by resolving to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, on her acceding to certain terms which she had accepted. In the resolutions of September, 1779, when a speedy decision was contemplated, it was declared to be the duty of the people of the New Hampshire Grants, "to abstain, in the mean time, from exercising any power over any of the inhabitants of the district who professed themselves to be citizens of, or to owe allegiance to, any or either of said states;" and the several claiming states were required in the like manner to suspend executing their laws upon any of the inhabitants of the district, "except such of them as should profess allegiance to and confess the jurisdiction of the same, respectively." Here were three independent jurisdictions to be extended over the same territory, each to be exercised over such persons only as should voluntarily consent to come under its authority. If the government of Vermont desired to exert its authority over any individual, he might readily avoid it by professing allegiance to New York or New Hampshire. If, for instance, a creditor should wish to collect a debt, the defendant in a suit before a Vermont court might nullify the proceeding at once by professing allegiance to one of those states, and as neither of them had courts in the territory before which legal proceedings could be instituted, the mere declaration of his allegiance to another jurisdiction effectually deprived the creditor of all remedy. If a party were arrested on a Vermont warrant for theft or burglary or any other crime, and the accused should solemnly profess allegiance to New York, the court would be bound by the resolutions of congress to discharge him at once. Of course, if the resolutions were obeyed, contracts would be disregarded and crimes would be committed with impunity. The debtor or the criminal had only to profess allegiance to a jurisdiction, other than that under which he was charged, and he would go free. So when any service or contribution for the defence of the country or the public benefit was required, the lawless, the unpatriotic, and the parsimonious might readily take advantage of the provisions of these pliant resolves to screen themselves from liability. Hence the resistance to the levies of men for the protection of the frontier, and to taxation for public purposes. It would seem also from the terms of the resolutions that a party might change his profession of allegiance from one jurisdiction to another, as might suit his interest or convenience. Such appears to have been their practical construction, by those who had lately been fined and banished by the Vermont courts, the greater part of whom had for sometime admitted the jurisdiction of that state and quietly submitted to its authority. Timothy

Church and William Shattuck, the highest field officers of the New York regiments, who were two of the five persons that had been banished, had both voluntarily taken the oath of allegiance to the Vermont government, months before receiving their commissions from Gov. Clinton. Church soon after his appointment signalized his change of allegiance by collecting his friends together and resisting the sheriff of the county when he came to levy an execution issued to enforce a judgment which had been rendered against him for debt by a Vermont justice. Shattuck had participated in an armed resistance to the execution of the laws of Vermont for levying men for the defence of the frontier, and when sentenced to banishment, had repaired to Philadelphia to claim the protection of congress against the laws of a government which he had solemnly sworn to support and maintain.1

By the practical operation of the resolutions of congress of 1779, society would be resolved into its original elements, where any person, so far as his individual power extended, might do just exactly as he pleased, without being accountable for his conduct to any government or law whatever. Such a state of society never did and never could exist in any community for any long period of time, without producing lawlessness and anarchy too intolerable to be borne. Congress had at first prescribed it as a temporary expedient, but now, after its unsuccessful trial for more than three years, these resolutions of December 5, 1782, proposed to march an army into Vermont, and establish it permanently by military force.

1 Hall's Eastern Vt., p. 425, 438, 439, 477, 482. Slade, p. 184.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

VERMONT AND CONGRESS ON THE RESOLUTIONS OF DECEMBER, 1782 — THEY ARE NOT TO BE ENFORCED.

1782-1783.

The Vermont legislature in October, 1782, appoints agents to negotiate a union with the confederation-The Vermonters are surprised at the ex parte December resolves of congress, and will not submit to them - Letter of remonstrance of Gov. Chittenden to the president of congress, and its subsequent confirmation by the general assembly- Gen. Washington alarmed at the prospect of a collision of arms, transmits his correspondence with Gov. Chittenden to congress, and earnestly objects to the employment of the army against Vermont-Gov. Clinton and the New York delegates urge speedy and decisive action, but congress will not use force, and forbears to act.

