[P. 37.] River Cole, about two leagues to the westward of Point Moore, from whence they are to proceed in compleating the Extension of the Boundary Line between the two Governments, agreeable to His Majesty's Instructions.

I am truly sensible of the Politeness of your sentiments towards me & wish you may by an early visit to this City, afford me an opportunity of renewing an acquaintance which was begun during your short stay in your Tour through North Carolina.

I am, with much esteem,

Sir, Your Excellency's most obedient servant
WM. TRYON.

P. S. Our Correspondence being of a public nature I shall communicate the same to His Majesty's Secretary of State for American affairs.

His Excellency John Wentworth, Esq. Gov'. &c. &c.

NOTE BY THE EDITOR.

In the volume of State Papers-labelled "Vermont Controversy,"-as arranged by the late John Farmer, Esq., pp. 41-48, is found a brief history of that controversy, as contained in Dr. Belknap's History of New Hampshire, pp. 385-392, Farm. ed., Dover, 1831. Inasmuch as this presents a fair view of the controversy, in the judgment of Dr. Belknap, it may be helpful to readers in forming their opinions on the subject.

SECTION III.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY WITH VERMONT. [Copied from Dr. Jeremy Belknap's Hist. of N. H.]

The inhabitants of the district on the western side of Connecticut river, which was severed from New Hampshire in 1764, had been engaged in a long and bitter controversy with the government of New York. They had even been obliged to have recourse to arms in defence of their estates, and frequent acts of violence had been committed. There was among them a set of intrepid men ready to encounter dangers, and trained to hardy enterprise. At the commencement of hostilities, by the advice of some principal opposers of the British government in the other colonies, a company of those people, styling themselves Green Mountain Boys, marched to Ticonderoga, and wrested that

fortress, together with Crown Point, out of the hands of the British garrisons. A regiment of them was embodied by order and in the pay of the general congress. Their exertions in the com- 1775. mon cause were meritorious, and their services were acceptable.

Soon after the declaration of independence, the inhabitants of that territory assembled in convention to consider their peculiar situation, and concert measures for their safety. The opportunity 1776. which then presented for a change in their political connexions was too precious to be lost. By the dissolution of the bonds which had held America in subjection to the crown of Britain, they conceived themselves free from the government of New York, to which the most of them had never voluntarily submitted; and being, as they said, reduced to a state of nature," they thought they had a right to form such connexions as were agreeable to themselves. Accordingly, they made and published a declaration,-"that they would at all times consider themselves as a free and independent state, capable of regulating their own internal police; that they Jan. 15. had the sole exclusive right of governing themselves in such manner as they should choose, not repugnant to the resolves of congress; and that they were ready to contribute their proportion to the common defence." Under the influence of these principles, they formed a plan of government and a code of laws, and petitioned congress to receive them into the union.

1777.

The inhabitants on the eastern side of Connecticut river were very conveniently situated to unite with those on the western side, and many of them had the same principles and views. They argued that the original grant of New Hampshire to Mason was circumscribed by a line drawn at the distance of sixty miles from the sea; that all the lands westward of that line, being royal grants, had been held in subjection to the government of New Hampshire by force of the royal commissions, which were vacated by the assumed independence of the American colonies; and therefore that the inhabitants of all those lands had reverted to a "state of nature." By this expression, however, they did not mean that each individual was reduced to such a state, but that each town retained its corporate unity, unconnected with any superior jurisdiction. They distinguished between commissions derived from the king, which were revokable at his pleasure, and incorporations held on certain conditions, which being performed, the powers and privileges granted by the incorporations were perpetual. They asserted, that jurisdictions, established by royal commissions, could bind a people together no longer than the force which first compelled continues to operate; but when the coercive power of the king was rejected, and its operation had ceased, the people had a right to make a stand at the first legal stage, viz., their town incorporations. These, by universal consent, were held sacred. Hence they concluded that the major part of each one of those towns had a right to control the minor part; and they considered themselves as so many distinct corporations until they should agree to unite in one aggregate body.

