-Britain claimed dominion over all of these islands and
-exercised authority over most of them, except Moose
-Island, upon which was the vigorous American town of
-Eastport. A treaty was actually arranged in 1803 between
-Lord Hawkesbury and Rufus King in which the question
-of the extension of the boundary line to the open sea was
-agreed upon and in a most curious way. It was declared
-that the boundary line should proceed from the mouth of the
-St. Croix and through the middle of the channel between
-Deer Island and Moose Island (which was thus held by the
-United States) and Campobello Island on the west and
-south round the eastern part of Campobello to the Bay of
-Fundy. This would apparently give the island of Campobello
-to the United States; but it was especially declared
-that all islands to the north and east of said boundary, <em>together
-with the island of Campobello</em>, should be a part of
-the Province of New Brunswick. The curious feature of
-this treaty, providing that an island actually included on
-the American side of the boundary line should remain in
-the possession of Great Britain, resulted from a provision
-of the treaty of 1783, which declared that all islands heretofore
-under the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia should remain<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_10"></a>[10]</span>
-the property of Great Britain. It is also an admission of
-the fact that the <em>natural</em> extension of the boundary line is
-around the eastern end of Campobello, as described above;
-and while this treaty was never ratified, it is of great
-significance as proving the admission on the part of the
-English, that the natural boundary would include the island
-of Campobello in American territory.</p>
-
-<p>During the war of 1812 matters remained in <i lang="la" xml:lang="la">statu quo</i>,
-and Moose Island (Eastport) continued to be regarded as
-American, although Great Britain had yielded nothing of
-her claims. Finally, just as peace had been declared, an
-armed English force appeared before the town and compelled
-its surrender. This was undoubtedly to gain that
-possession, which is nine of the ten points, before the meeting
-of the Commission at Ghent; and in the discussion
-which afterward took place, the British Commissioners
-claimed absolute and complete ownership of Moose Island
-and others near by. To this the Americans would not
-yield; but they finally gave way to the extent of allowing
-continued possession until commissioners, to be appointed
-under the treaty, could investigate and decide the question.
-Thus the boundary line was thrown into the hands of
-another commission, which was again unfortunate in not being
-clothed with sufficient power to definitely fix it. Indeed,
-the importance and desirability of considering the extension
-of the boundary line to the sea does not seem to have been
-realized, the commissioners being restricted in their duties
-to the determination of the sovereignty of the several islands
-in Passamaquoddy Bay. The report of this commission
-was made in November, 1817. As this decision has a most
-important bearing on the matter under consideration, it
-will be well to quote its exact language. The Commissioners
-agreed “that Moose Island, Dudley Island and Frederick
-Island, in the Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is part of
-the Bay of Fundy, do and each of them does belong to the
-United States of America; and we have also decided, and<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_11"></a>[11]</span>
-do decide, that all other islands and each and every one of
-them, in the said Bay of Passamaquoddy, which is a part
-of the Bay of Fundy, and the Island of Grand Menan in the
-said Bay of Fundy, do belong to his said Britannic Majesty,
-in conformity with the true intent of said second
-article of said treaty of one thousand seven hundred and
-eighty-three.” A very superficial examination of this
-decision reveals the possibility of a decided advantage to
-Great Britain in consequence of its wording, an advantage
-doubtless foreseen and foresought by the more shrewd and
-accomplished diplomatists by whom that nation was represented
-in this instance, as in almost every other controversy
-with this country. Here is a group of scores of
-islands, lying in an inland sea, separating the two countries.
-It is true that the sovereignty of one or two of the most
-important is apparently determined by the treaty of 1783,
-but on this the arguments were almost equally strong on
-both sides. In any event it would have been easy, and
-infinitely better to have drawn a line through the Bay,
-from the mouth of the river to the open sea, and to have
-declared that all islands on one side of that line should
-belong to Great Britain and all on the other side to the
-United States. Had this been done, much subsequent
-dispute would have been avoided. With much ingenuity,
-however (as it seems to me), the American Commission
-was induced to accept three islands, definitely named and
-pointed out, as their share, while the Englishmen, with
-characteristic modesty, contented themselves with everything
-left. Of the sovereignty of Moose, Dudley and
-Frederick Islands, there was hardly room for discussion,
-notwithstanding the three or four years’ occupancy of the
-town of Eastport by British troops after the War of 1812.
-Our being worsted in the matter, as we unquestionably
-were, is to be attributed to the general indifference of the
-great majority of our people to the future value of outlying
-territory, the resources of which have not yet been<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_12"></a>[12]</span>
-explored. This unfortunate indifference is quite as general
-today as it was a century ago, and is in marked contrast
-with the policy of our English ancestors.</p>
-
-<p>It is important to note that this partition of the islands
-in Passamaquoddy Bay, unfair as it unquestionably was,
-gave no definition of the boundary line from the mouth of
-the St. Croix to the sea, except inferentially. In the
-absence of description it must be inferred that the boundary
-is to be drawn so as to leave on one side all territory
-admitted to be American and on the other all admitted to
-be British. For a distance of about a half a mile the island
-of Campobello lies so close to the American shore that a
-channel, known as Lubec Channel, not more than a thousand
-feet in width, separates the two countries, and the
-thread, or deepest axis of this channel might well define
-the boundary. For the remaining score of miles, however,
-as has already been explained, the estuary is too wide, its
-depth too great and too uniform to afford any physical
-delimitation, except that based on equal division of water
-areas.</p>
-
-<p>This ill-defined, or rather undefined boundary line has
-so remained for nearly eighty years. It is true that government
-chart-makers, both English and American, have
-often indicated by dotted lines their own ideas as to its
-whereabouts, but they have not been consistent, even with
-themselves, except as to making Lubec Channel a part of
-it, and they have had no authority except that of tradition.
-There has been no small amount of commercial activity
-among the settlements on both sides of the Bay, and a considerable
-proportion of the population have been, at one
-time or another, engaged in fishing. The customs laws of
-both countries, and especially the well-established fisheries
-regulations of the Canadians, and the activity of their fisheries
-police, have led to various assumptions as to the location
-of the boundary by one of the interested parties and to
-more or less tacit admission by the other. It happens that<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_13"></a>[13]</span>
-the greater part of the best fishing-grounds in the immediate
-vicinity of the town of Eastport is distinctly within
-Canadian waters, so that most of the trespassing has been
-done by the Americans. This has resulted in a great
-development of Canadian police activity, which necessarily
-implies assumption as to the existence and whereabouts of
-the boundary. The continued readiness to claim that
-American fishermen were trespassers, accompanied occasionally
-by actual arrest and confiscation, naturally led to
-a gradual pushing of the assumed boundary towards the
-American side; and there is no doubt that during the past
-twenty-five years, the people on that side have acquiesced
-in an interpretation of the original treaty which was decidedly
-unfavorable to their own interests. On the other
-hand, from Lubec Channel to the sea, through Quoddy
-Roads, a condition of things just the reverse of this seems
-to have existed. Here certain fishing-rights and localities
-have been stubbornly contended for and successfully held
-by Americans, although the territory involved, is, to say
-the least, doubtful. In the matter of importation of dutiable
-foreign goods into the United States, there existed
-for many years an easy liberality among the people whose
-occupation at one time was largely that of smuggling, for
-which the locality offers so many facilities. It is plain that
-this condition of things would give rise to no great anxiety
-about the uncertainty of the boundary line, although in one
-or two instances the activity (no doubt thought pernicious)
-of the Customs officers resulted in disputes as to where the
-jurisdiction of one country ended and that of the other
-began; and in at least one notable case, to be referred to
-at some length later, this question was adjudicated upon
-by the United States courts.</p>
-
-<p>The question was not seriously considered by the two
-governments, however, from the time of the treaty of Ghent
-to the year 1892. It is not an uncommon belief that this
-part of the boundary line was considered in the famous<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_14"></a>[14]</span>
-Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842; and many people
-have unjustly held Webster responsible for the continued
-possession by Great Britain of the island of Campobello,
-which, by every rule of physiographic delimitation, ought to
-belong to the United States. But, as already recited, the
-sovereignty of this island was settled in 1817, and practically
-so in the original treaty of 1783. The Webster-Ashburton
-Treaty was apparently intended to settle the
-last outstanding differences between Great Britain and the
-United States in the matter of boundary lines, but disputes
-relating to them seem difficult to quiet. The treaty of
-1842 carried the line only as far as the Rocky Mountains,
-and another in 1846 was necessary for its extension to the
-Pacific. Examining both of these in the light of today,
-there can be no doubt of the fact that the United States
-was seriously at fault in yielding, as she did, her rightful
-claims at both ends of the great trans-continental line.
