towards Congress; and a recognition of their independence and sovereignty, and admission into the foederal union, being thus secured by the promise and engagement of the United States, they could not, in this situation, be otherwise than alarmed, on receiving an act of Congress in the following words:

[For this act of Congress, see page 177.]

From the before recited resolutions of Congress, the journals of the Legislature of this State, and the after transactions between the United States in Congress assembled, and the Agents or Delegates from this State, the following inferences are deduced, to wit; the last mentioned resolutions of Congress of the 5th of December, 1782, are altogether predicated on other resolutions of theirs, of the 24th of September, 1779, and 2d of June, 1780, which prescribed to this State, in part, a desisting from the exercise of civil government; in which intermediate space of time, between the passing of the said resolutions of the 24th of September, 1779, and 2d of June, 1780, and those of the 5th of December, 1782, a confederation or fœderal union between the United States, represented in Congress, and the Legislature of this State, had been mutually. agreed upon between them; which agreement absolutely nullifies the force and validity of those resolutions of Congress of the 24th of September, 1779, and 2d of June, 1780, on the supposition, that they were originally binding on this government (which is by no means admitted.) And inasmuch as the said last resolutions of Congress of the 5th of December, 1782, are essentially founded on those antecedent resolutions of theirs, of 1779, and 1780, which were disannulled by the same authority that resolved them, in consequence of a subsequent mutual agreement of a fœderal union between the United States and this State, as aforesaid, and necessarily invalidates the last resolutions of Congress of the 5th of December, 1782; for they cannot be of any more validity than those other resolutions of 1779, and 1780, on which they were predicated; for, the before recited preliminary agreement, proposed on the part of Congress, of a fœderal union of the United States with this, and in the fullest and most explicit manner, acceded to, on the part of this State, is something or nothing. If it amounts to any thing, it supercedes and invalidates all antecedent and subsequent resolutions of Congress, respecting this State, and renders them nugatory, and is still binding on the part of Congress; but if such solemn agreements are nothing, all faith, trust or confidence in the transactions of public bodies, is at an end. So certain as the plighted faith of Congress, in their said stipulated agreement with this State, was originally binding on them, the obligation still remains the same, which, of necessary consequence, invalidates all other resolutions of Congress respecting this State, until it is ratified by an admittance of this State into the confederation of the United States, on their part. I have argued thus far, on Congress' own principles; and proceed, next, to the second part of the argument, predicated on the impropriety of the pretensions of Congress to controul the internal police of this State. Congress will not (it is presumed) pretend to unlimited

power, or to any other than what has been delegated to them from the United States; nor will they pretend, that their articles of confederation will warrant them in interfering with, or controuling, the internal police of the United States; whence, then, did they obtain a rightful prerogative over the internal police of this State, from which they have never received any delegated power? This State, (on revolution principles) has as good a right to independence as Congress, and has an equal right, (or rather no right,) to pass resolutions prescribing measures to Congress, as Congress has to prescribe to this State, to receive their banished, and make restitution to them and other criminals, of the property, which, by a legal process, has been taken from them, for their enormities heretofore committed against the laws and authority of this State. Formerly, it has been argued by Congress, and that justly, "That if Great Britain had a right to tax the" (then) "American Colonists, as they pleased, without representation, the Colonists could not call any part of their cash their own, since it might be taxed from them without their consent." The same argument will apply against the right of Congress to controul the civil authority of this State; for, if they may, in one instance, do it, they may in another, and so on, till they suppress the whole. But should they endeavor to frustrate the independence of this State, which has as good a right to it as themselves, it would be a manifest departure from their original design of liberty. Congress opposed the arbitrary, assumed prerogative of the British government, to make laws to bind the (then) colonists, or to controul their internal police, and have brought about a revolution, in which the people of this State have signalized themselves.

How inconsistent then, ist in Congress, to assume the same arbitrary stretch of prerogative over Vermont, for which they waged war against Great Britain? Is the liberty and natural rights of mankind a mere bubble, and the sport of state politicians? What avails it to America to establish one arbitrary power on the ruins of another? Congress set up as patriots for liberty; they did well, but pray extend the liberty, for which they are contending, to others. The inhabitants of the territory of Vermont have lived in a state of independence from their first settlement, to this day. Their first mode of government and management of their internal police, was very similar to that of the United States, in their first separation from the British government. They were governed by Committees of Safety, and Conventions; which last was their highest judicature for the security of their just rights against the oppressions of the (then) province of New-York, (the principal officers of the Green Mountain Boys being then judges in the said Territory) and which, on the 15th day of January, 1777, declared themselves to be a free and independent State, and have, from their first settlement of the country, maintained their independence, and protected their lives and properties, against all invaders, and date their freedom from the royal adjdication of the boundary line between New-York and New-Hampshire, the 20th July, 1764, and are now in the eighteenth year of their independence, and cannot submit to be resolved out of it, by the undue influence, which the State of New-York (their old adversary) has in Congress. This is

too much,-heaven forbid it! The feelings of the citizens of Vermont over which I have the honor to preside (I am persuaded) will never give in to it ;-they are free, and in possession of it, and will remain independent of New-York, notwithstanding their artifice or power. This State have no controversy with the United States, complexly considered, and is, at all times, ready and able to vindicate their just rights and liberties, against any usurpations of the State of New-York.

To return to the transactions of Congress, particularly their resolves of the 5th of December, 1782. "Resolved, That the said acts and proceedings of the said people,”—(which was that of their courts of justice punishing delinquents, in due form of law," "being highly derogatory to the authority of the United States, and dangerous to the confederacy, require the immediate and decided interposition of Congress, for the protection and relief of such as have suffered by them, and for preserving peace in the said district, until a decision shall be had of the controversy, relative to the jurisdiction of the same." That the exercise of civil law in this State is derogatory to the authority of the United States, considered as such, or that it should be thought dangerous to the confederacy, is paradoxical; or that the interposition of Congress in this matter, would be a means of restoring peace in this State, is equally so. Law, peace and order was established in this district, previous to the late resolves of Congress; what discord they may occasion, time must determine. It is a general opinion, that a ratification of the said stipulated agreement would have had a more salutary tendency to peace, than the late resolutions. And as to the decision of the jurisdiction of the territory of this State, Congress, in their resolutions of the 7th and 21st of August, 1781, did determine the limits, which they would guarantee to the States of New-Hampshire and New-York, by virtue of the articles of confederation of the United States; which is as follows;-" By the United States in Congress assembled, August 21, 1781. It being the fixed purpose of Congress to adhere to the guarantee of the States of NewHampshire and New-York, contained in their resolutions of the 7th instant," to wit, that "they will consider all the lands belonging to NewHampshire and New-York, respectively, without the limits of Vermont aforesaid, as coming within the mutual guarantee of territory contained in the articles of confederation, and that the United States will, accord ingly, guarantee such lands, and the jurisdiction over the same, against any claims or encroachments from the inhabitants of Vermont aforesaid." Thus far the resolutions of the 7th of August, referred to in the resolutions of the 21st; the latter of which proceeds to point out the particular boundaries of the guarantee to the States aforesaid, to wit; To the State of New-Hampshire all the lands "on the east side of the west banks of Connecticut river;" and to the State of New-York all the lands "on the west side of a line beginning at the northwest corner of the State of Massachusetts, thence by a line, twenty miles east of Hud. son's river, so far as said river runs northerly in its general course, thence by the west bounds of the townships granted by the late government of New-Hampshire, to the river running from South Bay to Lake Champlain, thence along the said river to Lake Champlain, thence along the

waters of Lake Champlain to latitude 45 north, excepting a neck of land between Missisco-Bay and the waters of Lake Champlain." That Congress has explicitly pointed out, and determined the boundaries of the guarantee of the lands and jurisdiction of the States of New-Hampshire and New-York, as far as their respective claims interfere with this State, was the opinion of the Committee of the whole Legislature of this State, as may be seen from their journals, viz: "Resolved, That in the sense of this Committee, Congress, by their resolutions of August last, in guaranteeing to the States of New-York and New-Hampshire, respectively, all the territory without certain limits therein expressed, have eventually determined the boundaries of this State."

