Mr. McLane remarked in reply (June 5) that the embarrassments in tracing the treaty boundary had arisen more from the principles assumed and from the manner of seeking for it than from any real defect in the description when properly understood; that in the present state of the business the suggestion of Sir Charles R. Vaughan would add to the existing difficulties growing out of a want of power in the General Government under the Constitution of the United States to dispose of territory belonging to either of the States of the Union without the consent of the State; that as a conventional line to the south of and confessedly variant from that of the treaty would deprive the State of Maine of a portion of the territory she claims, it was not probable that her consent to it would be given while there remained a reasonable prospect of discovering the line of the treaty of 1783, and that the President would not be authorized, after the recent proceedings in the Senate, to venture now to agree upon a conventional line without such consent, whilst the proposition submitted in April afforded not only a fair prospect, but in his opinion the certain means, of ascertaining the boundary called for by the treaty of 1783 and of finally terminating all the perplexities which have encompassed that subject. In February, 1834, Sir Charles R. Vaughan, after submitting certain observations intended to controvert the positions assumed by the United States on the subject of the constitutional difficulty by which the American Government was prevented from acquiescing in the arrangement recommended by the King of the Netherlands for the settlement of the boundary in the neighborhood of the St. John, asserted that the two Governments bound themselves by the convention of September, 1827, to submit to an arbiter certain points of difference relative to the boundary between the American and British dominions; that the arbiter was called on to determine certain questions, and that if he has determined the greater part of the points submitted to him his decision on them ought not to be set aside merely because he declares that one remaining point can not be decided in conformity with the words of the treaty of 1783, and therefore recommends to the parties a compromise on that particular point; that the main points referred to the arbiter were three in number; that upon the second and third of these he made a plain and positive decision; that upon the remaining point he has declared that it is impossible to find a spot or to trace a line which shall fulfill all the conditions required by the words of the treaty for the northwest angle of Nova Scotia and for the highlands along which the boundary from that angle is to be drawn; yet that in the course of his reasoning upon this point he has decided several questions connected with it upon which the two parties had entertained different views, viz: