Accordingly, in Article II. of the Convention between the United States and Great Britain, concluded at Washington, on July 22, 1892, it is agreed that each nation shall appoint a Commissioner, and that the two shall “determine upon a method of more accurately marking the boundary line between the two countries in the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay in front of and adjacent to Eastport in the State of Maine, and to place buoys and fix such other boundary marks as they may deem to be necessary.” The phrasing of this Convention furnishes in itself, a most excellent example of how a thing ought not to be done. There is no doubt that a large majority of the boundary-line disputes the world over, are due to the use of faulty descriptions involving hasty and ill-considered phraseology. We are particularly liable to this sort of thing in the United States, by reason of the fact that most of our diplomatic affairs are too often conducted by men of little experience and no training, and who are unaccustomed to close criticism of the possible interpretation of phrases and sentences relating to geographical subjects. A treaty of this kind is usually satisfactory to both parties when entered into, and it is only at a later period, when it must be interpreted, that one or the other of them is likely to find that it is capable of a rendering and an application very different from what had been thought of at the time. Innumerable examples of this looseness of language might be given if necessary, but it is important to call attention to the inherent weakness of the document now under consideration. The first phrase, requiring the commissioners “to determine upon a method of more accurately marking the boundary line” implies that it was already marked in some unsatisfactory manner, and it implies still further, that such a boundary line exists, neither of which assumptions is correct. As a consequence of this erroneous hypothesis, the description of the part of the line to be marked, namely, that in front of and adjacent to Eastport, is vague and inadequate, and, indeed, there is nowhere a hint of a recognition of the real facts. Under this convention, Hon. W. F. King, of Ottawa, Canada, was appointed commissioner on the part of Great Britain, and the writer of this paper represented the United States.