-Enormous advantages would be hers today, if she had not
-so yielded; and her only excuse is that at the time of
-negotiation the territory involved did not seem of material
-value, at least when compared with her millions of acres
-then undeveloped.</p>
-
-<p>In all of these controversies nothing was said of the little
-stretch of undefined boundary in Passamaquoddy Bay, and
-it is quite probable that those who had to do with such
-matters were quite unaware of its existence.</p>
-
-<p>On July 16th, 1891, the Canadian cruiser, <i>Dream</i>, doing
-police duty in those waters, seized seven fishing-boats,
-owned and operated by citizens of the United States, while
-they were engaged in fishing at a point near what is known
-as Cochran’s Ledge, in Passamaquoddy Bay, nearly opposite
-the city of Eastport, Maine. It was claimed by
-Canadian authorities that the crews of these boats were
-engaged in taking fish in Canadian waters. On the other
-hand, the owners of the boats seized contended that they
-were well within the jurisdiction of the United States at<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_15"></a>[15]</span>
-the time of the seizure, and there was much interest in the
-controversy which followed. The matter was referred
-to the Department of State, where it became evident
-that future conflict of authority and jurisdiction could be
-avoided only by such a marking of the boundary line
-as would make the division of the waters of the Bay
-unmistakable.</p>
-
-<p>Accordingly, in Article II. of the Convention between the
-United States and Great Britain, concluded at Washington,
-on July 22, 1892, it is agreed that each nation shall appoint
-a Commissioner, and that the two shall “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 and fix such other boundary
-marks as they may deem to be necessary.” The phrasing
-of this Convention furnishes in itself, a most excellent example
-of how a thing ought not to be done. There is no
-doubt that a large majority of the boundary-line disputes
-the world over, are due to the use of faulty descriptions
-involving hasty and ill-considered phraseology. We are
-particularly liable to this sort of thing in the United States,
-by reason of the fact that most of our diplomatic affairs are
-too often conducted by men of little experience and no
-training, and who are unaccustomed to close criticism of the
-possible interpretation of phrases and sentences relating to
-geographical subjects. A treaty of this kind is usually
-satisfactory to both parties when entered into, and it is
-only at a later period, when it must be interpreted, that one
-or the other of them is likely to find that it is capable of a
-rendering and an application very different from what had
-been thought of at the time. Innumerable examples of this
-looseness of language might be given if necessary, but it is
-important to call attention to the inherent weakness of the
-document now under consideration. The first phrase, requiring
-the commissioners “to determine upon a method of<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_16"></a>[16]</span>
-more accurately marking the boundary line” implies that it
-was already marked in some unsatisfactory manner, and it
-implies still further, that such a boundary line exists,
-neither of which assumptions is correct. As a consequence
-of this erroneous hypothesis, the description of the part
-of the line to be marked, namely, that in front of and
-adjacent to Eastport, is vague and inadequate, and,
-indeed, there is nowhere a hint of a recognition of the
-real facts.</p>
-
-<p>Under this convention, Hon. W. F. King, of Ottawa,
-Canada, was appointed commissioner on the part of Great
-Britain, and the writer of this paper represented the United
-States.</p>
-
-<p>The commissioners were immediately confronted with
-the fact that they were expected to mark a boundary line
-which really did not exist and never had existed; but by a
-liberal interpretation of that part of the convention in which
-it was agreed that they were “to place buoys or fix such
-other boundary marks as they may determine to be necessary,”
-they found a basis on which to proceed to the consideration
-of the question. Evidently the just and fair
-principle according to which the boundary might be drawn,
-was that which, as far as was practicable, left equal water-areas
-on both sides. There was no other solution of the
