« ZurückWeiter »
And, if proof of mere irregularities is sufficient to vitiate the vote in these precincts and these only counted where there was strict conformity to the Kentucky statute, the majority of the contestee would be increased. In some instances the county boards, in compliance with a provision of the statute which directs that the ballots shall have on them the name of the person voted for, and no other distinguishing mark, threw out ballots cast for contestant because the word “Hon." was prefixed to his name on them. The committee are of opinion that the ballots thrown out for this reason ought to have been counted for contestant. In the county of Bracken there were thrown out because of the prefix "Hon.” 36 ballots for contestants. In the county of Mason, according to the certificates of the precinct officers, Young received 1,663, Burns 1,347. The county board certify for Burns 1,338 votes, or 9 votes less than the precinct certificates aggregate. These 9 votes the committee believe ought to be counted for Burns for the reason that the county board refused to allow any person except the members of the board to be present when the ballots were counted. Witness Hutchens swears that he asked permission to remain in the room while the board were counting the votes, and was refused by a member of the board.
The said witness, Hutchens, testifies that the members of said board are men of integrity and veracity; nevertheless the committee consider the practice reprehensible and dangerous, and believe that contestant Burns ought to have corrected for him all the votes certified by the precinct officers, viz, 1,367; which would give Burns as follows: Vote certified by State board.....
8,885 Ballots thrown out as stated above.. Difference between votes certified by district precincts and county boards in Mason
Which makes contestant's vote...
In Bracken County three ballots given for contestee Young were thrown out because the prefix " Yon.” was on them..
3 Thrown out in Fleming County for the same reason..
1 Vote for contestee certified by State board....
9,073 Total vote for contestee.....
9,077 There is no allegation or proof of fraud in the manner of conducting the election in other counties or precincts.
The counties of Lewis, Greenup, Boyd, Carter, Johnson, Martin, and Rowan, gave majorities for contestant, and contestant received majorities in various precincts in the counties which gave majorities for contestee, and the committee find that in these counties and precincts the same irregularities were committed as in the precincts and counties which gave majorities for contestee.
In conclusion, the committee are of opinion that, concerning the precincts wherein the irregularities were of so grave and important a nature as to affect the validity of the returns, the secondary proof of the actual votes cast shows a result not differing from that shown by the returus. In other precincts, the irregularities complained of on both sides, though to be reprehended, are not of a nature to necessarily affect the validity of the returus.
The committee recommend the adoption of the following resolution :
Resolved, That John D. Young, the sitting member, was duly elected a Representative in the Forty-third Congress from the tenth congressional district of Kentucky, and is entitled to his seat.
JAMES A. DREW AND OTHERS.
APRIL 7, 1874.-Committed to a Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be
Mr. DUNNELL, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following
[To accompany H. R. 2873.]
The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the petition of James A. Drew and others, for compensation for land taken from them and ceded to Great Britain by the treaty of Washington, of 1842, have had the same under consideration, and beg leave to report:
That in the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of November 30, 1782, it was agreed that the United States should be bounded "east by the line to be drawn along the middle of the Saint Croix River, from its mouth, in the Bay of Fundy, to its source, and from its source directly north to the aforesaid highlands, which divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which fall into the river Saint Lawrence."
Article II of the treaty of peace of September 3, 1783, re-establishes this boundary in exactly the same words.
The commissioners appointed under the provisions of the treaty of November 19, 1794, determined the source of the Saint Croix, and the two governments erected a monument to mark the spot.
In accordance with the provisions of all of these treaties, making the boundary a due north line from the head-waters of the Saint Croix, &c., Massachusetts caused a due north line to be run from the monument to the Saint John River, in 1804, and many of the grants of lands to institutions of learning and to meritorious soldiers of the Revolutionary War and their widows were located along this line.
This line corresponds very nearly with the line run in 1840 by Major Graham, of the United States topographical engineers, and which is, without doubt, the true line of the treaty of 1783.
During all the contention on the question of the northwestern boundary under the treaties of 1814 to 1817 and until after the rejection of the proposition of the King of the Netherlands for a compromise line to be agreed upon, no other line than the due north line from the monument was ever suggested, but only how far north shall it extendwhat shall be its termination?
The Secretary of State, in a letter of July 21, 1832, addressed to the British minister respecting the disputed territory, suggested "that until this matter be brought to a final conclusion, the necessity of refraining on both sides from any exercise of jurisdiction, beyond the boundaries now actually possessed must be apparent," which proposition was concurred in by the British government, and so stated in a letter from the British minister, dated April 14, 1833.
About this time squatters from New Brunswick commenced occupying these lands south of the Saint John River, on the west side, as well as on the east side of the line, and to cut the timber. But the State of Maine did not interfere till in the winter of 1839, when she sent a posse of armed men to arrest the depredators, but instructed to not interfere with the peaceable settlers.
This conflict resulted in the treaty of Washington of 1842, the first article of which established the east line, commencing at the monument; thence north, following the exploring line marked by the surveyors of the two governments in 1817 and 1818.
The variation of this line from the due north line provided for under the treaties of 1782 and 1783 at the Saint John River is nearly one mile, and the land for which these petitioners ask to be paid is contained in this wedge-shaped strip, commencing at a point at the monument, lying between the due north and south treaty-line of 1782 and 1783, and the diverging treaty-line of 1842, and extending to the Saint John River, where, as before stated, it is nearly one mile wide, which land they hold under the grants made by Massachusetts, and located up to and along the due north and south line prior to 1815.
