Newspaper Page Text
PY
CA.HAK. & H a. $ U. s. winters.
SllIiLGDGEVILLE, MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 18*8.
rife
vWHICH THE REPORT ON THE FLORIDA UOl'.N-
v' DARY LINE IS FOUNDED.
(COPY.)
Cgicrnor Forsyth to the President of the United States.
Executive Department, Ga. I
Milledgeville, Xovember 'Ztith. 1827. )
0» the question which lias arisen between the State of Geor-
’'"'Ttln. United States, during the recent effort to murk lliehottn-
(jet.reen this State and the Territory of Florida, it will, it
mia'ii, he satisfactory to you to examine before the meeting of
-I nsl t |J e evidence on which the State relies to establish the
Dl, *that' the source of the St. Mary’s is the lake or spring from
!l| i jjjurs the most southern branch of that river, and therefore
° t nt which must terminate the straight line to he drawn from
''' lion of the Flint and Chattalioochie rivers, according to the
trick' of the Treaty between the United States and Spain of
Wtli 0 f October, 1795. The subject having been brought he
- (itiieral Assembly by my predecessor, and not yet acted on
^Jipm i> would lie improper for me to do more than, in transmit-
.uhnt evidence, to request your attention to it, no doubt being cn-
■ ,j t |, at its force and importance will be duly weighed.
' j honor to be, with perfect consideration, your obedient
DOCUMENTS
VOLUME XX^-NO. IT.
I, v ,i * U ' " " ' * ll8 ’ , * lc Spanish Commissioner objected to retain-
i” ."j' r ' l ' rit '!' M M“ r, y» 1,11 the ground, that they also were not want*
,. long allectuig ut the same lime greut alarm at the danger of
being robbed, .1 not murdered by the Seminole Indians. You will
•I 1 nu ." !”. ,, ® | l i" Ellieot’s journal with childish simplicity, that
Minor,jiottnthstandmg the danger, crossed Florida to St. Mary’i
ulnlc Lllicot was sailing down the coast of the Peninsula, mid
weathering the Cape of Florida.
i ln ( diiinnssionc)'of the United States by his published journal,
proves i (inclusively I'irst, that the third article was not executed—
■rvant.
(Signed,)
JOHN FORSYTH.
(COPY.)
, KW#r I'ortyth to the Senators and Representatives of Georgia,
in Congress.
Executive Department, Ga. I
Milledgeville, December llth, 1827. (
Gintikmkn A copy of Mr. McBride’s chart of the St. Mary’s
mill of Ins report of the particulars and result of the search
|,e 1 1,„ |,j m- under the directions of this Department, for the true
If there is no
ixeept m
dying i
urCB of tlmt river, is this day transmitted to you
of fact in the report, it is now clearly ascertained that Lake
’ .Idinir from- whence issues its southern branch, is the source of
|io>i Mary's river. The Commissioners .appointed by the State
' l u ci tertnined, after, to them, a satisfactory investigation, a dtf-
ferent opinion on this point. Their error is of little importance,
a-it may he used us an argument against iis. Instead of re-
this argument, an appeal cun be made to the test of a re
xaiuiaation. For the satisfaction of two of the Commissioners,
loivivir, who are members of the present Delegation in Congress
romllns State, it is stated that the cause of their mistake is suffi
jitntlv obvious on a perusal of their report. Their judgment was
brined on a bare view of the comparative width of the northern and
outlicrubranches of die river—neither the depth nor velocity of the
triams was tried by them. It seems to have been taken for grant-
id also by them, that a large Cypress swamp, whose position is de-
lignatcl by pencil marks on the chart, was the source of the south-
rnfurk. A simple inspection of the chart will shew them that this
lypotlicsis ivtis the origin of the greut error committed, when they re-
lortid the northern to be the longest branch.