-problem clearly indicated by the physics of the estuary or
-the topography of the shores. Furthermore, there is a
-precedent for adopting this principle, in the treaty of 1846,
-in which the extension of the boundary from the point of
-intersection of the forty-ninth parallel of north latitude with
-the middle of the channel between Vancouver Island and
-the Continent, to the Pacific Ocean, is along the middle of
-the Strait of Fuca. This was agreed to by both sides; and
-also, that the boundary line should consist, in the main, of
-straight lines, because of the impossibility of marking a
-curved line on the water, or indicating it clearly by shore
-signals; that the number of these straight lines should be<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_17"></a>[17]</span>
-as small as possible, consistent with an approximately equal
-division of the water area. In view of the great desirability
-of fixing the line for the whole distance, from the mouth of
-the St. Croix River to West Quoddy Head, the commissioners
-tentatively agreed to so interpret the words “adjacent
-to Eastport,” as to include the entire twenty miles,
-thus hoping to definitely settle a controversy of a hundred
-years’ standing. Proceeding on these principles, the whole
-line was actually laid down on a large scale chart of the
-region at a meeting of the commission, in Washington, in
-March, 1893, with the exception of a distance of a little
-over half a mile, extending north from a point in the middle
-of Lubec Channel. The omission of this part in the Washington
-agreement was due to the existence of a small island
-about a quarter of a mile from the entrance to the channel,
-now known as “Pope’s Folly,” but early in the century
-known as “Green” Island and also as “Mark” Island. The
-sovereignty of this island has been almost from the beginning
-a matter of local dispute. It contains barely an acre of
-ground, and except for possible military uses, it has practically
-no value. Its location is such, however, as to form a
-stumbling block in the way of drawing a boundary line,
-which, if laid down with a reasonable regard to the principles
-enunciated above, would certainly throw it on the side
-of the United States, while a line so drawn as to include it
-in Canadian waters would be unscientific and unnatural.
-It was agreed to postpone further consideration of this
-question until the meeting of the commissioners in the field
-for the purpose of actually establishing the line, which
-meeting occurred in July, 1893.</p>
-
-<p>Nearly two months were occupied in the surveys necessary
-to the establishment of the ranges agreed upon and in
-the erection of the shore signals. It was agreed that the
-line should be marked by buoys at the turning-points, but
-as the strong tidal currents which there prevail promised to
-make it difficult, if not impossible, to hold these in their<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_18"></a>[18]</span>
-places it was determined to mark each straight segment of
-the boundary by prominent and lasting range-signals so that
-it could be followed without regard to the buoys, and cross-ranges
-were also established by means of which the latter
-could be easily replaced if carried away. Permanent natural
-objects were in a few instances used as range signals,
-but for the most part they were stone monuments, conical
-in form, solidly built, from five feet to fifteen feet in height,
-and painted white whenever their visibility at long range
-was thus improved. At the close of the work, first-class
-can-buoys were placed at the principal turning-points, although
-with little hope of their remaining in place. As a
-matter of fact, it was found impossible to keep in place more
-than three of the six or seven put down, but, fortunately,
-these are at the most important points in the line. As
-already stated, the commissioners had failed to agree, in
-Washington, as to the direction of the line around Pope’s
-Folly Island, and on further investigation of the facts they
-were not drawn together on this point. As the work in
-the field progressed, other important differences developed
-which finally prevented the full accomplishment of the
-work for which the commission had been appointed. A
-brief discussion of these differences will properly form a
-part of this paper.</p>
-
-<p>As to jurisdiction over Pope’s Folly Island, the claim
-of the British Commissioner is, at first blush, the strongest.