To this limitation of Vermont, its Legislature concurred, as the before quoted journals may evince. The boundaries of the States of NewYork and New-Hampshire, as far as they interfere with the State of Vermont, having been already, thus adjudicated by Congress, what propriety is there then, in the resolutions of the 5th of December, 1782, in which they break over their own adjudicated bounds of August, 1781; requir ing this State" without delay to make full and ample restitution to Timothy Church, Timothy Phelps, Henry Evans, William Shattuck, and such others as have been condemned to banishment and confiscation of estate, or have, otherwise, been deprived of property, since the first day of September last, and that they be not molested in their persons or properties, on their return to their habitations in the said district." Congress has been so mutable in their resolutions respecting Vermont, that it is impossible to know on what ground to find them, or what they design next. At one time, they guarantee to the States of New-York and New-Hampshire their lands and jurisdiction, to certain described limits, leaving a place for the existence of this State. And the next that this government hears from them, they are within those limits, controuling the internal government of this State. Again, they prescribe preliminaries of confederation, and when complied with, on the part of this State, they unreasonably procrastinate the ratification thereof.-"That the United States will take effectual measures to enforce a compliance with the aforesaid resolution, in case the same shall be disobeyed by the people of the said district." In this case, it is probable that this State would appeal to the justice of his Excellency, General Washington, and, inasmuch as his Excellency, the General, and most of the inhabitants of the contiguous States, are in favor of the independence of this State, as limited by Congress, as aforesaid, I beg leave to suggest to them, whether it is not more prudent to refer the settlement of this dispute to the States of New-York and Vermont, than to embroil the confederacy of the United States therewith.

Although this State is not amenable to the tribunal of Congress for the management of their internal police, I, nevertheless, will give them a brief narrative of facts, relative to those delinquents, in whose behalf Congress, in their resolutions of December last, have interposed. At the session of the General Assembly of this State, in February, 1781, they made a general act of amnesty, in favor of such persons, within this State, who had previously made opposition to its authority; upon which

they unanimously submitted to this government, and all opposition to it ceased, for more than one year, when, the Legislature having ordered a certain quota of men, to be raised in the several towns throughout this State, for the defence of its frontiers, evil minded persons in the town and vicinage of Guilford, in the southerly part of the county of Windham, opposed the raising and paying of them, and Governor Clinton of the State of New York, by letters to them and otherwise, interfered in their behalf, which caused a second insurrection in this State; and though every prudent and lenient measure was taken by government, to reclaim the offenders, they proved ineffectual. In the mean time, Governor Clinton gave commissions, civil and military, to sundry of those disaffected persons, and they had the effrontery to attempt to exercise the laws of the State of New-York, over the citizens of this State; when a military force was, by the direction of this government, sent to assist the sheriff of Windham county, in the execution of the laws of this State; and the procedure of the court, relative to the five criminals, who were banished, and to sundry others, who were amerced in pecuniary fines, was in due form of law. The notorious Samuel Ely, who was ring-leader of the late seditions in the State of Massachusetts, a fugitive from justice, was one of the banished. He had left that State, and was beginning insurrections in this; when he was detected, and carefully delivered to the sheriff of the county of Hampshire, in the State of Massachusetts, who, as I have been since informed, has secured him in goal at Boston, to the great satisfaction and peace of that State. This same Samuel Ely, Timothy Church, and William Shattuck, who were three of the banished, had previously taken the oath of allegiance to this State, and so had a greater part of those who were fined; and every of the towns, in which they resided, had, for several sessions of Assembly, previous to their insurrection, been represented in the Legislature of this State. So that, admitting the resolutions of Congress of the 24th of September, 1779, and 2d of June, 1780, to be binding on the States of New-York and Vermont, which prescribed to them to exercise their respective jurisdictions over such of the inhabitants of the controverted territory, who should profess to owe allegiance to one or both of them, and not to interfere with each others jurisdiction; and as every of those inhabitants, previous to the late insurrection, had conformed to the government of this State, the jurisdiction of the State of New-York became extinct: and Congress having, in their said resolves, given their premised right of jurisdiction to the States of New-York and Vermont; and that of NewYork having ended as aforesaid, the whole right of jurisdiction reverted to the State of Vermont, so that Congress, by their said resolutions of 1779, and 1780, fairly put the aforesaid banished persons and others, under the jurisdiction of this State, and are foreclosed from interfering with the jurisdiction of the same; and, consequently, could have no jurisdiction of those matters, which, in their resolutions of the 5th of December, 1782, they object to the civil authority of this State, and in which they so spiritedly interpose their prerogative,-for that the said delinquents were, every of them, in just construction of law or reason, subjects of this State; and, therefore, agreeable to the express tenor of