If the place at which our southern boundary line terminates, was
ion for the first time in question, the evidence offered by the State
rould no doubt be entirely satisfactory to the General Government—
it most, nothing more would he thought of, than the appointment of
i competent person to examine und confirm the facts reported by
Mr, McBride. It is hoped tlmt this is all that will now lie desired by
the United States, But as attempts have been made by the United
Stales and Spain to settle the question, first in 1795, and since in
1796-7, and 8, preparation will be necessary to meet any obstacles
which may have been thrown in our way by the agents of those two
Governments. The second article of the ticaty of San Lorenzo of
1795, is perfectly clear—it is but a repetition of the article of the
Treaty of Pence of 1782, between Great Britain and the United
itatM.nndit corresponds with the description of the southern boun-
flarvof Georgia, according to the King’s Proclamation of 1793—to
he Royal Commission to Sir James Wright of 1704, und to the
Constitution of the State. In the third Article of the Treaty of
San Lorenzo, which provides for the execution of the 2d Article,
bin originated the only difficulties which can he plausibly interposed
:o the immediate recognition of our rights. The Act of Congress
if 1825, is founded upon the assumption that what had been done
mdertlmt Article, settled the question and concluded all parties in
*rested from a further agitation of it. The Article provides, that
he Commissioners and Surveyors appointed to run and mark the
line,shall make plats and keep journals of their work, Ac. and
which skull be considered as a part of the Convention, and have ill
nme fcnre as if actually inserted therein. The mere passage of
lb* Act of Congress, is of itself conclusive demonstration that the
hypothesis on which it is founded is false. If the line had been run
ltd narked in 1798, according to the third Article of the Treaty of
W>, ami the work of the Commissioner had thus become part ot
be Convention, there would have been no occasion for Congress to
irovidc by proper enactments and appropriations in 1825, for run-
|tngand marking the line. There would be now no dispute about
he direction in which the line is to be run and marked. Those who
wist our right, must contend that an attempt to execute, is an exe-
Jiliimnf the treaty of 1795, and that vvliat was done under the pre
extof lulfiliitig the third article, was ns obligatory upon all the par
^ as if it h„d been fulfilled. It will require some hardihood to
a kaud infinite skill to maintain this position. A distinction may
ie Attempted, that all thatwns done, was well done, nnd cannot now
A 1 disputed. This distinction will not avail—The question remains
. i' 1 "’as left by Ellieot and Minor (the Commissioners who net
H under the third Article)—the line, is yet to be run anil marked, und
ln y error ol observation-, Astronomical or Geographical, can ns well
i corrected when the line is run and marked, us it could have been
’'c f unmiisidoners had it been discovered while they were en
m the work.
^-Hppose Lllicot and Minor had proceeded to run and mark the
jt'-wer designating the mound on the north fork as the souree of
• » r .vs river, will it be pretended that Ellieot could not justly
By tin-second article of the Treaty of San Lorenzo, the rights of
rcoigin were acknowledged—The United States will not disgrace
themselves by alleging, that by the attempt to execute the second
Article according to the stipulations of the third Article, they suf-
teuil the State to be muuicuvered out of u considerable portion of
territory. It at this day, the United States claim the profit of this
operation to the injury of the State, they will place themselves in
thn disgraceful position of a guardian profiting the frauds com
mitted, through his own negligence or error, upon his ward.
Respect for those to whom power is constitutionally confided, will
•t permit the belief that they will bring reproach upon the govern
ment by making such claim. The great question of the power of
ic General Government to dispose of the territory of a State, is not
touched upon, because it is not necessarily involved. Neither the
administration ot 1795 nor of 1797 intended, nor did they make
any surrender of our right. It is not imagined that the administra
tion ol the present day can desire to seize upon the errors committed
by the ( oininissioner of the United States iu 1798; errors into
which he was led by the infidelity of Spam to its engagements, to
■ ndcavor to wrest from us a territory secured by the holy revolution
U7(>—acknowledged to lie ours bv all subsequent treaties, nnd
onsecrated ns the property of the State by our Constitution.
I am gentlemen, your obedient servant.
(Signed) JOHN FORSYTH.
pretended tlmt Kllipot could not justly
s “*|icnded running and marking in the direction agreed on nt
Lake S* 0 ^ was finished, and insisted cm marking the line to
1 ‘ Pakling, if he had been made acquainted witli the tacts now
j journal of Ellieot published in 1803, establish"
f^l! The
^ facts, which t
]-r f /I°"> in the place of Spain. The third Article of the
of i ’ y was not executed, liceauso the Spanish authorities
Florida, through their influence with the Indians
f y en : L ' t United States’ Commissioner from performing the du
^rCZT!' hi,n . 1, y his Government, l’nssing without com
r*’ acco I 11! Failure of the Spanish Commissioner to meet at Natch
Wing to the stipulation of the Treaty, the subsequent iu
^’prevent or delay the commencement of the demnrkntiou
Hill fin y: O’, I refer you to Ellieot’s journal page 85, where you
I797 i( |J. .' Iss, ' rt ‘ !< l tlmt lie had ascertained oil the lGtli of May
viti.hy t'i 1 '“Chickasaw und Choctaw Indians hud been tampere
Tlk j. 10 kP'mumls to prevent the running of the boundary line
Bor of i^' n .. ' a fion had scarcely begun, when Gayoso, the Gove
mark, C'T m im ‘* Commissioner'of the Spanish Government to
Itans were !° Hy communicated to Ellieot, that the In-
" M " liusi.i r . v,<l ,0 prevent the running, Ac. of the line, nud
(COPY.)
Governor Forsyth to the President of the United States.
Executive Dei'atmknt, Ga. I
Milledgeville, December'Mth. 1827. j
Sin—I have been requested by the General Assembly to open a
correspondence with you in order to facilitate the adjustment of the
boundary line between this State and the territory of Florida. It is
well understood here, that until the Act of Congress passed the 4th
of May, 1820, authorising the President to run and mark a line di
viding Florida from Georgia, is altered or repealed, the chief magis
trate ot the Union has not power to comply w ith the just expecta
tions of the State in rclntion to its southern boundary. This com
munication is made therefore under the expectation tlmt it w ill be
laid before Congress with such recommendations as the respective
rights of the State ami of the United States may m your judgment
require. The subject is of deep interest to this State, not from the
value of the land, the title to which is dependent upon the decision
of it, but because the description of the boundary is a part of our
constitution. To the Union it is of little moment, except as it ntlhrds
a fair occasion to consult frankly the wishes of one of its members,
and to establish a character of liberality to the individual state, of
fur greater importance titan the acquisition of a few hundred thou-
and acres of arid territory. It is one too in which even a conces
sion to the Slate, if the right were doubtful, is recommended by the
consideration that the land which would he given up, will remnin a
portion, although in a different form, of the United States and of
the resources of the Union.
Addressing myself tothc Government of the Union to whom the
territory of Florida note belongs, no doubt is entertained tlmt a de
monstration of the right of the Stute will lie followed by n prompt
acknowledgment, and such legislative provisions as may be neccssu-
ry to secure- the full enjoyment of it. The southern limits of Geor-
giadepend 1st, upon the charter of the Lords Proprietors of Caroli
na of 1663—secondly, upon the proclamation of the King of Great
Britain of 1703, establishing the bounduly between Georgia and the
two Floridas, nnd the King’s commission to Sir James AVright of
1764—thirdly, upon the treaties between the United States and
Greut Britain of the 30th November, 1782, nud the 3d September.
1783.
Confining myself to the southern boundary of the State, accord
ing to the territorial limits fixed in the compact with the U. Stntes of
1802, it is a line beginning at the most southern branch of the St.
Mary’s river, thence up the said river to its source, thence iu a di
reel line to the junction of the Flint and Chattalioocliie rivers.—
Subsequent to the treaty of 1782, Spain having obtained from Bri
tain a cession of the Floridas without any description of limits, was
disposed to make territorial pretensions inconsistent with our rights.
The treaty of 1795, concluded at San Lorenzo L; 1 Mr. Pinkney and
the Duke of Alcadiu, put ail end to these pretensions. The second
aiticle of the treaty conformably to the instructions of Mr. Jeffer
son, then Secretary of State under General Washington’s adminis
tration, describes the line between Florida nnd the United States,
(acting for Georgia) in the words used in the Treaty of Peace of
1782 between the United States nnd Great Britain. For the pur
pose of preventing disputes, mid to produce an immediate good ef
fect on the Indians on the borders of Georgiu and Florida, Mr.
