The proposal in the first alternative was to appearance a perfectly fair one. From an estimate made by Dr. Tiarks, the astronomer of Great Britain under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, in conformity with directions from Colonel Barclay, the British commissioner, it was ascertained that the whole disputed territory contained 10,705 square miles; that the territory bounded by the St. John to its mouth contained 707 square miles less, or 9,998 square miles. The difference at the time was probably believed to be insensible. The first alternative was, however, rejected by Great Britain, and obviously on grounds connected with a difference in supposed advantage between the two propositions. The American commissioners were satisfied that they could urge no legal claim along the coast beyond the river St. Croix; they therefore treated on the other alternative in their instructions--the admitted limits between Massachusetts and Nova Scotia. Even in the former alternative, Nova Scotia would still have had a northwest angle, for the very use of the term shows that by the St. John its northwestern and not the southwestern branch was intended. At that moment, when the interior of the country was unknown, the adoption of the St. John as the boundary, even admitting that the Walloostook, its southwestern branch, is the main stream, would have given to the United States a territory of more immediate value than that they now claim. For this very reason the proposition was instantly rejected by Great Britain, and the State of Massachusetts was forced to be contented with the distant region now in debate--a region then believed to be almost inaccessible and hardly fit for human habitation. Even now, were there not vested private rights on both sides which might render such a plan difficult of application, the undersigned would not hesitate to recommend that this line should be accepted in lieu of the one which is claimed under the treaty of 1783. It is finally obvious, from the most cursory inspection of any of the maps of the territory in question, that the line claimed for Great Britain in the argument before the King of the Netherlands fulfills no more than one of the two conditions, while that of Messrs. Featherstonhaugh and Mudge fulfills neither; and as the line claimed on the part of the United States is denied to be capable of meeting the terms of the treaty of 1783 by Great Britain, there is no line that, in conformity with the British argument, can be drawn within the disputed territory or its vicinity that will comply with either of the conditions. This is as well and as distinctly shown in the map of Mitchell as in the map of the British commission. It would therefore appear, if, these views be correct, that the framers of the treaty of 1783 went through the solemn farce of binding their respective Governments to a boundary which they well knew did not and could not exist. V.--NORTHWEST HEAD OF CONNECTICUT RIVER.