diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63443-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63443-0.txt | 1135 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 1135 deletions
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. |