Pinckney introduced, without instructions, into the Treaty nn Arti
cle, the third, providing for the immediate demnrkntiou of the boun
dary line described in the second Article. This article required the
appointment of a Commissioner and Surveyor by each Government,
w ho were to meet at Natchez within six months from the date of
the ratification of the convention, and to r in and mark the lino ac
cording to the preceding Article. They were to make plats and
keep journals of their proceedings, which were to he considered a
part of the Convention, and to have the same force ns it inserted
therein. A Commissioner and Surveyor were appointed by the Uni
ted Stntes to execute these stipulations. It is not necessary to detail
all the circumstances which occurred from the meeting of the Ame
rican Commissioner with the Spanish officer, who was said to be a
Commissioner of Spain, to the period when the work was finally in
terrupted and left unfinished, which, hv some fatality, happened pre-
cist ly at the point where the present southern boundary ol Georgin
begins on the Chattalioochie. It is sufficient for the present pur
pose, to recall to your attention these facts resting upon the assertion
of the Commissioner of the United States—that e
occupied by tho Choctaw nnd Chickasaw tribes
‘^aiul „,’ nn,, L rcr "''is apprehended from the Creeks, pages 198,
tils Sr' lMMVs iulo t ,t ed to avert it. Tint this danger was cren-
^lii’-ftt itris fi "iT | y° u W, H see established in pages 202, 203, 204.
['.* fi'fishinn- ii"! 11 ' 1 lve " or frightened from Ins purpose, and instead
. nt and . "! e !,s f* been perfected to the junction of the
u^thecJ 8 fivers, lie abandoned the work, passed
i, r -' nnd m-1 I'.mfida, ascended the northern branch of the St.
y 0 V , bargain about the source of that river with
Com l*lli h „ '' tlml abundant evidence of the agency of Spain
jffed to Jin i,lllmii| ig him into this course in the puges already
r v ". cl;::,' 0 ' *13tosn, n„du,22«. •
r ^ a, y>to Dmvi,, Lr °""!f a, *ou by virtue of the third nrticle of the
■‘°‘l tlieir party if '* - unr<l for the protection of the Commissioner:
‘""'C kiit the'iru ,1C | CP!>Snr ‘ V —° I1S fi uar 3 was provided in the first in-
ot-pl; ,| lm * '" houre rs of the Spanish Commisstonei
- ° c;s, ' lv nt the moment they were most necessary—
very artifice was
used by the Spanish Governor of Louisiana, who is stated to linvi
been tiic Commissioner of Spain, to prevent the commencement of
the deinarkation—that every obstacle he could secretly interpose,
was presented to delay the execution of the work—tlmt by the dis
honorable intrigues of the Spanish Authorities witli the Indian
siding within the vicinity of tho line to lie marked, and then dtsin
gard for the provisions contained in the third article ol the treaty,
they at last succeeded in compelling the. American Commissioner to
abandon the work and to leave it, as it has continued to this day in
complete. The State now asks from Congress the fulfilment ot the
stipulation made for her in 1795 with Spain, the completion of the
work not completed because Spain was unfuithful to its engage
ments. . ,
The current of events favorable to tl.e repose mid to the prosperity
of the Union, have placed it in the power of Congress to do imme
diate justice. It is not now necessary for you, Mr, to prosecute a
painful and tedious negotiation with n Government most unwilling
to understand the just claims of others, nnd procrastinating through
The provision is, that the line to tic so run (dividing Florida from
Georgia) and marked, shall be run strnight from the junction of the
said rivers,-Chattalioochie mid Flint, to the point designated as the
head of St. Mary’s, by the Commissioners appointed under the third
Article of the Treaty of Friendship Navigation, Ac. Ac. between
the United States and Spain, made nt San Lorenzo, Ac. Ac.