In these sentiments the people were not all united. The majority of some towns was in favor of their former connexion, and in those towns where the majority inclined the other way the minority claimed protection of the government.

They supposed that the existence of their town incorporations, and of the privileges annexed to them, depended on their union to New Hamp

shire; and that their acceptance of the grants was in effect an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction, and a submission to the laws of the state, from which they could not fairly be disengaged without its consent; as the state had never injured or oppressed them.

64

Much pains were taken by the other party to disseminate the new ideas. Conventions were held, pamphlets were printed, and at length a petition was drawn in the name of sixteen towns on the eastern side of Connecticut river requesting the new state, which had assumed the name of Vermont, to receive them into its union, alleging that they were not connected with any state, with respect to their internal police." The assembly at first appeared to be against receiving them, but the members from those towns which were situated near the river on the west side declared that they would withdraw and join with the people on the east side in forming a new state. The question was then referred to the people at large, and means were used to influence

a majority of the towns to vote in favor of the union which June 11. the assembly could not but confirm. The sixteen towns were accordingly received, and the Vermont assembly resolved that any other towns on the eastern side of the river might be admitted on producing a vote of a majority of the inhabitants, or on the appointment of a representative. Being thus admitted into the state of Vermont, they gave notice to the government of June 22. New Hampshire of the separation which they had made, and expressed their wish for an amicable settlement of a jurisdictional line, and a friendly correspondence.

The president of New Hampshire, in the name of the assembly, wrote to the government of Vermont claiming the sixteen towns as part of the state, the limits of which had been determined prior

to the Revolution, reminding him that those towns had sent Aug. 23. delegates to the Convention in 1775; that they had applied to the assembly for arms and ammunition, which had been sent to them; that their military officers had accepted commissions and obeyed orders from the government; that the minority of those towns was averse to a disunion and had claimed protection of the state, which the assembly thought themselves bound to afford; and beseeching him to use his influence with the assembly of Vermont to dissolve the newly formed connexion.

At the same time the president wrote to the delegates of the state in Congress, desiring them to take advice and endeavor to obAug. 19. tain the interposition of that body; intimating his apprehension that without it the controversy must be decided by the sword, as every condescending measure had been used from the beginning and rejected.

The governor and council of Vermont sent a messenger to congress to see in what light the new state was viewed by them. On his return he reported that the congress was unanimously opposed to the union of the sixteen towns with Vermont; otherwise they (excepting the delegates of New York) had no objection to the independence of the new state. At the next session of the Vermont assembly at Windsor, when the representatives of the sixteen towns had taken their seats, October. a debate arose on a question whether they should be erected into a new county, which passed in the negative. Conceiving that they were not admitted to equal privileges with their brethren, the members from those towns withdrew; and were followed by several

others belonging to the towns adjoining the river on the west side. They formed themselves into a convention, and invited all the towns on both sides of the river to unite and set up another state by the name of New Connecticut. This secession had nearly proved fatal to the state of Vermont. A ridge of mountains, which extends from south to north through that territory, seemed to form not only a natural but a political line of division. A more cordial union subsisted between the people on the eastern side of the Green Mountains and the eastern side of Connecticut river, than between the latter and those on the western side of the mountains, but these alone were insufficient, without the others, to make a state. The governor and other leading men of Vermont, who resided on the west side of the mountains, wrote letters to the assembly of New Hampshire informing them of the separation, and expressing their disapprobation of a connexion with the sixteen towns. The assembly regarded these letters as ambiguous, and as not expressing a disinclination to any future connexion with them. Jealousy is said to be a republican virtue;-it operated on this occasion, and the event proved that it was not without foundation. A convention of delegates from several towns on both sides of the river assembled at Cornish and agreed to unite without any Dec. 9. regard to the limits established by the king in 1764, and to make the following proposals to New Hampshire, viz., either to agree with them on a dividing line, or to submit the dispute to congress, or to arbitrators mutually chosen. If neither of these proposals were accepted, then, in case they could agree with New Hampshire on a form of government, they would consent that "The whole of the grants on both sides of the river should connect themselves with New Hampshire, and become one entire state, as before the royal determination in 1764." Till one or other of these proposals should be complied with, they determine "To trust in providence and defend themselves." An attempt was made in the following year to form a constitution for New Hampshire, in which the limits of the state were said to be the same as under royal government reserving nevertheless 1779. our claim to the New Hampshire Grants west of Connecticut river." Though this form of government was rejected by a majority of the people, yet there was a disposition in a great part of the assembly to retain their claim to the whole of the grants westward of the river. At the same time the state of New York set up a claim to the same lands, and it was suspected, perhaps not without reason, that intrigues were forming to divide Vermont between New Hampshire and New York, by the ridge of mountains which runs through the territory. Certain it is that the Vermonters were alarmed, and that they might have the same advantage of their adversaries they extended their claim westward into New York and eastward into New Hampshire; and thus not only the sixteen towns, but several other towns in the counties of Cheshire and Grafton, became incorporated with Vermont by articles of union and confederation.

