territory which had been originally claimed for her, and all for which her people had been for years contending, and to guaranty such territory to her against those adverse states, her government found itself placed in a new and unexpected position, one which it was difficult to vindicate by sound argument. This was attempted in a pamphlet of sixteen pages, published at Hartford in January, 1782, entitled: The Present State of the Controversy, etc. The writer presents very strong, if not conclusive reasons for the original extension of jurisdiction; but his argument is much less satisfactory on the question of its continuance in the altered state of affairs. His principal objections to the overture of congress were the want of power in the Vermont legislature to dissolve the connexions which they had formed with the new territories, and the apprehension that congress might not live up to their engagement and admit the state into the federal union, after she should have weakened herself by relinquishing the additional territory. This last objection was doubtless entitled to some consideration, and though such a violation of faith could not be reasonably anticipated, yet if it were actually to occur it would place congress so clearly in the wrong before the world as to add greatly to the moral strength of the cause of Vermont. Even in that event it might possibly be wise to accede to the proposition, for the maxim that "it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong," is not only sound morality, but may often be the dictate of sound policy.

Although the legislature of Vermont, on the first announcement of the proposals of congress, had declined to accede to them, the people were by no means unanimous for their rejection. Probably a majority of the inhabitants of the original territory of the New Hampshire Grants west of Conecticut river, would from the first have gladly accepted the overture of congress, but for the entangling obligations in which they were involved towards those who had so recently united with them. The sentiment of the friends of Vermont in other parts of the country was undoubtedly in favor of such acceptance.

But whatever objections might have been entertained by the people of Vermont and those administering their affairs to the offer of congress, they were in great measure removed by an appeal to their reason and patriotism in a letter from Gen. Washington, written in answer to that from Gov. Chittenden to him before mentioned. It bore date January 1, 1782, and urged in the strongest terms, a relinquishment of their recently acquired territory, in compliance with the wishes of congress. In the letter Washington says:

"It is not my business neither do I think it necessary now to discuss the origin of the right of a number of inhabitants to that tract of country, formerly distinguished by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, and now known by that of Vermont. I will take it for granted that their right was good, because congress by their resolve of the 7th of August imply it, and by that of the 21st, are willing fully to confirm it, provided the new state is confined to certain described bounds. It appears therefore to me, that the dispute of boundary is the only one which exists, and that this being removed all further difficulties would be removed also; and the matter terminated to the satisfaction of all parties. You have nothing to do but withdraw your jurisdiction to your old limits and obtain an acknowledgment of independence and sovereignty, under the resolve of the 21st of August, for so much territory as does not interfere with the ancient established bounds of New York, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. I persuade myself you will see and acquiesce in the reason the justice and indeed the necessity of such a decision. In my private opinion, while it behoves the delegates of the states now confederated to do ample justice to a body of people sufficiently respectable by their numbers and entitled by other claims to be admitted into that confederation, it becomes them also to attend to the interests of their constituents, and see, that under the appearance of justice to one they do not materially injure the rights of others. I am apt to think this is the prevailing opinion of congress, and that your late extension of claim has, upon the principles I have above mentioned rather diminished than increased the number of your friends, and that if such extension should be persisted in, it will be made a common cause, and not considered as only affecting the rights of the states immediately interested in the loss of territory, a loss of too serious a nature not to claim the attention of any people."1

The legislature of Vermont, at its October session, had adjourned to meet at Bennington on the last day of January; but a quorum for the transaction of business did not assemble until the 11th day of February, when the governor laid before them, among other papers, the foregoing letter of Gen. Washington, and another of the 17th of January, on the same subject, from Gen. Oliver Wolcott, one of the delegates in congress from Connecticut. On the 16th, the subject of the relations of the state towards congress and the

1

Sparks's Washington, vol. 8, p. 220. Williams's Vt., 281, I. Allen's Vt. p. 221-225.

claiming states was taken up in committee of the whole, the governor in the chair, and discussed from day to day until the 21st, when the legislature without a division, resolved to dissolve the eastern and western unions and to apply to congress for admission to the Union on the terms indicated by the resolutions of congress, of the 7th and 21st of the preceding August.