-It rests upon the report of the commissioners appointed
-under the treaty of Ghent for the partition of the islands
-in Passamaquoddy Bay. It will be remembered that in
-this report three, only, of these islands were declared to
-belong to the United States, and Pope’s Folly was not
-one of them. As all others were to be the property of
-Great Britain it would seem that the sovereignty of this
-small island was hers beyond doubt. There is, however,
-very distinctly, another aspect of the question. In the
-first place, it is highly probable the Commissioners under<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_19"></a>[19]</span>
-the treaty of Ghent restricted their consideration and
-action to those islands the domain of which was and had
-been actually in dispute. The language of the treaty distinctly
-implies this and the language of the report closely
-follows that of the treaty. It is true that reference is had
-to “the several islands in the Bay of Passamaquoddy,
-which is part of the Bay of Fundy,” <i>etc.</i>, but it is further
-said that “said islands are claimed as belonging to His
-Britannic Majesty, as having been at the time of and previous
-to the aforesaid treaty of one thousand seven hundred
-and eighty-three, within the limits of the Province of Nova
-Scotia”; for by that treaty all of the important islands of
-the group would have come to the United States, had not
-exception been made of all then or previously belonging to
-this province. Obviously, then, the partition commissioners
-would consider only those for which such a claim could
-be set up. There is also good reason to believe that the
-island called Pope’s Folly may not have been considered
-by the commission, on account of its trifling importance.
-It is a significant fact that there are many other small
-islands in the bay, some of them much larger and more
-important than this, of which no mention was made by the
-commission, yet Great Britain has never claimed or even
-suggested that they were rightfully British territory.
-Their sovereignty was probably not even thought of by the
-commission. In short, a literal interpretation of their
-report is not admissible and it has never been so claimed.
-Its phraseology is another example of hasty diplomatic
-composition, into the acceptance of which the Americans
-may have been led by their more skilful opponents.</p>
-
-<p>At the time this question was under consideration, the
-region was sparsely settled, many of the islands having no
-inhabitants at all; and the whole dispute was thought,
-at least on our side, to be a matter of comparative little
-importance. It was natural, therefore, that in selecting
-those islands which were to belong to the United States,<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_20"></a>[20]</span>
-only the most important would be thought of, it being
-understood that geographical relationship should determine
-jurisdiction over many small islands not named and doubtless
-not thought worthy of enumerating at that time. But
-if it could be shown that the island was at the time of the
-treaty of 1783, or had been previously, a dependency of
-the Province of Nova Scotia, the claim of the British
-Commissioner would be good. On this point I believe the
-evidence is entirely with us. It goes to show that so far
-as there has been any private ownership of the island it has
-been vested in American citizens. At the time of my
-investigation, in the summer of 1893, I had the pleasure
-of a long interview with the owner of this little island,
-Mr. Winslow Bates, who was born in the year 1808, in
-which year Pope’s Folly was deeded to his father by one
-Zeba Pope. A copy of this deed I obtained from the
-records at Machias, but I was unable to find any trace of
-an earlier proprietor than Mr. Pope. It was deeded to
-Mr. Bates under the name of “Little Green Island”; but
-there is evidence that Pope had erected upon it a house and
-a wharf, the uselessness of which had suggested to his
-neighbors the name by which it is now known. Bates, the
-father of my informant, continued in peaceful possession of
-the island until the British forces came into control at
-Eastport at the close of the war of 1812. In August,
-1814, David Owen, of Campobello, posted a placard
-proclamation in the town of Eastport, announcing his
-assertion of ownership of this island. It was hardly
-posted, however, before it was torn down by an indignant
-American patriot, probably Elias Bates himself, for it is
-now in the possession of Mr. Winslow Bates. It shows
-the holes made by the tacks by which it was originally
-held and is a curious and valuable relic of those troublesome
-days in the history of Eastport. Backed by the
