mont, and contrasted her power to resist with that of New-York to enforce these territorial claims.

From this topic he passed on to an examination of the constitutionality of the bill, asserting that the power of dismembering the state, under certain circumstances, was a necessary appendage of its sovereignty. Instances of such dismemberments were referred to, and the writers on international law were quoted to establish the right "to lop off a limb for the good of the body." From an exposition of the right, he proceeded to a review of the policy of this measure; in the course of which, he adduced facts to show that Vermont had borne such relations to Great Britain during the revolution as to justify the belief, that, should a collision arise, she would receive aid from their recent enemy.

The remaining questions were, how far New-York had a right to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, and how far she was bound to make compensation to the owners of the disputed territory. He urged the actual independence of Vermont as an answer to the first inquiry; stated, that as to territorial claims, the confederacy provided a tribunal for their adjustment; and insisted that the state was not under a strict obligation to make compensa. tion to the losing proprietors. "The distinction," he said, "is this—if a government voluntarily bargains away the rights, or dispossesses itself of the property of its citizens in their enjoyments, possessions, or power, it is bound to make compensation for that of which it has deprived them: but if they are actually dispossessed of those rights or that property by the casualties of war, or by revolution, the state, if the public good requires it, may abandon them to the loss without being obliged to make reparation."

"In wars between states, the sovereign is never supposed to be bound to make good the losses which the subject sustains by the captures or ravages of the enemy, though

they should amount to the destruction of his whole property; and yet nothing can be more agreeable to natural equity than that those who happen to be the unlucky victims of the war should be indemnified by the community.”— "But in practice such a principle would be found attended with endless difficulties and inconveniences; and therefore the reverse of it has been adopted as a general rule. The true reason is, the resources of nations are not adequate to the reparation of such extensive losses as those which are commonly occasioned by wars and revolutions, and it would, therefore, be contrary to the general good of society to establish it as a rule that there is a strict obligation to repay such losses. It is better there should be individual sufferings, than to admit a rule which would fetter the operations of government, and distress the affairs of the community. Generosity and policy may, in particular instances, dictate such compensations. Sometimes they have been made by nations, but much oftener omitted. The propriety of doing the one or the other must depend on circumstances in which the ability of the public will always be a primary consideration.”

As to the examples derived from Roman magnanimity, he remarked :-"Neither the manner nor the genius of Rome are suited to the republic or age we live in. All her maxims and habits were military-her government was constituted for war. Ours is unfit for it; and our situation, still less than our constitution, invites us to emulate the conduct of Rome, or to attempt a display of unprofitable heroism."—"One more observation will," he said, "conclude what I have to say. The present situation of our national affairs appears to me peculiarly critical. I know not what may be the result of the disordered state of government. I am, therefore, the more solicitous to guard against danger from abroad. Gentlemen who view our public affairs in the same light in which they present them

selves to my mind, will, I trust, vote with me upon the present occasion. Those, on the contrary, who think all is well, who suppose our government is full of energy, our credit high, our trade and finances flourishing, will probably see no room for any anxiety about the matter, and may be disposed to leave Vermont in its present state. If the bill should fail, I hope they never will have occasion to regret the opportunity they have lost."

At the end of this speech, the question was taken, and the bill recognising the independence of Vermont, on the condition of her entering into the confederacy, passed. By this well-timed measure a civil war was prevented, and another state soon after became a member of the union.

CHAPTER XLV.

THE vote of the New-York legislature on the impost decided the fate of the confederation. The only hope of preserving an union of the states rested upon the issue of the contemplated convention.

The assembly of Virginia being the first state legisla ture in session after the adjournment of the commissioners at Annapolis, passed an act in October for the appointment of seven commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, and to join with the deputies of the other states, "in devising and discussing such alterations as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the times." New-Jersey was the second to act on this subject, appointing commissioners on the twenty-third of November, with powers similar to those previously granted by her. Pennsylvania chose delegates with like powers on the thirtieth of the succeeding month.

The report from Annapolis was submitted to congress soon after its date; but a determined opposition being made to the proposed convention, on the ground of its illegality, it was not acted upon: thus, tenacity of power grows with conscious weakness. When the legislature of Massachusetts assembled, Governor Bowdoin, still zealous for this great measure, sent them a message, in which, after a mention of the reasons that had induced the meeting at Annapolis to adjourn, he again declared his conviction of the importance of amending the confederation. Its

delegates to congress then appeared, and explained the motives by which they had been actuated.

King observed-" that the report of the commercial convention was before congress. Doubts had arisen as to the mode of agreeing upon commercial regulations. The confederation was the act of the people. No part could be altered but by consent of congress and confirmation of the several legislatures. Congress, therefore, ought to make the examination first; beeause, if it was done by a convention, no legislature could have a right to confirm it. Did any legislature sit for such a purpose? No. It must be referred to the people, and then what degree of assent was necessary to make it an article of the confederation? Whereas if it was conducted agreeably to the confederation, no such difficulty could exist. Besides, if congress should not agree upon a report of a convention, the most fatal consequences might follow. Congress were, therefore, the proper body to make alterations."

After adverting to the efforts of the several states, he remarked, that not more than half a million of dollars had been received from them in the last two years; that “it had become a subject of admiration how government existed; that so melancholy was the state of the federal treasury, that all men seemed to turn away from it as an evil which admitted of no remedy. If all the states could be brought into the continental impost, this resource might be anticipated, and the national credit strengthened in that way; but there remained two states which had not acceded to it-Pennsylvania and New-York. The situation of the former was known, and should that state comply, as there were some grounds to hope and expect, the danger of the union, and the love which New-York must entertain for the confederation, must induce their accession to the system." He closed his observations with a strong comment on the existing commotions in Massachusetts,