This provision was founded on the belief, that the point designa
ted as the head of St. Mary’s, u>as the source of that river. This
belief entertained here as well as ut Washington, recent nnd accu
rate examination has shewn to he unfounded. The evidence relied
on by the Stnte on this point, is alrendy in your hands, the churt of
the St. Mary’s prepared by Mr. McBride, and his report of the ex
amination made by him for the source or head of that river. The
supposition on which the proviso iu the Act of Congress was found
ed, being shewn to he erroneous, no disposition can exist to persist
in retaining it to the injury of the State, unless the right of Congress
to insert it is clearly shewn, and it is required by their obligations to
tlie other States. If Spain were now the party interested, it is
scarcely possible tlmt in utter disregard of the obligations of truth
nud justice, she should insist that the lino should be run and marked
to the point designated as the head of the St. Mary’s by tho Conv
inissioner appointed under the third Article of the Convention of
1795. On the hy pothesis that Spain was still the owner of the Flo-
ridns, nnd so forgetful of honor us to make such demand, by what
argument could it be sustained? It Mould be asserted that the acts
of tho-Commissioners appointed under tho third Article, hud become
a part of the convention, and was as obligatory us if insetted in it.
This assertion is true oidy of those uets of the Commissioners which
they Mere authorised by the third Article to perform—they M'ero au
thorised to run nud mark a line—Has it been done?—It has not
More th.iii 159 miles of the line is yet to he run and marked. To
meet this state of facts it might lie asserted, that it being found itn
practicable to run ai d murk the line ut that time, the Commission
ers agreed upon the tu’o terminating points, und described in tlieir
plates nnd journals the direction of the line to be hereafter run and
marked, and that the head of the St. Mary’s was thus agreed to be
witliin a certain distance of u mound rutsed. Were the Commis
sioners appointed for this purpose ? Certainly not—they M f crc ap
pointed to run and mark a line, not to establish the points between
M'hichthc line should at some distant time be run and marked. By
wlmt authority did the Commissioners exercise this power? It is not
given by the third Article of the Treaty. No agreement made by
them is binding upon either of the pon ers who appointed them, nn
less subsequently rutified by both. Such an agreement as the one
made, m iis ant within the spirit of the Article, hut is directly contra
ry to it, since it substitutes an artificial object as the point of termina
tion lor the natural one fixed on in the Convention, and confessedly
changes the line. The extent of the agreement ts stated by the
American Commissioner Ellicott in these w ords—“ It was therefore
agreed that the termination of a line, supposed to be driiM'n N. 45,
E. 619 porches from the mound B, should be taken us a point, to, or
near which, a line should he drawn from the mouth of Flint river;
which line when drawn should he final, nnd considered ns the per
manent boundary between the United Stntes and Ilis Catholic Ma
jesty, provided it passed not less than one mile north of mound B ;
hut if on experiment it should be found to pass within less than one
mile north of the said mound, it should he corrected v.o carry it
that distance.” No remnrks on the peculiar character of the line
described are deemed necessary—the passage is quoted to shew tlmt
Ellieott transcended liis authority, and did what was not binding on
his Government, unless subsequently ratified by it. It is presumed
he hud no instructions to make such an agreement ; if lie had, this
State denies that the Convention of 1795 authorised them to he
given.
Was this agreement ratified by the two poM'crs, prior to the ces
sion of Florida by Spain to the United States ? It is taken for
granted that it was not—If not, the question remains as it did un
der the Convention of 1795—The stipulations of the third Article
arc yet to be performed, and the points to which the line from the
junction of the Flint and Chattuhooehic, is to be run, is to he deter
mined by referring to the 2d Article of the Convention, not by oil
appeal to the agreement of Ellicott—It is a geographical point un
varying and unvaried, not the creation of man’s labour—It is a
spot described hy tlie two Governments, not that substituted by their
subordinate unauthorised Agents. The agreement of Ellicott was
not obligatory even upon himself. Prior to the running and mark
ing the line, had any error, geographical or astronomical, been made
by accident, it m iis in the poMxr und it was the duty of the Commis
sinner to correct it as soon ns it was discovered. Can it be pretend
ed, tliut if Ellicott hud discovered, immediately after the supposed
source of the St. Mary’s was agreed upon, that the spring or lake
from whence issued the southern branch, wus the true source of the
river, lie m-iis hound to abide by the judgment he had formed on im
perfect information, nud to run and mark the line contrary to tlie pro
visions of the Convention to the injury of his country.