-British army, Owen took forcible possession of the island
-and removed the buildings to Campobello. The American<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_21"></a>[21]</span>
-owner, Bates, procured a writ for the arrest of Owen,
-claiming damages to the extent of $2,000. The writ
-was never served, as Owen was careful never to come
-within the jurisdiction of the Court, after the withdrawal
-of the British troops. After this it was in the continued
-occupancy of Americans; Bates pastured sheep on it, and
-Canadians who had attempted to erect a weir at the east
-end of the island were prevented from doing so by a
-warning from Winslow Bates, and did not further assert
-their claim. The island was incorporated into the town
-of Eastport, and when that town was divided it was
-included in that part known as Lubec. As long ago as
-1823, the sovereignty of the island was adjudicated upon
-by the American courts, on the occasion of the confiscation
-near its shore, of “sundry barrels of rum” by alert
-Customs officers. Judge Ware made an elaborate decision,
-in which the whole case was admirably presented.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p>
-
-<div class="footnote">
-
-<p class="noi"><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> Ware’s Reports, 1823.</p>
-
-</div>
-
-<p>His construction of the Report of the Commission was
-“that it assigns to each party a title according to its
-possession, as it was held in 1812,” and he finds that the
-island is within the domain of the United States.</p>
-
-<p>If further evidence were necessary, it could be found in
-the early cartography of this region.</p>
-
-<p>In a map entitled “A Map of Campobello and other
-Islands in the Province of New Brunswick, the property of
-Will Owen, Esq., sole surviving grantee, <i>etc.</i>, drawn by
-John Wilkinson, Agt., to Wm. Owen Esq., Campobello,
-30th September, 1830,” there is drawn a broken straight
-line extending from the southern end of Deer Island to the
-eastern point of Lubec Neck, which line is designated
-“Filium Aquae” which must be interpreted as meaning
-water line or boundary. Pope’s Folly is on the American
-side of this line. Moreover, it is an historical fact that
-English and American vessels formerly exchanged cargoes<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_22"></a>[22]</span>
-on such a line, not far from Eastport, which was assumed
-to be the boundary line. A British Admiral’s chart of that
-region, dated 1848, shows a dotted line intended to represent
-the boundary, which runs to the eastward of Pope’s
-Folly. Moreover, the principal ship channel is between
-the island and Campobello.</p>
-
-<p>In the light of all of this evidence, and more of a similar
-character, it seems unreasonable to suppose that the Commission
-under the treaty of 1814 ever intended this island
-to be included in the general declaration “all other islands
-shall belong to His Britannic Majesty.” According to all
-recognized geographical principles, to traditional ownership
-and continued possession, and to early and authoritative
-maps and charts, it is a part of the State of Maine. To
-deflect the boundary line so as to bring the island under
-British control, would distort it to an unreasonable degree,
-and would result in greatly increased difficulty and confusion
-in the administration of customs laws and regulations.
-Against all of this the British Commission could
-only set up a literal interpretation of the report of the
-Commissioners under the treaty of Ghent, to which the
-representative of the United States felt compelled to refuse
-assent.</p>
-
-<p>Another difference of opinion, almost trivial in magnitude
-but suggestive in character, arose as soon as the range-marks
-defining the line as agreed upon in Washington had
-been actually located on the ground. Nearly opposite the
-city of Eastport there is rather a sharp change in the direction
-of this line, amounting to about 57° 25′. It was discovered
-that there was included in the angle at this point,
-on the side towards the United States, the better part of a
-shoal known as Cochran’s Ledge, a locality much frequented
-by fishermen, and, indeed, the very spot on which
-the American fishermen had been arrested by the Canadian
-police in 1891. The result of this discovery was that the
-commissioner representing Canadian interests declared his<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_23"></a>[23]</span>
-unwillingness to agree to the line as laid down at this
-point, and desired to introduce a new short line cutting
-off this angle so as to throw the ledge into Canadian
-waters.</p>
-
-<p>In some measure growing out of this controversy was a
-third, relating to the line from Lubec Channel to the sea.
-For about half of this distance the channel now and for
-many years in use is a dredged channel, created and maintained
-at the expense of the United States. Through this
-it was proposed and agreed at Washington to run the
-boundary line. Previous to the making of this there was
-a more or less complete and satisfactory natural channel,
-through which all vessels passed. It was crooked,
-and was, for the most part, much nearer the Canadian
-shore than the present channel. It has now largely filled
-up and disappeared; the principal current having been
-diverted into the new channel. In running the boundary
-line through the latter a much more even and, in
-the judgment of the American Commissioner, a much
-more just division of the water area was secured, but
-it was discovered to have the locally serious disadvantage
-of throwing to the Canadian side certain fishing weirs
-which had been maintained practically in the same spot for
-many years and which were mostly owned and operated by
-American citizens, resident in the town of Lubec. It is
-true, as suggested in an earlier part of this paper, that
-their continued occupation had been stoutly resisted by the
-Canadians, and serious conflict had once or twice arisen.
-There was, of course, a certain amount of reason in demanding
-a line following the old channel, which undoubtedly
-was the only channel, when the original treaty was made.
-Adherence to the well-founded principle of equal division
-of water areas, however, was thought to be wiser and more
-just by the representative of the United States, even if it
-required the surrender of a few comparatively valueless
-fishing-privileges, the right to which was of very doubtful<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_24"></a>[24]</span>
-origin. Those who thought they would suffer in this way
-made strong appeals to the Department of State and a
-claim for the old channel was afterwards embodied in the
-propositions made by the United States.</p>
-
-<p>The differences between the Commissioners regarding the
-three points above referred to were the only differences that
-were at all serious, and these, it is believed, might have
-been removed had they enjoyed absolute freedom and full
-power of adjustment. Thus restricted, the Commissioners
-could not and did not come to an agreement. At their
-meeting on December 30th, 1894, the American Commissioner
-submitted three propositions, to any one of which
-he was willing to subscribe. The first proposed the entire
-line as originally laid down in Washington, with an additional
-section throwing Pope’s Folly Island into the United
-States; the second suggested a literal interpretation of the
-Convention of July 22nd, 1892, restricting the marking to
-three lines “in front of and adjacent to Eastport”; the third
-recommended an agreement on portions of the line, with
-alternative propositions as to Pope’s Folly and Lubec
-Channel, to be afterwards determined by such methods as
-the two governments might agree upon. None of these
-was acceptable to the British Commissioner and in turn he
-submitted five propositions, none of which was satisfactory
-to the representative of the United States. They all
-involved non-action as to Pope’s Folly Island, but included
-action favorable to Canadian interests below Lubec.</p>
-
-<p>At the last meeting, in April, 1895, it was finally agreed
-to disagree, and the preparation of a joint report, setting
-forth the principal lines of agreement and disagreement
-was undertaken. It was at last resolved, however, to
-report separately, and a full and detailed report of all
-operations was made by the American Commissioner and
-submitted to the Department of State.</p>
-
-<p>What was actually accomplished by this joint Commission
-was the laying out in Washington of a rational<span class="pagenum"><a id="Page_25"></a>[25]</span>
-boundary line, extending over the entire twenty miles of
-undetermined boundary, and the actual erection on the
-ground of range-signals and monuments indicating this line.
-These still remain and, as a matter of fact, are quite generally
-accepted as authoritative in the immediate vicinity,
-thus making it every day easier for a future convention to
-fix definitely the direction of the boundary and thus quiet a
-dispute which has already continued a century longer than
-was necessary.</p>
-
-<div class="figcenter">
-  <img src="images/i_map01.jpg"  alt="" title="" />
-  <br />
-  <div class="caption">Sketch Map of Passamaquoddy Bay showing proposed Boundary with alternate lines
-below and above Lubec.</div>
-</div>
-
-
-
-
-<hr class="chap" />
-<div class="tnote">
-<p class="noi tntitle">Transcriber’s Note:</p>
-
-<p class="smfont">Variations in hyphenation and compound words have been preserved.</p>
-</div>
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-<pre>
-
-
-
-
-
-End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Twenty Unsettled Miles in the
-Northeast Boundary, by T. C. Mendenhall
-
-*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TWENTY UNSETTLED MILES IN ***
-
-***** This file should be named 63443-h.htm or 63443-h.zip *****
-This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
-        http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/4/4/63443/
-
-Produced by Donald Cummings and the Online Distributed
-Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
-produced from images generously made available by The
-Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
-
-
-Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
-will be renamed.
