THE imaginary Union of the State of Vermont with sixteen Towns east of Connecticut-River has been attended with many disagreeable consequences, but I ap­prehend they are already chiefly removed by the wise conduct of the Honorable General Assembly at their Session in October last: Yet it appears that the protesting members are still useing their influence to divide the freemen of this State, in order to bring a­bout their interested views, which will be explained in the course of these Observati­ons.

In the very preamble of the union bill (so called) are these words, viz. "On the re­presentation of a Committee from the New-Hampshire Grants (so called) east of Con­necticut-River, that the said Grants are not connected with any State with respect to their internal police:" this appears to be the grand hypothesis or foundation on which the union was formed; that all the Grants east of Connecticut-River to the Mason line was not connected with any State with re­spect [Page 4] to their internal police, and was at free liberty to connect with any body politic to form government that would receive them, or to form a State by themselves: if this state of the matter be the truth, the union ought to be supported in spite of all oppo­sition; if not, it will be like unto the foolish man's house built on the sand. But the fol­lowing Letter from the President of the Council of New-Hampshire, to his Excel­lency Governor Chittenden, together with Col. Allen's representation from Congress will reflect light on this subject.

Extract of President Wear's letter to his Excellency Governor Chittenden, dated Ex­eter, August 22d, 1778.

"A paper has been laid before the Gene­ral Assembly attested by Thomas Chandler jun'. as Secretary of the State of Vermont, dated June 11th 1778, purporting a Reso­lution of the General Assembly of the State of Vermont, to receive into union with said State sixteen Towns on the east side of Con­necticut River, and leave or rather an invi­tation to any towns contiguous to those six­teen to enter into the same union."

"On which I am directed to represent to you, and to desire it may be laid before the Representatives of your people, the intima­tion in said Resolve, that the said sixteen [Page 5] towns "are not connected with any State with respect to their internal police," is an idle phantom, a mere chimera without the least shadow of reason for its support."

"The town of Boston in the Massachu­setts, or Hartford in Connecticut (if dispos­ed) might as rationally evince their being unconnected with their respective States, as those sixteen towns their not being connect­ed with New-Hampshire."

"Were not those towns settled and cul­tivated under the grant of the Governor of New-Hampshire? Are they not within the lines thereof as settled by the King of Great Britain prior to the present Aera? Is their any ascertaining the boundaries between any of the United States of America, but by the lines formerly established by the authority of Great Britain? I am sure there is not. Did not the most of those towns send Delegates to the Convention of this State in the year 1775? Have they not from the commence­ment of the present war applied to the State of New-Hampshire for assistance and pro­tection? It is well known they did—and that New-Hampshire at their own expence hath supplied them with arms, ammunition &c. to a very great amount, as well as paid soldiers for their particular defence, and all [Page 6] at their request as members of this State— Whence then could this new doctrine, that they were not connected with us, originate? I earnestly desire that this matter may be se­riously attended to, and I am persuaded the tendency thereof will be to anarchy and con­fusion."

"When I consider the circumstances of the people west of Connecticut River, the difficulties they encountered in their first set­tlement, their late endeavours to organize government among themselves, and the un­certainty of their being admitted as a separate State into the confederacy of the United States, I am astonished that they should sup­ply their enemies with arguments against them by their connecting themselves with people whose circumstances are wholly dif­ferent from their own, and who are actually members of the State of New-Hampshire— A considerable number of Inhabitants of those sixteen towns (I am well informed) are entirely averse to a dis-union with the State of New-Hampshire, and are about to apply to this State for protection; indeed some have already applied. And are not the peo­ple in this State under every obligation ci­vil and sacred to grant their brethren the needed defence?"

[Page 7] "I beseech you, sir, for the sake of the people you preside over; and the said people for the sake of their future peace and tranquillity, to relinquish every connection as a political body with the towns on the east side of Con­necticut River, who are members of the State of New-Hampshire, entitled to the same privileges as the other people of said State, from which there has never been any attempt to restrict them."

The representation of Col. Ethan Allen, viz.

Several other accounts was received from Congress by the Members of the council and Assembly of this State similar to the report of Col. Ethan Allen.

[Page 11]By the foregoing it appears that the State of New-Hampshire are spiritedly determined to support their claim to Connecticut-River.

The grand Council of America are op­posed to said Union, and view the State of New-Hampshire to extend to Connecticut-River; therefore it became the legislature of this State to act with the greatest precaution at their last session, in a matter that so deep­ly concerned the well-being of the State.

