Part 41

Latitude was also obtained at an astronomical station established for the purpose at the head of the Connecticut.

Volumes containing the astronomical observations of both commissions are herewith submitted. From them it will be observed that the results for absolute longitude obtained by the British and American astronomers do not agree. It being a difference in no way affecting the survey of the boundary line, the undersigned do not feel called upon to attempt to reconcile it. The data upon which those results are based may be seen in the volumes of observations accompanying this report.

In the appendix will be found, in a tabular form, the following:

An abstract of the survey of the boundary along the north line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the southwest line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the south line; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the highlands; an abstract of the survey of the boundary along the west line; the position of the monuments erected on the Southwest Branch of the St. John and on Halls Stream; the distribution of the islands of the St. John and the monuments on them; the guide lines and offsets run by each commission for the survey of the highlands; the azimuths of verification for the survey of the highlands; the latitudes and longitudes obtained from the astronomical observations; the comparative longitudes obtained, and the methods used for the purpose.

Upon comparing the maps of the two commissions it will be seen that the American commission numbers two monuments more than the British. Those are to be found, one on the "Fourth Island," in the river St. John, and the other on the highlands between the source of the Southwest Branch of the river St. John and the Kennebec road.

On the maps of the British commission representing the "west line" the name of the town of "Derby" has been improperly placed north of the line instead of south of it. Also, on the same maps the direction of Salmon River, near the western extremity of the "west line," has been incorrectly laid down from the boundary line northward. A direction has been given to it northeasterly instead of northwesterly.

The above two corrections the British commissioner is authorized to make on his maps after his return to England.

To avoid unnecessary delay in making their joint report, the undersigned have attached their signatures to the maps, although the lettering of some of the astronomical stations upon the maps of the American commission, as well as the alterations before mentioned in the maps of the British commission, are yet to be made; but in the maps of both the boundary has been laid down accurately and definitively, and the undersigned engage that it shall not be altered in any respect.

In conclusion the undersigned have the honor to report that the line of boundary described in the foregoing statement has been run, marked, and surveyed, and the accompanying maps faithfully constructed from that survey.

The undersigned take leave to add that the most perfect harmony has subsisted between the two commissions from first to last, and that no differences have arisen between the undersigned in the execution of the duties intrusted to them.

Signed and sealed in duplicate, at the city of Washington, this 28th day of June, A.D. 1847.

J.B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT, [SEAL.] Lieutenant-Colonel, Her Britannic Majesty's Commissioner.

ALBERT SMITH, [SEAL.] United States Commissioner.

NOTE.--The astronomical computations of the American commission not being completed, and it being unnecessary to defer the signing of the report on that account, the American commissioner engages to transmit them, with any other papers or tables not yet finished, as soon as they shall be so, to the British commissioner, through the American minister resident in London, to whom, upon delivery of the documents, the British commissioner will give a receipt, to be transmitted to the American commissioner.

J. B. BUCKNALL ESTCOURT, Lieutenant-Colonel, H.B.M. Commissioner of Boundary.

ALBERT SMITH, United States Commissioner.

WASHINGTON, August 18, 1842.

To the Senate of the United States:

I transmit to the Senate, for its consideration with a view to its ratification, a treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation with the Republic of Texas, negotiated at the seat of Government of the United States between the Secretary of State, duly empowered for that purpose, and the chargé d'affaires of that Republic.

In forming the first commercial treaty between the two Governments an anxious desire has been felt to introduce such provisions as should promote the interests of both countries. The immediate proximity of Texas to the United States and the consequent facility of intercourse, the nature of its principal agricultural production, and the relations which both countries bear to several large rivers which are boundaries between them, and which in some part of their course run within the territories of both, have caused peculiarities of condition and interests which it has been necessary to guard.

The treaty provides that Texas shall enjoy a right of deposit for such of her productions as may be introduced into the United States for exportation, but upon the condition that the Executive of the United States may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary for the proper enjoyment of the privilege within our territory. It was thought no more than reasonable to grant this facility to the trade of Texas, under such conditions as seem best calculated to guard against abuse or inconvenience.

The treaty further provides that raw cotton may be imported from either country into the other free of duties. In general it is not wise to enter into treaty stipulations respecting duties of import; they are usually much better left to the operation of general laws. But there are circumstances existing in this case which have been thought to justify a departure from the general rule, and the addition of it to the number of instances, not large, in which regulations of duties of imports have been made the subject of national compact.

The United States consume large quantities of raw cotton, but they are exporters of the article to a still greater extent. Texas, for the present at least, exports her whole crop. These exportations are, in general, to the same foreign markets, and it is supposed to be of no considerable importance to the American producer whether he meets the Texan product at home or abroad.

On the other hand, it is thought that a useful commercial intercourse would be promoted in several ways by receiving the raw cotton of Texas at once into the United States free of duty. The tendency of such a measure is to bring to the United States, in the first instance, Texan cotton ultimately destined to European markets. The natural effect of this, it is supposed, will be to increase the business of the cities of the United States to the extent of this importation and exportation, and to secure a further degree of employment to the navigation of the country. But these are by no means all the benefits which may be reasonably expected from the arrangement. Texas, at least for a considerable time to come, must import all the manufactured articles and much of the supplies and provisions necessary for her use and consumption. These commodities she will be likely to obtain, if to be had, in the markets of the country in which she disposes of her main annual product. The manufactures of the North and East, therefore, and the grain and provisions of the Western States are likely to find in Texas a demand, increased by whatever augments intercourse between the two countries, and especially by whatever tends to give attraction to the cities of the United States as marts for the sale of her great and principal article of export.

As a security, however, against unforeseen results or occurrences, it has been thought advisable to give this article of the treaty a limitation of five years.

JOHN TYLER.

WASHINGTON, August 23, 1842.

To the Senate of the United States: