head of the St. Croix, and that a right line drawn between such highlands and said monument should form so far as it extends a part of the boundary between the two countries, etc.  It is now intimated that Her Majesty’s Government will not withhold its consent to such a commission “if the principle upon which it is to be formed and the manner in which it is to proceed can be satisfactorily settled.”  This condition is partially explained by the suggestion afterwards made that instead of leaving the umpire to be chosen by some friendly European power it might be better that he should be elected by the members of the commission themselves, and a modification is then proposed that “the commission shall be instructed to look for highlands which both parties might acknowledge as fulfilling the conditions of the treaty.”  The American proposition is intended—­and it agreed to would doubtless be successful—­to decide the question of boundary definitively by the adoption of the highlands reported by the commissioners of survey, and would thus secure the treaty line.  The British modification looks to no such object.  It merely contemplates a commission of boundary analogous to that appointed under the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, and would in all probability prove equally unsatisfactory in practice.  Whether highlands such as are described in the treaty do or do not exist, it can scarcely be hoped that those called for by the modified instructions could be found.  The fact that this question is still pending, although more than half a century has elapsed since the conclusion of the treaty in which it originated, renders it in the highest degree improbable that the two Governments can unite in believing that either the one or the other of the ranges of highlands claimed by the respective parties fulfills the required conditions of that instrument.  The opinions of the parties have been over and over again expressed on this point and are well known to differ widely.  The commission can neither reconcile nor change these variant opinions resting on conviction, nor will it be authorized to decide the difference.  Under these impressions of the inefficiency of such a commission was the inquiry made in the letter of the undersigned of 5th March, 1836, as to the manner in which the report of the commission, as proposed to be constituted and instructed by Her Majesty’s Government, was expected to lead to an ultimate settlement of the question of boundary.  The results which the American proposition promised to secure were fully and frankly explained in previous notes from the Department of State, and had its advantages not been clearly understood this Government would not have devolved upon that of Her Majesty the task of illustrating them.  Mr. Fox will therefore see that although the proposal to appoint a commission had its origin with this Government the modification of the American proposition was, as understood by the undersigned, so fundamentally important that it entirely changed