The protesting members in the course of their printed papers have much to say rela­tive to the report of the grand Committee made on the 19th, which was confirmed by the Assembly on the 20th; by quoting one part of a sentence they carry the sense of that report materially different from what the true sense and meaning was; the sentence is in these words, viz. "They are unani­mously determined, in every prudent and lawful way, to maintain and support entire the State as it now stands."

This sentence cannot be justly construed that the grand Committee or Assembly meant at all events to support the union with said sixteen towns: if they had, they would have put the sentence thus, "They are unanimously determined to maintain and support entire the State as it now stands." [Page 12] There could not have been the least propri­ety in adding these words, "in every pru­dent and lawful way." In the last clause of the report of said Committee, it is said, "That the General Assembly proceed to erect courts and enact laws and regulations for the support of government, as far as the circumstances of the State will admit."

The grand Committee and Assembly have here a reserve: they did not think the cir­cumstances of the State would admit of any new exertion of jurisdiction east of the river. But if the grand Committee and Assembly, in that report, had meant to have solemnly covenanted with said sixteen towns, as the protesting members pretend, there would not have been the least reserve, which there now appears to be.

Previous to this, it was proposed that Col. Payne, or some other gentleman from the east side of the river, should go to Congress, on the expence of this State, to see if by any arguments they had against New-Hampshire, they could evince to Congress their right to unite with this State: but they then refused, except they could be authorised to bring on a determination in Congress, whether this State should be a State or not, and the de­cision to be made with the incumbrance of the union.

[Page 13]The truth of the matter was this, the grand Committee and Assembly were willing to support the union with said sixteen towns, provided it could be done without endan­gering the whole State, and without a con­tention or war with New-Hampshire: but they were not willing to contend or fight with New-Hampshire for a territory east of Connecticut-river.

It is to be observed, that by the very pre­amble of the Union Bill, it was represented by that Committee, that those towns were not connected with any State, with respect to their internal police. Several of that Committee also represented, that the inhabi­tants of said towns were almost unanimous for joining this State, and that New-Hamp­shire as a State would not object against said towns connecting with this State. By rea­son of these representations the union took place.

The first and third of the foregoing re­presentations appear not to be true by Pre­sident Weare's letter (reference thereto being had,) as to the second representation some of said towns refused to send a representative to the Assembly, by reason there were so ma­ny in opposition to the union: other towns for reasons to me unknown, neglected to send [Page 14] a representative to the Assembly; in all six of the sixteen towns refused or neglected to send a representative to the Assembly, by which it appears that six of the sixteen towns have in some degree broke the union themselves, by not sending a representative as aforesaid.

In this situation can any man in his right mind flatter himself that it would have been the least degree of prudence for the Assem­bly to have made any new exertions of ju­risdiction east of the River, when a large minority of the inhabitants of said sixteen towns were in opposition to the union—the State of New-Hampshire strenuously oppos­ed to it—the members of the Grand Council of America in opposition thereto, as they view New-Hampshire to extend to Connecticut river? Who is young Vermont, that they should on a false and ex-parte representation, go on headlong to break in upon the Articles of Confederation of the United States, that have humbled the haughty pride of Great-Britain? Surely these are and must be view­ed by every reasonable person very weighty reasons in favor of the conduct of the As­sembly.

Is it not well known, and ought it not to be greatfully acknowledged by every subject of this State, that New-Hampshire by their [Page 15] timely assistance in sending their Hero ge­neral Stark with orders to act in conjunction with our people, and at his own option to put himself and men under the command of general Schuyler (who is a known enemy to this State) or not; and by wise co-oppera­tions with the militia of this State, saved it from impending ruin at the time when gene­ral Burgoyne made such hasty strides into the country? Would it not be the highest ingra­titude to thus requite New-Hampshire for their signal services, by taking from them (against their consent) so valuable a territoty, provided it was even in the power of this State?

The counties in this State were established by the general Assembly at their session in March last. The union with the sixteen towns east of Connecticut-River and this State took place at the session of Assembly in June last, soon after which civil magis­trates were chosen, inhabitants of some of said sixteen towns, and sworn into such of­fice, which did severally discharge their re­spective functions as magistrates of this State. The High Sheriff of the county of Cumber­land officiated in his office in said sixteen towns.

[Page 16]The three votes complained of are in these words, viz. "Question 1st. Whether the counties in this State shall remain as they were established by this Assembly at their session in March last."

"Question 2d. Whether the towns east of Connecticut-River included in the union with this State, shall be included in the county of Cumberland."

"Question 3d. Whether the towns on the east side of Connecticut-River, who are in­cluded by union with this State, shall be erected into a distinct county by themselves."