If the line had been completed by Ellicott under the mistaken
impression entertained by liim of the true source of the river, and
the mistake had been clcn.dy ascertained, it would have given the
General Government great satisfaction to have been able to rectify,
hy a negotiation m ith Spain, the error committed. Cnlled upon by
Georgia, Mould the General Government have hesitated to represent
to Spain, tlmt a just Government would best consult its honor nnd
its interest hy rectifying with fi'unkncss an error committed hy its
inferior officers? Can it be doubted that the United States would
have seized with avidity tlie first occasion to oblige Spain to surren
der to Georgia, territory held in conscquoucc of such an error?
such would probably have been the course of the General Govern
ment Imd the error been ronsummut.id hy the running and marking
of the line, I leave you to consider, what would have been their
conduct Imd Spain, remaining owner of the territory, obstinately
persisted in claiming to have it run and marked according to Elk-
cott’s agreement nftcr the mistnkc committed hy him hud been dis
covered and exposed. The United Stntes tracing the fnilure to com
plete the work to its source, might have overwhelmed Spntn hy
justly deserved reproaches, for disgracefully attempting to take ad
vantage of its omti infidelity to sacred engagements—hy indignant
recitals of the intrigues mid artifices used—the treachery displayed
lYom the meeting of the Commissioners at Natchez, until Ellicott
M'tis driven from the Chattalioochie. I shall ho pardoned for sup
posing the Government of Spain would have exposed itself to re
buke hy advancing such claims. The possibility has been admitted
to bring fairly into view, the peculiar position of the United States in
relation to this question. The Trustees of Georgia who arranged
the. Convention of Snn Lorenzo, urc the holders, hy purchusc, of
the title of Spain under tlmt Convention. In this tlieir present po
sition, tlieir former relation being necessarily rcmo.niborcd, no preten
tion can he consistently made by the United Stntes, which would
have heen disputed, if made by Spain while the Floridas belonged to
tlmt power. Above nil, it M’ould be the extremity of disgrace, if the
Federal Government should seek to take advuutuge of nn error
committed hy its authority while noting as the gunrdinn of the rights
of this State, when Providence Imd placed it in its powor to correct
the error hy a simple, exertion of its own will.
The accompanying copy of an Executive Message to tlie General
Assembly of this State, and of nil act passed hy tlmt body, nre for
warded tlmt they inny lie presented, M-itli the Documents heretofore
transmitted, to the consideration of Congress, whenever you shall
deem it proper to bring the subject of the Imundary line between
Floridu and Georgia before them.
I am, Sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant.
(Signed) JOHN FORSYTII
tlmt Ellicott hnd committed no error, th$y nt* quite right, and we
cannot complain of the use made of that belief ns an argument
prove that Ellicott was correct—hut if they mean to rely upon thH
acquiescence as u bar to our claim to have the line between Florida^
und Georgin run according to the title of this State, established in the W
Declaration of Independence, atid acknowledged hy tlie enty power V
-
who had a right to contest it. Great Britain, in tho Treaties whicl
closed the Revolutionary W nr, I must request you solemnly to di
\
’ 1 ,1 .mints, does not seem suscepti-
tween two unchanged ge g I P? now for the first time ugi-
blc of controversy ; nnd'Viret difficulty is known to exist
tilted, none could be anticipated. • . , mcnt| „„ e d
.. .. • , provision of the before mentioned
and is to he found W ■ R^Iay 1P2 fi. Til( . motive for introdn-
\et of Congre ; of the ‘cHv undexstood and duly respected. I.
.■rod-c.d.d.loy
(COPY.)
Governor Forsyth to the honorable the Representatives of Georgia
in Congress.
