of the Niagara campaign of 1814, may in no small degree be ascribed the completion of an arrangement which freed their respective countries from the disasters of a border warfare, if not from the calamities which general hostilities between the two nations would have occasioned. Under the mediation of General Scott, declarations were interchanged in the latter part of March between Sir John Harvey and Governor Fairfield complying mutually with the recommendation in the memorandum; and it was agreed between them that, without renewed instructions from the British government or farther action by the legislature of Maine, the question of jurisdiction and possession should rest as they then were, Great Britain holding in fact possession of part of the said territory, and the government of Maine denying her right to such possession, and the state of Maine holding in fact possion of another portion of the same territory, to which her right was denied by Great Britain. These arrangements have hitherto proved adequate to prevent any actual collision, though since their adoption, reclamations as to their infraction, on the one hand, by the marching and establishment of troops by Great Britain in the disputed territory, and on the other, by the extension of jurisdiction through the civil posse of Maine, with the construction of roads and other measures looking to a permanent settlement of the country, have been from time to time adduced, in the same way as complaints were previously made with respect to the supposed violation of the former implied agreement. To say nothing, however, of the injustice of permanently depriving one of the states of the Union of a large portion of its territory, it must be admitted by all parties that these copacts are of rather too uncertain a nature to allow the peace of the world, for any long period, to rest on them. Nor do we believe that there is any insuperable difficulty in bringing the whole subject in controversy to a happy conclusion. The present state of the question, we conceive it will be admitted by those who have followed us through the preceding narrative, is to be ascribed, first, to the untenable positions put forward from time to time by the British agents, and which have been varied without regard to consistency; and secondly, to the unfortunate admissions made, subsequently to the rejection of the recommendation of the king of the Netherlands, by those to whom the department of state was with us intrusted, and which exposed us to receiv33 NO. XV.-VOL. VIII. ing from England a proposition to divide equally the territory, after we had declined an award giving us three fifths of it. Except as regards the subordinate question of jurisdiction, it happens, however, that we have not had the deliberate judgment of any individual invested with the responsible station of a minister of the crown. Unfortunately for both countries, the commission under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent (and a similar remark applies to all the commissions under that treaty) was composed, both as respects the commissioner and the agent on the part of Great Britain, of persons who, as being natives of the United States, and adhering at the revolution to the mother country, were undoubtedly the worst selections that could have been made for the purpose of procuring an impartial judgment. While, also, the preparation of the argument before the king of the Netherlands is understood to have been in a great degree confided to those who were imbued with provincial prejudices, any thing but a report invalidating the claims of England could have been expected from the prominent member of the late ex-parte commission, who, like the condottieri of the middle ages, has shown himself ever ready to perform the service of those who pay him best. It is due to the present head of the department of state not to confound his public communications with the extraordinary notes of his predecessors. Though the unfortunate "rule in practical surveying" was handed down to him, he seems to have endeavored, as far as possible, to rid himself of the embarrassment which it occasions; and his language with regard to all attempts to establish an exclusive. jurisdiction on behalf of England, has been worthy of his station. We, however, would cast aside the whole system of projets and counter-projets with which the nation since 1832 has been every year or two amused. The English ministers in this country, however untenable their propositions, have shown that they were at least aware of the point at issue, that the question is one of construction, to be settled by discussion in the cabinet, not by explorations in the field. We believe that nothing is wanting but to bring the matter in its simplest form and divested of all extrinsic considerations to the examination of the British government, in order to obtain from the ministers themselves such attention to the merits of the case as will make them ashamed, in the face of Christendom, longer to endorse propositions un warily adopted at the suggestion of American refugees or hireling agents. The whole matter in controversy is not worth to England the interruption of our commercial relations for a single week. In peace, arrangements might be made for the same facilities for the transmission of the mail and the passage of troops between her provinces as are now practically enjoyed, or a more indirect, though less convenient route, within her own dominions, might be adopted; and in war, with the relative disparity between England and the United States on this continent, the location of the boundary line would be of little consequence. But at all events, the British government should be made to understand that this country is no longer to be trifled with, that we feel and know that our claim to the whole of Maine, as contended for by us, is as incontestable as that of England to the county of Middlesex. Not to recur to the unfortunate errors sufficiently dilated on, our government has not in the correspondence either at Washington or London availed itself of the strong ground assumed by the legislature, as well in the unanimous adoption of Mr. Buchanan's resolutions in 1838, as in the passage of the act of 1839. That this measure