ON

N the 10th day of October, 1782, a few weeks after the trial of Gov. Clinton's officers and their associates, for resisting the authority of Vermont, the general assembly commenced its session at Manchester. Aside from matters of ordinary legislation, the principal object of discussion was the relation of congress towards the state. Nothing had been heard from that body since the departure of the agents of the state from Philadelphia, the preceding April, when they had informed the president that they should expect to be officially notified whenever their attendance should again become necessary. There was not much hope of obtaining the favorable action of congress, and the question was raised and debated whether or not it was advisable to appoint agents to that body. But that nothing might be wanting on their part, to bring about an amicable union with the other states, it was finally resolved, "That it is expedient to choose persons to attend congress, to transact the business of the state, if necessary;" and Moses Robinson, Paul Spooner, Ira Allen and Jonas Fay, were chosen for that purpose. Instructions were prepared for their government, which "vested them or any two of them, with powers as plenipotentiaries to negotiate the admission of the state into the federal union of the United States, and to agree upon and to ratify terms of confederation in behalf of the state, whenever opportunity should present therefor." They were required "when directed by the governor

and council to repair to the American congress." 1 No prospect appearing that an application to congress would prove successful, the agents did not act under their appointment.

While the legislature of Vermont was thus manifesting a friendly disposition towards congress, the enemies of the state in that body aided by outside importunities were actively preparing hostile measures against it, which, a few weeks later, found expression in the resolutions of the 5th of December, before recited. After some discussion in congress in regard to the manner in which those resolutions should be communicated to the Vermonters, they were finally enclosed in a letter from the president, dated the 11th of December, and committed to the commander-in-chief of the army for transmission to Gov. Chittenden. They were received by him towards the latter end of the month, and evidence of their delivery to him was furnished congress on the 15th of January, 1783, in a letter from Gen. Washington.2

These resolutions it will be recollected, required the government of Vermont to indemnify for their losses, certain persons who had been punished for resistance to its authority and to restore them to their former conditions, and also to submit to the establishment of two independent jurisdictions, besides its own, within the territory of the state. This ex parte proceeding was received by the people of Vermont, with great surprise, not unmingled with indignation, at what was considered a flagrant breach-of faith, pledged to the state by congress, in their resolutions of August, 1781. No serious thought of complying with the resolutions appears to have been entertained.3

The communication from the president of congress, having by Gov. Chittenden been submitted to his council, he, in accordance with their advice, returned a spirited answer, remonstrating in strong and decided, but respectful language against the unexpected proceedings of that body. The remonstrance, which bore date January 9th, 1783, began by stating that the subject would be laid before the legislative authority of the state, whose adjourned session would be held on the secend Thursday of the ensuing February. It then "reminded congress of their solemn engagement to the state in their public acts of August 7th and 21st, 1781," which were recited at length, and gave an extract from the letter of Gen. Washington of

1

1 Assembly Jour., Oct. 10, 16, 17, 18 and 21. Council Jour., Oct. 17 and 21.

2 Madison Papers, vol. 1, p. 228, 229, 240.

3 Hall's Eastern Vt., 478, 479, and Clinton Papers.

66

the first of January, 1782, in which he declared that Vermont had nothing to do but to withdraw her jurisdiction to the confines of her old limits and obtain an acknowledgment of independence and sovereignty under the resolve of the 21st of August." It then stated that "confiding in the faith and honor of congress" proffered in those acts, and having "great confidence" in the assurances of Gen. Washington, the legislature of the state had circumscribed their claim of jurisdiction in compliance with the terms offered them by congress; and had informed congress of their compliance by agents appointed for that purpose; that a committee of congress to whom the matter had been referred, had reported "that the conditional promise and engagement of congress" to recognize the independence of the state and to admit it into the federal union had "thereby become absolute and necessary to be performed;" that congress, having delayed action on this report, the agents had returned home, but that others had been appointed at the last October session of the legislature with full powers to negotiate the admission of the state into the union, whenever congress should be ready to consider the subject; that the inhabitants of the state having thus secured as they supposed, the friendly disposition of congress, could not be otherwise than alarmed on receiving their late hostile resolutions. It was then insisted in the remonstrance that the resolves of September, 1779, and June, 1780, on which those of December 5th, 1782, were predicated, were by their terms only to continue in force until congress should act upon and decide the controversy between the claiming states and Vermont; that the resolves of August, 1781, engaging to admit the state into the union on certain conditions, which had become absolute by a compliance therewith, could not be otherwise considered, than as a decision of the dispute in favor of Vermont, and consequently as putting an end to the operation of those prior resolutions, and rendering them null and void. It was further insisted that congress, under the articles of confederation, had no authority whatever to control the internal police of any of the states; much less that of Vermont, whose inhabitants had lived in a state of independence from their first settlement, governing themselves, until their state government was formed in Jan., 1777, by committees and conventions in the manner afterwards followed in the other states on their first separation from the British government. It was argued at some length and with great force of reasoning, that the execution of the threatening resolutions of the 5th of December, passed at the instance of their old New York enemies, would be equally arbitrary and unjust with the measures attempted to be