’ Exf.cutivs Department, Ga. I
Milledgeville, April 7th. 1828. I
Gentlemen—I transmit to you extracts from two of Governor
Rnhun’s Messages to the General Assembly, to enable you to shew
precisely what n-us done in relation to the Florida line by the Gover
nor of the State, in 1818 nnd 1819. I perceive that the Judiciary
Committee in tlicr report on this subject, lay great stress upon the ac
quiescence of Georgia until recently in the notorious arrangement of
^ t . lej^^
that the rights of the State cun lie compr6mittod by any Govcrn^^L
or other of its officers, either by-the expression of opinions of facts^^[
or of confidence in tho accuracy of the persons employed hy the
Uuited Stntcsor by any other Government. The rights of the Stntes
cannot be acquiesced tncay by any of its public functionaries. No
act 1ms ever been done l»y the State which acknowledges any line
described, except that in our Constitution, us the true one. Tho
State bus no complaint to make ofthe line described in the Trenty of 1
1795 with Spain—tho description of our southern boundary in that. "
treaty corresponds with that in our Constitution—all we desire is,
tlmt the line described should he run and marked accordingly.—
From the year 1795 until the passage of the Act of Congress under
which Col. Randolph was named Commissioner by the President to
run tlie line, the Stute has frequently pressed the United States to
have the lino run and marked prior to 1819, in conjunction with
Spain ; since that period, by unititig with tho State. Until the jier-
sous limned ns Commissioners hy the United Stntes und Georgia,
met to pet form their respective duties, the question of, Where is the.
line to terminate ? was not presented to this Stnte, nnd no belief pre
viously entertained here or cIscM'hcre can be placed ns a hnr to onr
claim to have the line drawn to the point which is described in iden
tical or equivalent terms in nil the public records nnd Conventions to
which we nppenl, ns the foundation and evidences of our right.—
The question is truly stated by the Committee, uow to he, Where is
the source of the St. Mary’s river ? Not doubting thnt you will give
the report of the Committee a careful examination, and faithfully
perform your duty to the people of this State hy exposing its errors,
you uill, 1 am confident, excuse me for troubling you with some re
marks upon it. Tlieir opinion, adverse to the State, is founded up
on the belief that the weight of evidence before Congress, proves tlmt
the point designated hy Ellicott ought to be considered as the head
of the St. Mary’s river. In justiccto the Committee, it is presumed
tlmt they meant tlmt the point designated by Ellicott is the head of
the St. Mary’s. They could not nicun to say that any point ought
to hr considered the head, which in fact wus not the head—that
falsehood ought to he considered truth. Their opinion, it is taken
for gmntcd, is fairly stated when presented in these words—In the
agreement stated hy Ellicott, in Ids private journal, to have been
made with tlie Spanish Commissioner the head of tlie St. Mary’s, is
correctly described, having been previously ascertained hy un accu
rate examination.
The proofs exhibited in support of this opinion nre—First, that
Ellicott und the Spanish Commissioner made the agreement—Se
condly, that the Commissioners of Georgiuin 1819, concur in opin
ion with Ellieott. Without detaining you with an enquiry as to the
character of the evidence by which the existence of the agreement
between Ellicott nud the Spanish Commissioner is established, I
admit tlmt it is shewn, tlmt Ellicott und the Georgia Commissioners
appointed in 1819, believed that the north branch of the St. Mary’s
was the principal brunch of that river, nnd tlint the source of the
north brunch must be the termination of the line between Floridu
and Georgia, whenever it should he run and marked. The estab
lishment of their belief of the fact, does not establish the fact.—
When strong, direct, satisfactory nnd conclusive proof, that the be
lief is erroneous is produced, no argument upon that belief is avail
able.
The Judiciary Committee admit that with the North branch of the
St. Marys, annthrt stream unites, the enursu of which is longer, nnd
which discharges u greater volume of water. Here then is positive
evidence tliut Ellicott and the Georgia Commissioners were mistaken
in believing the North to bo the principal stream. Aerate of this ir-
rcsistuble inference the committee seek to avoid it by gratuitous as
sumptions—They say, although another river unites with this (tho
stream considered by Ellicott us the St- Marys) Which vents more
water and is longer; yet if not called or known by the name of the
St. Marys, these circumstances would not alter the case. If it tecre
not called or known the St. Marys, was it not called a branch of the
St. Marys ? Is there any evidence before Congress, or in existence,
that it is another river than the St. Murys, or thut it lias nnother
name? Instead of producing this evidence, the Committee
establish tlieir pregnant if, hy inferring from circumstances,
that it was not so called or known. These circumstances arc, tliut
Ellicott and the Spanish Commissioner being appointed to ascertain
the source of the St. Marys, it was their duty to seek information
from every source accessible to them, as to which stream was the St.