of a special mission, had it been carried out at once in the spirit in which it originated, and without the delay of a previous communication to England, might have been attended with the desired effect of putting a final termination to the controversy, is our sincere opinion. The attention of the government and people of England could not have failed thereby to have been awakened to the points in controversy, and that, with the good cause that we possess, is all that is required to command full success. Why the expressed wishes of the legislature were disregarded, it is not now intended to inquire; nor is it at this day worth while to ask whether the fear of setting at naught the understood desires of that section of the union most interested in the matter, or an unwillingness, by complying with them, to give additional influence to a political rival, preponderated in the mind of the executive. Certain it is that the instructions of March the sixth, 1839, to Mr. Stevenson, making the overture for a special mission to Great Britain, and which that minister truly says he submitted in the terms of Mr. Forsyth's instructions, manifest any thing but a wish to obtain a favorable response. We do not, however, at this late period hope for any ad justment by the present administration. Though no nation has a right to interfere with the internal affairs of another, yet as the stability of the ministry of France or England is known to depend on the majorities that it can command in the Chamber of Deputies or House of Commons, so we cannot deny to Great Britain an acquaintance with the fact, deducible from the recent election, that the executive does not possess the confidence of the people, and that his views may not, if recorded in a convention, obtain the constitutional sanction of the senate. It is reserved for the same administration to whom is to be committed the duty of carrying into effect those laws which are to restore the internal condition of the country to the happy state in which it was before the reign of "experiments" commenced, to terminate this one. source of foreign embarrassment. We doubt not that the same sagacity and energy which, in the darkest hours of our country's existence, gave peace and tranquillity to our then northwestern frontier, will permanently establish the integrity of the union on our northeastern border. We may add our sincere prayer that the great moral force secured to the country by the almost unsurpassed unanimity of General Harrison's election, will also be availed of to dispose of all the other unsettled matters of boundary, that the two comparatively unimportant points of difference still existing in the neighborhood of the upper lakes may be arranged, and that every debatable question of territorial claim beyond the Rocky Mountains may be put at rest, so that in all time to come there may be nothing to mar the mutually beneficial intercourse between us and the country to which we are bound by every tie that can connect kindred nations. * The points of difference under the seventh article of the treaty of Ghent arefirst, as to the boundary in passing St. George's or Sugar Island, in the water communication between Lakes Huron and Superior, and involving the property of the Island; secondly, the course of the boundary from Lake Superior to the Chaudiére Falls in Lac de la Pluie, situated between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods. ERRATA. Page 198, line 15 and note, for "Coopstook" read "Cobscook." 214, line 22, insert "Bay des Chaleurs" before "are." 221, line 25, insert "of the governors" after "commissions." 222, line 7, for " describes" read "ascribes." 232, last line, for "Ewing" read "Emery." ART. IX.-CRITICAL NOTICES. 1. A Greek Reader, for the Use of Schools, containing Selections in Prose and Poetry, with English Notes and a Lexicon; adapted particularly to the Greek Grammar of E. A. Sophocles, A. M. By C. C. FELTON, A. M., Eliot Professor of Greek Literature in Harvard University. Hartford: H. Huntington, Jr. 12mo. It is no small nor uncertain sign of the growing popularity of the classical authors in the United States, and of the increasing demand for facilities in studying them, that, whereas some ten years since scarce any books of elementary instruction were used in our schools and colleges saving reprints (for the most part wretchedly executed and full of typographical errors) of foreign school-books, we have now a constant succession of publications relating to this all-important branch of education, many of superior excellence, issuing from the presses of native publishers, under the supervision of native editors and authors. Professor Anthon, it is but justice to say, took the lead in projecting and carrying out a series of American school-books, which should not merely be works within the scope of juvenile capacities, but food for mature and cultivated intellects. And to him it must be no trifling gratification to see that, while his excellent schoolbooks are actually adopted to a great extent in European institutions, competitors are rising up on every side in his own country, stimulated, it may be, by his example, to aim at the bright crown of eminence in editing the classics. The work which lies before us, and which has called forth these remarks, is a new selection of extracts from the most celebrated Greek writers, by Professor Felton, entirely different, as regards the passages selected, from any heretofore known on this side the Atlantic, and varying somewhat, although slightly, in its plan from those in general use. Before proceeding to dilate on its peculiar qualities, we have a few words to say with respect to this general plan. It is the fashion now to append to every Greek book a lexicon- necessarily limited in length, brief and bald giving only one or two of the most obvious significations to each word, and entirely excluding all the more delicate shades of idiomatic meaning, all passages exemplifying such, and all explanations of the syntactical accidents affecting the signification of the simple forms. For very simple and easy books, and for very young boys indeed, we believe this to be a good plan, inasmuch as the words found in such books are used for the most part in their primary |