These votes did not add any thing to the union, neither did they take any thing from the people that they had before enjoyed. It was the same to pass a resolve that the coun­ty lines should remain as they were establish­ed last March, as to have resolved they should remain as they were the day said votes were passed: county lines being esta­blished by the Assembly will remain the same until altered by the same authority. As said votes had reference to county lines only, the union was the same after said votes were passed as before; the sense of those votes was only this, that the Assembly did not think it was prudent to make any new exertion of jurisdiction east of the River, for the time being.

[Page 17]The protesting members in the course of their printed papers, often have reference to the sixth article in the Bill of Rights, which in it's true sense is intirely in favor of the proceedings of the Assembly. But in their remarks they have falsely quoted it, as they have promiscuously taken some words, o­thers they have added that are not to be found in any part of said article, and con­nected them together in such manner as would best suit their turns, which is in these words, viz. "That government is, and ought to be, instituted for the benefit of the whole, and not a part only." The first part of the said article is in these words, viz.

"That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or com­munity, and not for the particular emolu­ment or advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, who are a part only of that community." The whole being greater than it's parts, therefore the whole is to be regarded; or in the words of the constitution; "for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation, or communi­ty;" which fairly implieth the major part: Therefore the next sentence is this, "and not for the particular emolument or advan­tage of any single man, family, or set of men, [Page 18] who are a part only of that community:" which clearly shews the last sentence has re­ference to the minority; and that govern­ment was not instituted for the particular advantage of any single man, family, or set of men, but for the people, nation, or com­munity; or in other words, the major part, or body of the people. These people on the east side of the river, are just such a set of men as the constitution has reference to; and it was the opinion of the Assembly, that to make any new exertion of jurisdiction east of the river, would be more damage to the body of the people in the State, than it would be advantage to the set of men on the east side of the river. Indeed, if it was a damage to the State, they, as a part, would be equally sufferers; and if it was a benefit to the State, they, as a part of the State, would be equally benefited. And as go­vernment was instituted for the good of the people, nation, or community, the Assembly acted in conformity to the sixth article in the Bill of Rights.

The protesting members, either thro' mis­take or design, have printed the vote relative to the division of counties (next before the three votes so much complained of) which was reconsidered, and ought not to have been published.

[Page 19]The order or rule of the House is, that no member shall be absent more than fifteen minutes at a time, without the leave of the House. The dissenting members, by absent­ing themselves from the House without leave, broke the rules of the House which they themselves had assented to.

The thirteenth section in the constitution is as follows, viz. "The votes and proceed­ings of the General Assembly shall be printed weekly during their sitting, with the yeas and nays on any question, vote, or resolution, where one third of the members require it, (except when the votes are taken by ballot) and when the yeas and nays are so taken, every member shall have a right to insert the reasons of his votes upon the minutes, if he desire it."

In the course of this section there is leave given to one third of the members, if they request it, to have the proceedings of the Assembly printed weekly during their sit­ting, with the yeas and nays on any question, vote, or resolution, except when the votes are taken by ballot; and when the yeas and nays are so taken, there is a much greater liberty given; for every member has then a right to insert the reasons of his votes upon the minutes, if he desires it.

It is to be observed, that these things are [Page 20] spoken of in the plural, viz. weekly.—The right of a member to insert his reasons, is sufficient to shew it to be the sense of the constitution, that every member should keep his seat, and the minor to submit to the ma­jor.—Indeed, common sense is sufficient to teach us that in all political bodies, or assemblies, the minor must submit to the ma­jor. Men differ almost as much in senti­ments as they do in looks, and are no more to blame for not thinking alike than for not looking alike. If in the most united body of men that ever associated together under heaven, it should become a custom that whenever any one or more could not agree with the majority in sentiment, they should absent themselves from that body, it would soon dwindle away. The constitution of this State makes ample provision for the minority in some cases, if there was but one that differed in sentiment from the rest, for the vindication of his conduct, and better information of his constituents, has liberty of inserting his reasons on the minutes.

In the thirteenth and fourteenth sections in the frame of government, there is a way provided for all questions, votes, resoluti­ons, bills, acts, or laws, that pass in General Assembly, to be printed and laid before the people for their perusal.

[Page 21]In the eighteenth article in the Bill of Rights, it is declared, "That the people have a right to assemble together, to consult for their common good, to instruct their re­presentatives."

The people being informed of the pro­ceedings of the Assembly, pursuant to the directions in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections in the frame of government, have a right by the eighteenth article in the Bill of Rights, "to instruct their representatives," previous to the next session of Assembly; and this is a plain path marked out in the constitution, for those members to walk in who cannot join in sentiment with the ma­jority.

Therefore for the minority to absent from the house contrary to the constitution, and take a path that is not known by the Con­stitution, is a violation of the constitution.

