States, never having acquiesced in the decision of the arbiter that "the nature of the difference and the vague and not sufficiently determinate stipulations of the treaty of 1783 do not permit the adjudication of either of the two lines respectively claimed by the interested parties to one of the said parties without wounding the principles of law and equity with regard to the other," can not consent to be governed in the prosecution of the existing negotiation by the opinion of the arbiter upon any of the preliminary points about which there was a previous difference between the parties, and the adverse decision of which has led to so unsatisfactory and, in the view of this Government, so erroneous a conclusion. This determination on the part of the United States not to adopt the premises of the arbiter while rejecting his conclusion has been heretofore made known to Her Majesty's Government, and while it remains must necessarily render the discussion of the question what those premises were unavailing, if not irrelevant. The few observations which the undersigned was led to make in the course of his note to Sir Charles Vaughan upon one of the points alleged to have been thus determined were prompted only by a respect for the arbiter and a consequent anxiety to remove a misinterpretation of his meaning, which alone, it was believed, could induce the supposition that the arbiter, in searching for the rivers referred to in the treaty as designating the boundary, could have come to the opinion that the two great rivers whose waters pervaded the whole district in which the search was made and constituted the most striking objects of the country had been entirely unnoticed by the negotiators of the treaty and were to be passed over unheeded in determining the line, while others were to be sought for which he himself asserts could not be found. That the imputation of such an opinion to the respected arbiter could only be the result of misinterpretation seemed the more evident, as he had himself declared that "it could not be sufficiently explained how, if the high contracting parties intended in 1783 to establish the boundary at the south of the river St. John, that river, to which the territory in dispute was in a great measure indebted for its distinctive character, had been neutralized and set aside." It is under the influence of the same motives that the undersigned now proceeds to make a brief comment upon the observations contained in Mr. Fox's note of the 10th ultimo, and thus to close a discussion which it can answer no purpose to prolong.