I have been favored with your’s of the 30th. of last month,1 informing me of the necessity of my being at Boston on the 14th. of august next, to give Testimony to the Commissioners appointed to determine what River was intended, by the River St. Croix in the Treaty of Peace.

If on further Consideration my personal attendance should be judged indispensable, I shall certainly think it my Duty to attend— But really Sir! when I reflect on the nature of my Evidence, it appears to me that my affidavit, or answers to written Interrogatories, would be sufficient and Satisfactory—

My Testimony would amount to this— vizt.—that in the negociations for Peace, the River St. Croix, as forming part of our Eastern Boundary, came into Question—That several Rivers in those Parts were said to have that name—That much was urged and argued on that Topic—that mitchels map was before us, and frequently consulted for geographical Information—that both Parties finally agreed, that the River St. Croix laid down on that map, was the River St. Croix which ought to form a Part of that Boundary—

It may be asked—Did You at that Time understand that the River St. Croix, laid down on Mitchels Map, was then so decidedly and permanently adopted and agreed upon by the Parties, as conclusively to bind the two Nations to that Limit, even in Case it should afterwards appear that Mitchel had been mistaken; and that the true River St. Croix was a different one from that which he had delineated on his Map by that Name?—

To this Question I answer—That I do not recollect nor beleive that such a case was then put or talked of—2 with the best wishes for your Health & Happiness I have the Honor to be Sir Your most obedt. & h’ble Servt