The protesting members in their remarks, find great fault with the Assembly for not "carrying into execution the plan proposed in the report and resolve of the Assembly on the 20th instant." To give eternal truth it's due limits, the fault was in them ; their withdrawing took one half of the Commit­tee away that was appointed, and left no person that was acquainted with the circum­stances [Page 22] of the people on the east side of the river; therefore it was not in the power of the Assembly to make out a state of matters pursuant to said report and resolve.

The protesting members in the course of their printed papers, further find fault with the Assembly for proceeding to business af­ter they withdrew; alledging that there was but thirty-nine members (at most) that re­mained to act as an Assembly after they had withdrawn, which is a gross mistake, there was forty, and their names are as follows, viz. Capt. Eli Noble, Capt. Iohn, Fasset, Col. Ebenezer Walbridge, Mr. Iohn Milling­ton, Capt. Iohn Fasset, jun. Mr. Reuben Tho­mas, Mr. Ioseph Bradley, Capt. Gideon Orms­bee, Mr. Martin Powell, Capt. Abraham Un­derhill, Mr. Moses Robinson, Mr. Gideon A­dams, Mr. Thomas Rowley, Mr. William Ward, Mr. Abner Lewis, Mr. Abraham Iackson, Mr. Roswell Post, Mr. Iesse Belnap, Capt. Iona­than Fasset, Capt. Iosiah Powers, Mr. Nathan Foot, Capt. Comfort Starr, Mr. Edward Harris, Mr. Hubbel Wells, Mr. Silas Hamil­ton, Capt. Ionathan Knight, Col. Samuel Fletcher, Mr. Nathaniel Robinson, Mr. Abner Miles, Mr. Ioshua Webb, Mr. Edward Akin, Mr. Samuel Scott, Maj. Thomas Chandler, Capt. Ebenezer Curtiss, Mr. Thomas Cooper, [Page 23] Mr. William Gallup, Capt. Phinehas Willi­ams, Capt. Iohn Throop, Capt, Edmund Hodg­es, and Mr. Timothy Bartholomew.

The Protesting, members in their remarks also assert, that the Assembly proceeded to business when there was not two thirds of the members elected on the west side of the ri­ver. It is to be observed that by their printed jouanals there was sixty-one mem­bers elected on the west side of the river, Col. Ethan Allen included. The town of Ar­lington, on freemen's meeting day, made choice of Col. Ethan Allen and Capt. Iohn Fasset to represent the town; Col. Allen, when informed of his appointment, declined serving. Another meeting was called, and Capt. Matthew Lyon was chosen in his stead, but by some irregularities in his credentials, was refused a seat. Col. Allen was then urged to serve, but declining the religious test, did not take a seat.—It is well known that the dissenting members found great fault with the Assembly, for permitting Col. Allen to speak in the House, alledging, that he was not a member, and had no business there; yet, to make out that there was not a quorum on the west side of the river, they have enrolled his name on the printed journals. According to the intent and meaning of the [Page 24] constitution, there was only Capt. Fasset that could be justly counted for a representative for said town; therefore there was a quorum on the west side of the river.

It is a known and just maxim in law, that no man shall take the advantage of his own wrong.—There was a very full House, until the dissenting members withdrew; they, by withdrawing, violated the constitution, and broke the rules of the House, as has been before observed—the fault is in them, that there was not a full House: that being the case, they cannot in justice have any pretensions to that plea.—By their arguments and prac­tice, if there was just a quorum of the As­sembly, and some vote or resolve should be passed that was disagreeable to only: one member, he would enter his protest against such procedure, and withdraw, which would effectually break up the Assembly. Thus they would put it in the power of one man to rule the whole, as arbitrary as ever George the third did, when he prorogued the British parliament at some times when they did not conduct to his mind.

But suppose the Assembly had dissolved on the dissenting member's withdrawing, and designing men had made overtures to the neighbouring States, to have shared this [Page 25] State amongst them; would it not have tended to anarchy and confusion?

Have not the good people of this State solemnly covenanted to stand by and sup­port each other by all the ties that are held sacred amongst men? Are not the freemen of this State, the members of the Council and Assembly, under the most solemn oaths to be true to the State, and to support the constitution thereof? And are not these so­lemn ties binding on men? Is not this State a frontier to three neighbouring States? And how soon we shall have a call for men in the field is uncertain; if we had such a call, how should we raise men and pay them? Are not our adversaries the Yorkers impatiently wait­ing such a revolution? Should it take place, how long before our inheritance would be divided amongst them?

What an infinity of hardships the inhabi­tants of this State have endured for a series of years, to defend their just rights against the arbitrary power of New-York, and in our turn, with the rest of our brethren of this continent, against Great-Britain? How ma­ny internal broils, and great expences have we suffered, until we have almost compleat­ed a fair fabric of freedom? And now, because a few young workmen on this glo­rious [Page 26] building, cannot have their will, in opposition to a major part of the old and experienced workmen, they would (if I may be allowed the comparison) like lightning descending on a powder-house, burst the whole building asunder, and reduce the whole fabric to a huge heap of shattered rubbish.

Surely it was of the greatest necessity and highest importance for the Assembly to stea­dily pursue the business of the State, at that most critical juncture.

The protesting members, in their remarks, quote the fifth article in the Bill of Rights, viz. "That all power being originally in­herent in, and consequently derived from the people; therefore all officers of govern­ment, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them."

By their appeal to the people, one would be induced to believe that the old Romish valerian law was in force in this State; which, after the expulsion of their kings in antient Rome, gave liberty to any citizen that was fined, or condemned by the sentence of any magistrate, to appeal to the judgment of the people.

I readily grant that all governmental pow­er was in the people before they formed any [Page 27] mutual compacts; but by reason of vile and vicious men, it became necessary to have some known rules or form of government, to pro­tect the virtuous, and punish the vicious. In order to form such rules or laws, as peo­ple were numerous and scattered, it became necessary to chuse and send representatives, in order to which, individuals must give up to their representatives their natural right of legislation, for such term of time as should be mutually agreed, on such representatives proceeding to form any laws or mode of go­vernment, they would act by the authority of the people; and should the people, after the publication of such mode of government or law, by their own voluntary consent, accept of the same, there cannot be the least doubt but that they would be bound by such con­stitution or law; and in erecting an executive branch of government, the people would give up to such magistrates as they should elect, their natural right of executive power, for the more easy and convenient exercise of the same, and for their common good, for such term of time, and in such manner as should be specified in such constitution or law as they should mutually assent to.

It is to be observed that "all officers of government, whether legislative or executive, [Page 28] are their trustees and servants, and at all times accountable to them;" yet it is to be understood, in a constitutional way. It has been before observed, that in the thirteenth and fourteenth sections in the Frame of Go­vernment, there is a way pointed out for all matters that pass in the Assembly, to be laid before the people for their perusal.—In the eighteenth article in the Bill of Rights, it is said, "That the people have a right to as­semble together to consult for their common good, to instruct their representatives." It is reasonable to suppose this instruction is to be given previous to the next session of the Assembly; and that after such instruction, each member should, at the next session, take his seat.

This is the proper line of an appeal to the people; and this power the people reserved in their own breasts, in the establishment of the constitution.

In the forty-fourth and last section in the constitution, after describing how a Council of Censors shall be chosen, it is said, "and whose duty it shall be to enquire whether the constitution has been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of governments have performed their duty as guardians of the [Page 29] people, or assumed to themselves, or exerci­sed other or greater powers than they are intitled to by the constitution." "For these purposes they shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; they shall have authority to pass public censures."

It appears to be a way pointed out in the constitution, to call either of the branches of government to account, to see if the consti­tution has been preserved inviolate in every part, or whether the Council or Assembly have assumed to themselves, or exercised other or greater powers than they are intitled to by the constitution: and in case of any such fault, this Council of Censors are au­thorised to pass public censures.—This appears to be the last resort, or bar, to pre­serve the liberties of the people; which, to­gether with the annual elections, at which times the freemen are under solemn oaths to vote for those persons that are most noted for wisdom and virtue—the powers of the As­sembly are to judge of the elections and qualifications of their own members; and that no person but those that have acquired and maintained a good moral character, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this State, is abundantly sufficient to preserve the liberties of the people.—And now for the [Page 30] protesting members to make an appeal to the people, to pass public censures on the majo­rity of the Assembly, (in a way that is not known in the constitution) and by several false assertions and misrepresentations, to ex­tort a determination from the people ex-parte (before an answer could be made to their remarks) to answer their design in forming a Convention, (for purposes to be hereafter more at large discussed) is a most daring in­sult on government, at the same time they pretend to be great sticklers for good order and government, when they themselves are the cause of all the confusion.

As I providentially happened at Cornish on the 9th of December last, I there attended a Convention that was called at the request of those Gentlemen that withdrew from the Council and Assembly of the State of Ver­mont, at their session in October last; and for part of the foundation of some remarks I propose to make on the conduct of said Gen­tlemen, shall recite an extract of the pro­ceedings of said Convention, which here followeth: But as I took this extract from the loose minutes, and as I understood the clerk had directions to transcribe it, and cor­rect the grammar, do not publish it as an attested extract.