-
-Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
-one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
-(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
-permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
-set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
-copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
-protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
-Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
-charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
-do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
-rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
-such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
-research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
-practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
-subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
-redistribution.
-
-
-
-*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
-
-THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
-PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
-
-To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
-distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
-(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
-Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
-http://gutenberg.org/license).
-
-
-Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic works
-
-1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
-and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
-(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
-the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
-all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
-If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
-terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
-entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
-
-1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
-used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
-agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
-things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
-even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
-paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
-and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
-works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
-
-1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
-or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
-collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
-individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
-located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
-copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
-works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
-are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
-Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
-freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
-this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
-the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
-keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
-Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
-
-1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
-what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
-a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
-the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
-before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
-creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
-Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
-the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
-States.
-
-1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
-
-1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
-access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
-whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
-phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
-Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
-copied or distributed:
-
-This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
-almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
-re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
-with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org/license
-
-1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
-from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
-posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
-and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
-or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
-with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
-work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
-through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
-Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
-1.E.9.
-
-1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
-with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
-must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
-terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
-to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
-permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
-
-1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
-work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
-
-1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
-electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
-prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
-active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm License.
-
-1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
-compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
-word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
-distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
-"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
-posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
-you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
-copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
-request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
-form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
-
-1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
-performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
-unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
-
-1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
-access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
-that
-
-- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
-     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
-     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
-     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
-     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
-     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
-     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
-     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
-     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
-     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
-     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
-     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
-
-- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
-     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
-     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
-     License.  You must require such a user to return or
-     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
-     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
-     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
-     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
-     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
-     of receipt of the work.
-
-- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
-     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
-
-1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
-electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
-forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
-both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
-Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
-Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
-
-1.F.
-
-1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
-effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
-public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
-collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
-works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
-"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
-corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
-property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
-computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
-your equipment.
-
-1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
-of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
-Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
-Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
-liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
-fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
-LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
-PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
-TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
-LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
-INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
-DAMAGE.
-
-1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
-defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
-receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
-written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
-received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
-your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
-the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
-refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
-providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
-receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
-is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
-opportunities to fix the problem.
-
-1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
-in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
-WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
-WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
-
-1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
-warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
-If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
-law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
-interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
-the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
-provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
-
-1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
-trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
-providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
-with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
-promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
-harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
-that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
-or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
-work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
-Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
-
-
-Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
-electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
-including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
-because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
-people in all walks of life.
-
-Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
-assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
-goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
-remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
-Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
-and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
-To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
-and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
-and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
-
-
-Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
-Foundation
-
-The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
-501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
-state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
-Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
-number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
-http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
-permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
-
-The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
-Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
-throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
-809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
-business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
-information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
-page at http://pglaf.org
-
-For additional contact information:
-     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
-     Chief Executive and Director
-     gbnewby@pglaf.org
-
-
-Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
-Literary Archive Foundation
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
-spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
-increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
-freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
-array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
-($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
-status with the IRS.
-
-The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
-charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
-States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
-considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
-with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
-where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
-SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
-particular state visit http://pglaf.org
-
-While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
-have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
-against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
-approach us with offers to donate.
-
-International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
-any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
-outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
-
-Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
-methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
-ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
-To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
-
-
-Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
-works.
-
-Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
-concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
-with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
-Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
-
-
-Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
-editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
-unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
-keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
-
-
-Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
-
-     http://www.gutenberg.org
-
-This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
-including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
-Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
-subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
-
-
-</pre>
-
-</body>
-</html>
diff --git a/old/63443-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/63443-h/images/cover.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index b7656c9..0000000
--- a/old/63443-h/images/cover.jpg
+++ /dev/null
diff --git a/old/63443-h/images/i_map01.jpg b/old/63443-h/images/i_map01.jpg
deleted file mode 100644
index ce1998a..0000000
--- a/old/63443-h/images/i_map01.jpg
+++ /dev/null