Marys, and what whs its head. As they fixed upon another stream,
and the Georgia Commissioners concurred with them in 1819, tho
South branch must have had nnother name—a very impotent con
clusion. Would it not be much more respectable in tho U. States to
establish the fact, asserted by direct proof, of which it is susceptible,’
and not resort to such reasoning ns this ? Tlie Commissioners of
the United States nnd Spuin were bound hy duty to fix upon the right
place, nnd therefore the place fixed upon hy them is the right place.
They fixed upon it because it was right, and it is right because they
fixed upon it. It is unnecessary to examine the conclusion founded
upon the assertion that the South branch was once called by a differ
ent name—When proof of that fact is produced, it will be time c-
nough to shew that, thut conclusion is unsound. Until that proof is
before Congress, the Committee upon their om-ii principles are wrong,
and M-e can fearlessly meet the question before any impartial tribunal.
Without impeaching the judgment of Mr. Ellicott, the causes which
led him into the belief entertained hy him, are obvious on the face ol
his private journul. The country was overflowed with water when
the examination was made. You may judge of the height to which*
the stream must have been swolen, from thiH fact stated by him—that
the mound marked in his plan B was raised ns nenr the edge of the
Okefenokce Swamp as the water would permit. This mound is in
a dry season half a mile from the edge of the Swamp. Deceived by
the greater breudth of the North branch of the river, (40 feet wide in
dry sensons, while the South branch is but 27,) tlien swollen by re
pented rams, it is uppnrcnt that he made no examination of the South
ern branch.—In pages 127,128, of his Astronomical and Thermoni-
ctrical observations, you will find these sentences—“ 1800, Februa
ry 0th, ascended the St. Marys 06 high ns it was navigable for ca
noes. 7th, sent a party to discover the source of the river, or its
communication with the Okefenokce Swamp."
In his journul, pages 270—8, you will find thnt lie u-ent up the river
with n preconceived opinion that the Okefenokce Swamp was the
source of the river, nml was surprised to find at the town of St. Ma
rys, tlmt any doubt ti ns entertained that tho river issued from tho
Swamp. Tlmt the party first sent out made no satisfactory discove
ry of the communication of the St. Marys nnd Swamp, and another
party was sent out on the 12th February, and returned on the 17th,
having discovered the communication sought for. Having this con
firmation of n previously settled opinion, all doubt seems to have
been removed from his mind. Another circumstance which shews
thut his attention was fixed exclusively upon the connection between
the St. Murys nml Okefenokce Swamp is, that he did not examine,
the Western branch, although lie mentions it us coming in just above
his encampment.
On tho principle avowed, tlmt in ascertaining the bend of a stream
of n given name, we must enquire, u-lierc two streams unite, uot
which is the largest or vents the most water, hut which has been
called and known hy the given name—upon the best evidence in out*
power as to that fact, I deny that there is any evidence in favor of
the Northern branch. The committee arrange tlieir arguments un
der three heads—Tho reputation of the fact—tho understanding of
the parties concerned as to the existence of the fact—the acquiescence
in the belief of the fuct hy the parties concerned. To which formi
dable display of heads, the simplest answer is, all this may have been
concurred, and yet that which was reputed to lie true, and acquiesced
in as true, is shewn hy resorting to evidence to be false. They prove
the reputation of the fact by the agreement of the Commissioners—
the understanding of the parties concerned, by the agreement of the
Commissioners—the acquiescence of the parties concerned, by (ho
the American and Spanish Commissioners. If the committee mean I agreement of the Commissioners; and the concurrence ofthe Geor-
to assert tlmt the belief wus generally entertained hero until lately, 1 giu Commissioners in opinion with EUlCOtt. Tim protean agree-
-J