[Page 31]Extracts from the Minutes of a Convention held at Cornish, December 9th, 1778.

"Voted first, That the members of this Convention will unite together, for the pur­pose of pursuing such legal and regular mea­sures, as may have a tendency to secure to ourselves the benefits of government, with­out any regard to the distinction made by the arbitrary line drawn on the western bank of Connecticut-river, by the King in Council, in the year 1764.

"2dly. A major part of the Committee appointed to draw at large, a declaration proposed in the report of a Committee of Assembly of Vermont, on the 19th of Octo­ber last, laid before this Convention a pam­phlet, drawn by them, in pursuance of said appointment; which was repeatedly read, and unanimously approved—Whereupon voted, that 1500 of the above mentioned pamphlets be printed, and transmitted to Congress, and other States; and to all the towns on the New-Hampshire Grants, agree­able to report.

"3dly. Whereas notwithstanding the a­bove mentioned request for this Convention, but few of those towns whose members con­tinued to act with said Assembly after the protesting members had withdrawn, have [Page 32] sent members to this Convention. And the conduct of the Assembly in passing the votes and resolves, contained in their printed jour­nals, the protest, remarks, &c. have render­ed it impracticable to carry said resolves into execution by said Assembly, as therein pro­posed; which difficulty will continue so long as said votes stand in force: and the people in those towns, by justifying the conduct of the Assembly in violating the constitution, will thereby dissolve the solemn compact which they entered into by the confederation, and the people consequently become dis­charged from their oaths of allegiance:

Therefore voted, That the following pro­posals be made to New-Hampshire, in pur­suance of said resolves.

1st. To agree upon and settle a dividing line between New-Hampshire and the Grants, by committees from each party, or otherwise as they may mutually agree.

2d. If that is not complied with, that the whole dispute with New-Hampshire be sub­mitted to the decision of Congress, in such way and manner as Congress and the parties may agree; always providing, the Grants be allowed equal privileges in espousing and conducting their cause in the trial with the other party. Or,

[Page 33]3d. That we will agree with them mutually to appoint and constitute a court of disinterested, judicious men, of the three New-England States, for the purpose of hearing and determining the dispute.—If neither of the foregoing ways can effect the settling of the controversy, in case New-Hamp­shire and we can agree upon a plan of gov­ernment, we will consent that the whole of the Grants connect with New-Hampshire, and become with them one entire State, as it was limited and bounded before the settling of said line in 1764—and until one or other of the foregoing proposals be complied with, we shall endeavor to defend ourselves in every lawful way, and trust our cause with the all-wise governing Providence to succeed us.

And that the inhabitants of those towns on the Grants, in the State of Vermont, who have not sent a representative to this Con­vention, and whose members joined with a majority of said Assembly in passing said votes, be requested to direct their members to rescind the same, and join in said pro­posals.

4th. That all the other towns on said Grants be requested to join us in making the foregoing proposals to New-Hampshire; and that those towns that agree to join us therein, [Page 34] be requested to transmit copies of their votes to Governor Marsh, Mr. Woodward, Col. Olcott, Col. Morey, Maj. Childs, Col. Payne, and Gen. Baley, committee by this Conven­tion for receiving them, and carrying the foregoing votes and proceedings into execu­tion, so soon as the towns on the Grants can have opportunity to join us therein.

5th. In case those towns whose members continued to act with the Assembly of Ver­mont, still remain firm and stedfast in sup­porting and continuing the votes of the As­sembly, which are complained of as uncon­stitutional, and neglect to join in carrying into execution said report of their committee, we shall make overtures to join with New-Hampshire, on the last article in said propo­sals.

6th. That said Committee be impowered to call a Convention from the towns on the Grants, whenever any thing shall arise which shall, in their opinion, render one necessary."

There were only eight towns sent repre­sentatives to said Convention from the west side of Connecticut-river. The number of towns represented from the east side of said river, I cannot particularize; but there was not so many as expected.

[Page 35]Their first procedure appears to be to dissolve the line drawn on the bank of Con­necticut-river, by the King in Council, in the year 1764, and to bring all the Grants to the Mason line on one footing, in order to lay a plan for further procedures.

Ever since some towns east of Connecticut-river made proposals for a union with this State, there has been much said relative to the Mason line, and that New-Hampshire had no just claim to jurisdiction west of said line.