In the negotiation of the treaty of 1842 it will be seen that Lord Ashburton earnestly desired to obtain the lands west of the old treaty-line in order to retain the settlers upon them under the British Government. Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, June 21, 1842, writes:
It is further desired to retain, under the jurisdiction of each government, respectively, such inhabitants as have for a length of time been so living, and to whom a transfer of allegiance might be painful or distressing. In considering on the map a division of the territory in question, this remarkable circumstance must be kept in mind, that a division of acres by their number would be a very unequal division of their value. The southern portion of this territory, the valley of the Aroostook, is represented to be one of the most beautiful and most fertile tracts of land in this part of the continent, capable of the highest state of cultivation, and covered with fine timber.
Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, July 11, 1842, further writes:
And you refer more particularly to a certain narrow strip lying between the north line and the river. This strip I have no power to give up; and I beg to add that the refusal of my government is founded simply on their subjects living by preference under her authority; an objection which, you are sensible, applies with peculiar force to the inhabitants of this part of New Brunswick. I had hoped that the other equiva lent which I had offered, combined with the sense entertained by the Government of the United States of the pressing importance of the case on the ground of humanity, would have been sufficient for the purpose I so anxiously desire.
Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, July 14, 1842, writes:
It is certain that by the treaty the eastern boundary of the United States, from the head of the Saint Croix, is to be a due north and south line. There are, then, two important subjects for consideration:
First. Whether the United States can agree to cede, relinquish, or cease to claim any part of the territory west of the north line from the Saint Croix and south of the Saint John's; and I think it but candid to say at once that we see insurmountable objections to admitting the line to come south of the river.
We understand, and indeed collect from your lordship's note, that, whatever her opinion of her right be to the disputed territory, England, in asserting it, has princi pally in view to maintain on her own soil her accustomed line of communication be tween Canada and New Brunswick.
We acknowledge the general justice and propriety of this object, and agree at once that, with suitable equivalents, a conventional line ought to be such as to secure it to England.
Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, July 22, 1842, respecting the boundary line agreed upon, writes:
To complete the boundary line, therefore, and to remove all doubts and disputes, it is necessary for the two governments to come to an agreement on these points:
First. What shall be the line on the northeastern and northern limits of the United States from the Saint Croix to the Saint Lawrence? This is by far the most difficult of the subjects, and involves the principal questions of equivalents and compensation.
The line, then, now proposed to be agreed to may be thus described: Beginning at the monument at the source of the river Saint Croix as designated and agreed to by the commissioners under the 5th article of the treaty of 1794 between the governments of the United States and Great Britain; thence north, following the exploring line run and marked by the surveyors of the two governments in the years 1817 and 1818, under the 5th article of the treaty of Ghent, to its intersection with the river Saint John's.
Mr. Webster to the Maine commissioners, July 15, 1842, writes that "as the settlement of a controversy of such duration is a matter of high importance," he hopes "that the commissioners of the two States will find it to be consistent with their duty to assent to the line proposed."
The Maine commissioners at first declined, but the Massachusetts commissioners, upon certain other conditions named, agreed" to relinquish to the United States her interest in the lands which will be excluded from the dominion of the United States by the establishment of the boundary aforesaid." And on the 22d day of July, 1842, the Maine commissioners gave the unwilling" assent of that State to such conventional line, with the terms, conditions, and equivalents herein mentioned."
To illustrate the manner in which the present claimants became dispossessed of their lands it will be necessary simply to examine article 4 of the treaty of 1842, which is as follows, viz:
ART. 4. All grants of land heretofore made by either party, within the limits of the territory which by this treaty falls within the dominions of the other party, shall be held valid, ratified, and confirmed to the persons in possession under such grants, to the same extent as if such territory had by this treaty fallen within the dominions of the party by whom such grants were made; and all equitable possessory claims arising from a possession and improvement of any lot or parcel of land by the person actually in possession, or by those under whom such person claims, for more than six years before the date of this treaty, shall in like manner be deemed valid, and be confirmed and quieted by a release, to the person entitled thereto, of the title to such lot or parcel of land so described as best to include the improvements made thereon; and in all other respects the two contracting parties agree to deal upon the most liberal principles of equity with the settlers actually dwelling upon the territory falling to them, respectively, which has heretofore been in dispute between them.
As both Governments had abstained from exercising jurisdiction over this territory between the years 1832 and 1842, the squatters from the adjoining province had had a peaceful occupancy of these lands for more than six years, and they had, therefore, according to the provisions of the 4th article of the treaty just recited, acquired titles which the treaty states "shall in like manner be deemed valid and be confirmed and quieted by a release," &c., so that these lands were absolutely and entirely lost to the American owners, who were deprived of them by the action of their Government.
The country demanded this in the interest of peace, and they had to make the sacrifice, but the propriety of imdemnifying those parties who have thus suffered through the necessities of diplomacy seems to be beyond the possibility of a doubt.
About one-half of the land contained in this wedge-shaped strip was owned by the States of Maine and Massachusetts at the time of the treaty of 1842, and payment for the same was provided in that treaty, and the lands for which the States were paid lay on the north, on the south, and also between the lands owned by these claimants.
These claimants made application to the legislature of the State of