It was a fine, clear, moonlight night, and Mike Mahoney was strolling on the beach of the Bay of Bealereagh- who knows why? perhaps to gather dhoolamaun, or to look for a crab, but thinking intensely of nothing at all, because of the tune he was whistling,-when looking seaward, he saw, at about a stone's cast from the shore, a dark object which appeared like a human head. Or was it a seal? Or a keg of" whiskey? Alas! no such good luck! The dark object moved like a living thing, and ap-ed Mike to himself. proaching nearer and nearer, into shallower water, revealed successively the neck and the shoulders of a man.

Mike wondered extremely. It was a late hour for a gentleman to be bathing, and there was no boat or vessel within Leandering distance, from which the unknown might have swum. Meanwhile, the stranger approached, the gliding motion of the figure "Ah, that's it," said the Merman, with a suddenly changing into a floundering, as if long drawn sigh, and a forlorn shake of the having got within his depth, he was wad-head. "That's just it. It's in your power, ing through the deep mud. Mike, to do me the biggest favor in the world."

'Passy, December 6th, 1782. 'SIR,-I have the honor of returning herewith the map your Excellency sent me yesterday. I have marked with a strong red line, ac cording to your desire, the limits of the United States, as settled in the preliminaries between

North American Review, No. 119, for April, the British and American plenipotentiaries.

"While pursuing my researches among the voluminous papers relating to the American Re- "Mr. Rives then remarks,-'I am far from involution in the Archives des Affaires Etrangèrestimating that the documents discovered by Mr. in Paris, I found in one of the bound volumes an original letter from Dr. Franklin to Count de Vergennes, of which the following is an exact transcript:

of peace. But they could not fail, in the event conformity with the treaty, even running out to of another reference, to give increased confi- sea, and pursuing its direction, at the adjudged dence and emphasis to the pretensions of Great distance of twenty leagues, parallel with the Britain, and to exert a correspondiug influence coast, from the mouth of the St. Mary to that of upon the mind of the arbiter.' While Mr. Rives the St. Croix. There is another circumstance, was still speaking, another map was brought also, which shows the care with which this red forward by Mr. Benton, the senator from Mis-line was drawn. On D'Anville's map the latitude souri, with the view, as Mr. Rives understood it, of confronting and invalidating the map alluded to in the above extract, but, as Mr. Benton afterwards said, for the purpose of showing that the red lines were no secret. Be this as it may, the map turned out to be of such a character as to excite some degree of surprise in the Senate. After describing it in general terms, Mr. Rives adds,

of forty-five degrees runs much too far south, coming down, in fact, almost to Crown Point. Now the red line, after descending the Connecticut River for some distance, turns off to the west before it reaches the latitude of forty-five degrees on the map, and proceeds in a direct course to the St. Lawrence, so as to pass near the head of Lake Champlain, which is the true position. This is a proof, that the person who drew the line knew the geography of that part of the country, saw the error of the map, and

"Here, then, is a most remarkable and unforeseen confirmation of the map of Mr. Sparks, and by another map of a most imposing char-corrected it. acter, and bearing every mark of high authen- "As to Lattré's map, described by Mr. Rives, ticity. It was printed and published in Paris in there is no certainty of its having been seen by 1784, (the year after the conclusion of the peace,) Dr. Franklin before its publication. It is proby Lettré, graveur du Roi, (engraver of maps, bable, and that is all. As far as this probability &c., to the King.) It is formally entitled on its goes, it may strengthen the presumption that face, a 'Map of the United States of America, the map in the Archives is the one sent by according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783'- Franklin to Count de Vergennes. In each case (Carte des Etats Unis de l'Amérique, suivant le we have no more than presumptive testimony. traité de paix de 1783.) It is dedicated and The fact that such maps exist, however, of so presented (dediée et presentée) to his Excel- early a date, is a consideration of some moment. lency Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipoten- "There are other maps of a similar character, tiary of the United States of America, near the which could not have originated in the same court of France,' and while Dr. Franklin yet re-source. A revised edition of De Lisle's Map of mained in Paris; for he did not return to the United States till the spring of the year 1785. Is there not, then, the most plausible ground to argue, that this map, professing to be one constructed according to the Treaty of Peace of 1783,' and being dedicated and presented' to Dr. Franklin, the leading negotiator who concluded that treaty, and who yet remained in Paris while the map was published, was made out with his knowledge, and by his directions; and that, corresponding as it does identically with the map found by Mr. Sparks in the Archives of the Foreign Affairs in Paris, they both partake of the same presumptions in favor of their authenticity.'