In pursuance of this determination, Jonas Fay, Moses Robinson, Paul Spooner, and Isaac Tichenor were appointed agents of the state to settle with congress the terms of admission of the state into the federal union, any one or two of them being authorized to take their seats in that body as delegates, as soon as the union should be consummated. They were instructed to proceed immediately to Philadelphia, and it seemed now that the long continued troubles of Vermont with her neighboring states and with congress were at an end, and that she might hereafter peaceably and quietly enjoy her independent jurisdiction.1

1Journal of Assembly, February 11, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, and 28th. Slade, 168-170. Williams's Vermont, 282. Ira Allen's Vermont, 2 , 214-217.

CHAPTER XXXIV.

PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS FAVORABLE TO VERMONT.

1782.

Proceedings of Congress in relation to the non-compliance of Vermont in October 1781, with the resolves of the previous August And also on the acceptance in February, 1782, by Vermont of the terms of those resolves and the relinquishment of her late claims of jurisdiction over new territory A committee of congress report fully in favor of Vermont, but the report is not acted upon.

WE now return to the proceedings of congress in relation to Ver

mont. On the 17th of December 1781, a letter from President Weare, to the New Hampshire delegates in congress, with accompanying papers, giving an account of the late disturbances in the western part of that state, growing out of the claim of jurisdiction by Vermont, was read and referred to a committee of five, of whom Mr. Carroll of Maryland, was chairman. Sundry papers relating to similar troubles in north-eastern New York were afterwards referred to the same committee. On the 7th of January, 1782, the committee made a report which after being discussed on several occasions, was on the 21st recommitted to another committee of five of which Mr. Ellery of Rhode Island, was chairman: This committee reported on the 25th of January, and after debate on that day, and on the 28th, the whole subject was referred to a grand committee of one delegate from each of the thirteen states. A few days afterwards Jonas Fay and Ira Allen, who, with Elisha Paine and Abel Curtis, had been appointed by the governor and council of Vermont to repair to Philadelphia, and watch over the interests of the state, arrived and presented their credentials to congress. They had, Mr. Allen says, "repeated interviews with committees and members of that body, who appeared very much dissatisfied with the legislature of Vermont, for not complying with their resolves of the 7th and 20th of August." The agents in justification of the extension of the state jurisdiction, alleged that they were driven into the measure as a means of self preservation against the prior hostile acts and claims of the two adjoining states; that the orders of Governor Chittenden for calling out the militia both against New Hampshire and New York had the salutary effect intended, of preventing the

effusion of blood, and of averting civil war, by making it apparent that opposition for the time being would be fruitless; that the legislature had appointed commissioners to adjust with commissioners from those states the boundaries between them, but that they would not enter into any negotiation on the subject. On the 6th of Feb., they presented a memorial to Congress embodying the grounds of their justification in some detail, but without apparently producing any favorable impression. The grand committee on the 19th of February submitted their report from which it clearly appeared that the non-compliance of Vermont with the terms offered by congress, was viewed with strong disapprobation.

The report, after reciting the resolutions of congress of the 7th and 20th of August, the failure of the Vermonters to comply with them, and their attempts to establish their jurisdiction beyond the limits therein prescribed, proposed the adoption of resolutions in substance as follows:

1. That the boundaries of the territory of the New Hampshire Grants were and should be as described in the resolution of 20th of August.

2. That in case the inhabitants of the said territory, in one month after notice given of these resolutions to Thomas Chittenden, Esq., should relinquish their claim to all territory without those boundaries and accede to the articles of confederation, their district should be acknowledged as a free and independent state and admitted into the union.

3. That in case the said inhabitants should not comply with the foregoing terms within the time specified, their neglect should be considered as a manifest indication of designs hostile to these United States, and that thereupon the forces of those states should be employed against them; and further that in such case congress would consider all the lands within the district to the eastward of the ridge of mountains as belonging to the state of New Hampshire and all to the west of the ridge to New York.

Another resolution was in these words:

Resolved, That in case of the neglect or refusal of the inhabitants residing within the district aforesaid, to comply with the terms prescribed in the resolutions aforesaid, the commander-in-chief of the armies of these United States, do without delay or further order carry these resolutions as far as they respect his department into full execution."

This report, after debate on the day of its presentation, was again taken up on the first of March, when after an unsuccessful motion to amend the second resolution, another was made to strike out the