The government of New-Hampshire, from it's beginning, so far as respects jurisdiction, was a royal government. Capt. Iohn Mason, by different grants from the Council of Ply­mouth, had all the land conveyed to him be­tween Salem-river and Piscataqua-river, and sixty miles up into the country; which he afterwards called by the name of New-Hampshire. That Council could give him right of soil, but was not authorised to give him jurisdiction over one foot—this was a prerogative of the Crown. The way to find the extent of New-Hampshire, was by the limits prescribed in the Governor's commis­sion. When the government was first form­ed, there was but few people, and Iohn Cutts, Esq was appointed President of a Council. The limits of the government, in [Page 36] that early day, was not so particularly ex­pressed, as we afterwards find them. The next magistrate they had appointed, was his Excellency Benning Wentworth, Esq—In his commission, speaking of the boundaries, particularly mentions, extending west until it meets with his Majesty's other governments. This commission was the very thing that gave life and energy to jurisdictional autho­rity, and extended it to all parts of the go­vernment, which, by all antient maps and proceedings, was viewed to extend as far west as Connecticut and the Massachusetts-Bay. There was no mention made of a Mason line, on account of jurisdiction; but as to the right of soil, the Crown disposed of it to the Council of Plymouth, and they to Capt. Iohn Mason: so that on account of private pro­perty, there is propriety in mentioning the Mason line; but on account of jurisdiction, it is the most idle whim that ever entered the head of an enthusiast in politics.

By what has been said, and by the extract of President Weare's letter, (reference thereto being had) is sufficient to shew that New-Hampshire have as good a right to exercise jurisdiction west of the Mason line, as east: and the reason why New-Hampshire have not as good a right now to exercise jurisdiction [Page 37] west of Connecticut-river, as east, is that a royal edict was passed in the year 1764, extending the jurisdiction of New-York to the west bank of said river: Which edict was, and ever has been, disagreeable to most of the inhabi­tants; for which reason application has been made at several times to New-Hampshire, to assert their claim to the Grants west of said river, and has been as often refused; there­fore the inhabitants of this State have expe­rienced all the evils that a Colden, Dunmore, and Try [...], together with a clan of New-York land-jobbers, could invent and inflict; and had it not been for that glorious spirit of freedom, that stimulated the good people of this State to stand for their natural rights, and assume to themselves amongst the pow­ers of the earth that equal station that the God of Nature had blessed them with, they would before this time have been effectually bound to New-York, in connecting with them in forming a constitution, &c.

Therefore New-Hampshire have lost their right of jurisdiction west of Connecticut-river, and can have no more just right now to ex­tend jurisdiction west of said river, than the Massachusetts-Bay have now to extend juris­diction to their antient northern limits, which would take a very considerable part of New-Hampshire [Page 38] and this State.—It was a royal e­dict passed in the year 1739, that curtailed the Massachusetts-Bay to Patuxet-falls in the river Merrimac.

But to return to our subject. This is the infant State of Vermont, which in some de­gree must be viewed similar to a young, but perfect child; which in the nature of things, must depend on those more aged for it's sup­port. Thus I view the United States and this, and New-Hampshire as our greatest benefactor.

Yet this State, from misrepresentation as aforesaid, and by discovering internal broils in New-Hampshire, did presume to extend jurisdiction over part of their original territo­ry. How this mighty authority became vested in the State of Vermont, has ever been beyond my conception: Tho' I readily con­ceive that it furnished New-York with argu­mentative harangues to play off against Vermont, ar Congress.

The Conventioners, in the foregoing ex­tract, appear to have invented a very extra­ordinary way to absolve the freemen from their oaths of allegiance. By what has been before observed, it appears to be the sense of the constitution of this State, that the majo­rity should rule the minority. Indeed men [Page 39] differ so much in sentiments, that no politi­cal body of men could long subsist any other way. Yet it seems the Conventioners pre­sume to declare, that if the majority do not submit to the minority, and reconsider those votes complained of, that the minority will thereby become discharged from their oaths of allegiance to this State: which is very extraordinary. The natural inference to be drawn from such procedures is, that if a cer­tain junto of men cannot rule this State, as they please, (if they have not already) they mean to violate their oaths of allegiance and office to this State, and induce as many more as they can to follow their example.

The protesting members in the course of their remarks, give an invitation to all the towns on the Grants, on both sides of Con­necticut-river, whether connected with the State of Vermont or not, to send members to said Convention: In consequence of which, some towns east of said river, sent members to said Convention, which was represented in the General Assembly of the State of New-Hampshire. And said Convention have also given an invitation to all the towns on the Grants to join with them.

It is to be observed, that a very large part of the towns on the Grants east of Connecti­cut-river, [Page 40] are represented in the General As­sembly of New-Hampshire; and that these towns did severally give their assent to the Articles of Confederation of the United States; which articles binds the whole con­federation to defend the privileges and im­munities of either of said States. Therefore said towns cannot withdraw from New-Hampshire and connect with any other body politic.