"The coincidence between those two maps is certainly remarkable; but we would observe, that Mr. Sparks does not intimate that he saw any writing or other marks on the map mentioned by him, except the red boundary line, from which it could be even inferred that this was the identical map alluded to in Franklin's letter. There is nothing like positive proof, therefore, in the case, though the presumptive evidence is strong. Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Benton, Mr. Woodbury, and other senators, who spoke against the treaty, made light of this map, as the tenor of their arguments required, calling it an old map, and a French map, adding, that on all the old French maps the southern boundary of Canada is pushed too far down. But we are authorized to say that this red line has no connexion whatever with any old boundary of Canada; that it is a line drawn by hand with re markable distinctness and precision, not upon an engraved line, and not merely along the highlands south of the St. John, but throughout the entire circuit of the United States, in exact

Canada, published in Paris in the year 1783, purports to exhibit the northern boundary of the United States. The title of this map boasts of its having been corrected and improved from many printed and manuscript materials, (un grand nombre de relations imprimés ou manuscrites.) The boundary line, from the source of the St. Croix to the Canadian highlands, is drawn south of the St. John, and in such a manner as to exclude all the waters of that river from the territory of the United States. It is a dotted line, engraved, and distinctly marked by a red border on the British side, and a green one on the American, running in contact with each other. After arriving at the highlands near the head waters of the St. John, this line takes a devious course, winding its way into Canada as far as the River St. Francois, and thence in a south-easterly direction to Lake Champlain, which it crosses a full degree too far south. In all this part it is extremely inaccurate, and could not have depended on any information derived from Franklin, although he was then in Paris. By what authority the line was made to run south of the St. John can only be conjectured.

"There is, likewise, a copy of Mitchell's map, which formerly belonged to Baron Steuben, but which, we believe, is now in the possession of the government. On this map the boundary of the United States is delineated, throughout, by a broad and bold red mark, drawn by hand, and it runs south of the St. John; made with less precision, indeed, than the line on the map in the Paris Archives, but it is substantially the same. A gentleman now living saw this map fifty years ago in the library of Baron Steuben, with the red line then existing as it now appears. It could not have been copied from either of the

French maps mentioned above, for, in such case, the part of the line in question would have been executed with more exactness.

one of the speeches, although the large extent
of the boundaries was made a topic of severe
comment by some of the opposition members.
"But a map worthy of more consideration,
perhaps, than either of these, is that published in

"We have before us a curious German map of the United States, by Güssefeld ("Charte über die XIII. Vereinigte Staaten von Nord-London in the year 1783, by the same William America,") published at Nuremberg in 1784, in which the boundary is very distinctly drawn, and follows the highlands south of the St. John. The author says, in a French note engraved on the margin, that he had constructed it from the best English maps, (d'après les meilleurs et speciales cartes Anglaises.) This was the year after the ratification of the treaty, and it is the more remarkable, as we believe no English map has been found, of an earlier date than 1785, in which the boundary does not run on the northern highlands, as claimed by the United States. The line in question could hardly have been copied from Lattré's map, because, although it is in all essential points the same, it is by no means identical with it.

Faden who, two years afterwards, perpetrated the act of sending into the world the 'small map' to which the Commissioners of Maine took such exceptions. His first map, of which we are now speaking, is stated on the face of it to be drawn according to the treaty; the engraved and colored lines are designed for this special object. It was probably published before the signature of the definitive treaty, or at least soon afterwards, for that event took place in September of the same year. It is about two feet square, and the boundaries marked on it correspond with the greatest exactness to the American construction of the treaty. As a proof that the attention of the delineator was drawn particularly to the north-eastern boundary, we have only to cite the "Faden's map, of 1785, is the earliest English following printed note, attached, among others, authority of this kind, as far as our knowledge to the margin of the map: 'The Province of extends, which has been produced in vindication Sagadahock is a new concession. The tract inof the British claim. On this map, the boundary tended by this 'new concession' is colored green, runs south of the St. John. A copy of it, brought and stretches across the basin of the St. John to over by Lord Ashburton, was exhibited for the the ridge of the Canadian highlands. There are edification of the Maine Commissioners. They many other notes on the margin, explaining the seem neither to have been captivated with its boundary in different places, all tending to show charms, nor convinced by its red or black lines. that the work was executed with extreme care. They call it a small one, and of small preten-And perhaps no man in England was more comsions,' and allow themselves to utter a hard in-petent to such a task. He was eminent in his sinuation against the motives of its author, the profession, and had engraved nearly all the maps King's Geographer. But this is not much to the purpose, since the line is there notwithstanding, and is acknowledged to have been put there when the map was made.

and plans, published by authority, illustrative of the movements of the British army during the war of the Revolution. He could not, therefore, be ignorant of American geography. He even "Mr. Featherstonhaugh, in his recent pamph- takes the trouble to exhibit an estimate, in figlet on the Treaty of Washington, lets us into theures, of the extent of territory conceded in various secret of another ancient map discovered in one parts of the United States by the treaty, beyond of the public offices in London, after the depar- what belonged to the Colonies under the old ture of Lord Ashburton, which had been appar- charters. Putting all these circumstances toently hid away for nearly sixty years, with a red gether, we are bound to regard this map as conline drawn upon it exactly conforming to the clusive evidence of the state of opinion on the British claim. He says, 'No doubt was enter- subject at that time in England, among those tained that this was one of the maps used by the who were the most capable of forming a correct negotiators of 1783, and that the red line marked judgment. upon it designated the direction of the boundary they had established. But this map was not signed, and could not be authenticated.' We are left to infer that this was the reason why it was not sent over to Lord Ashburton, to aid him in the negotiation.

"Besides the maps here enumerated, Mr. Gallatin speaks of seven others, made within two years after the signature of the preliminary articles, all of which agree with these five; and, as we have before observed, no map published in England within the same period has been pro"Such is the testimony of maps on one side. duced, which gives countenance to any other line We now turn to the other. In the first place, of boundary. We deem these facts the more there were at least four distinct maps of the weighty, as Mr. Oswald, the British CommisUnited States, expressly designed to show the sioner for negotiating the treaty, was in London boundaries, published in London during the in- when the earliest maps were made; and there is terval between the signing of the preliminaries the strongest probability that he was consulted and the ratification of the treaty by Great Britain. by the map-makers on a subject of this nature; These were Sayer and Bennet's, Bew's, Willis's, quite as strong as that Dr. Franklin was conand Cary's. All these maps exhibit the bound-sulted for the same purpose in Paris; or, at all aries exactly as claimed by the United States. The first two were issued a few days before the debate in Parliament on the preliminary articles, and it cannot be doubted that they were known to the members, and understood by them as presenting an accurate delineation of the boundaries. Not a word to the contrary appears in any

events, that Mr. Oswald would take care, by some public manifestation, to correct errors of so grave an aspect derived from a false construction of the treaty. Nor would these errors, if they were such, have been overlooked by the ministers, who were vehemently assailed on account of the large concession of boundaries. We hear of no such