It is not easy to develop the intrigues of the several parties, or to clear their transactions from the obscurity which surrounds them. He who looks for consistency in the proceedings of the conventions and assemblies which were involved in this controversy will be disappointed. Several interfering interests conspired to perplex the subject. The people on the western side of the Green Mountains wished to have the seat of government among them; those adjoining Connecticut river, on

both sides, were desirous of bringing the centre of jurisdiction to the verge of the river; the leading men in the eastern part of New Hampshire were averse to a removal of the government from its old seat; Vermont had assumed independence, but its limits were not defined; New York had a claim on that territory as far as Connecticut river, from which there was no disposition to recede. That state had been always opposed to the independence of Vermont.

New Hampshire at first seemed to acquiesce in it, and some letters which the President wrote to the governor of Vermont, when threatened with invasion in 1777, were understood as an acknowledgment of it. Had there been no attempt to unite with the towns on the eastern side of the river, New Hampshire would perhaps never have opposed the independence of Vermont. But the assembly was afterward induced to claim all that territory which before the year 1764 had been supposed to be within the limits of the state. This interfered with the claim of New York, and at the same time Massachusetts put in a claim to a part of Vermont. The controversy had become so intricate that it was thought necessary to be decided by congress; and ap- Sept. 24. plication being made to that body, they recommended to the three states of New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire to pass acts which should authorize congress to determine their boundaries, and at the same time they advised the people of Vermont to relinquish jurisdiction over all persons on the west or east sides of Connecticut river who had not denied the authority of New York and New Hampshire, and to abstain from granting lands or confiscating estates within their assumed limits till the matter should be decided.

The states of New York and New Hampshire passed these acts, but Massachusetts did not. The Vermont assembly proceeded in granting lands and confiscating estates, and congress could only resolve that their proceedings were unwarrantable.

1780.

It was necessary that nine states should be present in congress, besides those whose claims were to be heard. A deficiency in the representation caused a long delay; but after the expiration of another year, the question was brought on. The claims of New York and New Hampshire were put in, and both pleaded that Vermont had no right to independence. The agents of the new state Sept. 20. asserted their right, and offered to become part of the Union, intimating that if they could not be admitted they should be reduced to the necessity of making the best terms [they could with] the British government.

1781.

The cause was further perplexed by a constitutional question,-whether congress had any power to form a new state within the limits of the Union. The decision was deferred, and after eleven months congress had proceeded no farther than to lay Aug. 20. it down as an indispensable preliminary to the recognition of Vermont as a member of the Union that they should "explicitly relinquish all demands of land and jurisdiction on the east side of Connecticut river, and on the west side of a line drawn twenty miles eastward of Hudson's river to Lake Champlain.”

When this resolution was laid before the Assembly of Vermont, which met at Charlestown, they determined to "remain firm in the principles on which they first assumed government, and to hold the arti

cles of union inviolate; that they would not submit the ques- Oct. 19. tion of their independence to the arbitrament of any power