In the close of the fifth article or para­graph in said extract, it is declared, that "we shall make overtures to join with New-Hamp­shire on the last articles in said proposals." Thus it appears, after making several pro­posals to blind the unwary, they are deter­mined, if the majority of the people do not submit to their plans, they will make over­tures to New-Hampshire to extend jurisdicti­on over the whole State of Vermont: and this determination is made in a Convention, where there was but eight towns represented on the west side of the river; and some of their members declined acting in this respect. Is not this driving points beyond all due bounds? But I am not daunted at this, as I am sensible New-Hampshire with this State well, and will not extend jurisdiction west of the river. When we consider this, and the [Page 41] representation of their first Committee, that New-Hampshire had no right of jurisdiction west of the Mason line. And now to take a retrospect view of all the procedures of the union party, doth it appear that the union was meant for the best good of this State? I am conscious to myself it was not. But as interest and honor are the principal guidance to human actions, I shall make that the ba­sis of my next observations.

As I had the honor to be appointed by the Honorable the General Assembly of this State at their session in October last, to wait on the honorable the Council of the State of New-Hampshire, with letters relative to said union, &c. I was also desired to re­turn by the way of Cohos, which tour I have accomplished; and by what I have seen and heard, am sufficiently authorised to give it as my candid opinion, that the first seed of discord between New-Hampshire and it's dis­affected towns, sprang from Dartmouth-College. There was large sums of money due to that College in Great-Britain, by do­nations, or otherwise. At the commence­ment of this war, therefore▪ for gentlemen deeply concerned with said College, to be too zealous in opposition to Britain, in that early day, might be detrimental to said Col­lege.—But [Page 42] this difficulty did not long con­tinue.—Then certain men did not meet with such treatment, nor posts of profit and ho­nor, in that State, as they thought their high mightinesses deserved: from hence began divisions and strife. By this time the wheels of this State began to roll on—then the dis­appointed politicians began to rear up a Mason line, and arguments against New-Hampshire, in order for a union with this State; with this imaginary idea, that they would either connect a considerable part of the Grants east of Connecticut-river with this State, and thereby bring the seat of govern­ment on said river, or get in such connections with this State, as to break it up, and con­nect the whole to New-Hampshire, which would also bring the seat of government on said river. This they did, knowing that the inhabitants of this State, should they by any means get broke to bits as a State, they would by all means connect with New-Hampshire before New-York.—There were several men on the west side of the river had not too much honor or virtue to join in this plan.

Of late there has been such opposition to the union by Congress, New-Hampshire, &c. they have not now (if ever they had) the [Page 43] least expectation of continuing to this State, but are using every possible art to disaffect the good people of the upper part of Cum­berland county against those of the county of Bennington, in order to connect the whole, or as much as they can, to New-Hampshire. Those men in the county of Grafton, are very sensible that they will be viewed like speckled birds, if they go back alone to New-Hampshire; but if they can return at the head of a powerful confederacy, they will yet govern New-Hampshire as they please.

I have also to observe, that several of the members of said Convention did freely own to me, when at Cornish, that their design was to break up this State, and connect the whole of the Grants to New-Hampshire; alledging, that it was for their interest so to do.

And now, let us trace the conduct of those zealous friends to the union, and we shall find the line of their conduct in con­formity to this plan.

And lastly, I have only to recommend to the good people of this State, to meet in their several towns, and to see that they have representatives that will attend at the next session of Assembly; and pursuant to the eighteenth article in the Bill of Rights, [Page 44] give such instructions to their representatives relative to said union, as shall, in their opi­nion, most conduce to the well-being of this State. And for the better information of the freemen thereof, I herewith subjoin the following resolves, which will undoubtedly have their due influence.

"In General Assembly, Windsor, October 23d, 1778.

Resolved, That the members of this As­sembly lay before their constituents the situ­ation of the union subsisting between this State and sixteen towns east of Connecticut-river; and be instructed how to proceed re­lative to said union, at the next session of this Assembly.

Whereas there are several inhabited towns in this State, that have not been represented in this Assembly according to constitution; and others whose representatives have with­drawn themselves, and refuse to take a seat in this House:

Therefore Resolved, That the Constable or Constables of each respective town in this State, that is not fully represented according to constitution (and of each respective town whose representatives still refuse to take their seats) be and are hereby directed to warn all the freemen of their respective towns [Page 45] to meet together at some convenient time and place by them appointed, within such towns, before the next adjourned session of Assembly, and make choice of a representa­tive or representatives to attend the Assem­bly, at their adjourned session to be holden at Bennington, on the second Thursday of February next."