with the States represented in Congress, and to bear a just proportion of war expenses.

On the same day, February 1, a statement was signed by Peter Olcott and Bezaleel Woodward, representing certain towns on both sides of the Connecticut River, which asserted that the fixing of the Connecticut River as a boundary would be very inconvenient for the people of that valley. It was urged that the whole of Vermont should be annexed to New Hampshire, or that if a new State were formed it should extend to the highlands on either side of the Connecticut River. This document was presented to Congress on February 7. On February 5 the Vermont agents, on the eve of departing for home, notified Congress that they must leave to attend a session of the General Assembly, and expressed a willingness to acquiesce in any requisition made by Congress not incompatible with their own internal policy.

Mr. Folsom, a New Hampshire delegate in Congress, writing to Josiah Bartlett of that State on April 17, 1780, said: "As to Vermont there were several attempts to bring the matter before Congress but without the least appearance of success. I have no expectation of any settlement till after the war is over, if I can believe the present members."

Congress resumed the consideration of the Vermont matter on June 2, 1780. After declaring that authentic evidence had been presented showing "that the people inhabiting the district of country commonly known by the name of the New Hampshire Grants, and claiming to be an independent State," had made grants of land and sales of confiscated estates, and had exercised civil

and military authority over persons in the said district claiming to be citizens and owing allegiance to the State of New York, contrary to the recommendations of Congress, it was resolved that such acts and proceedings were "highly unwarrantable and subversive of the peace and welfare of the United States." It was further resolved that as soon as nine States exclusive of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York, directly interested, should be represented, Congress would "proceed to hear, examine into and finally determine" the dispute concerning the jurisdiction claimed by the three States over Vermont. One week later, on June 9, nine States exclusive of those directly interested, being represented, Mr. Livingston of New York moved to take up the matter of jurisdiction relating to the New Hampshire Grants. Immediate consideration was opposed because New Hampshire's special agent was not present and could not be summoned quickly. On motion of Mr. Walton of Georgia, the second Tuesday of September was assigned for a hearing.

About this time a petition was presented to Congress, signed by Joseph Marsh, Peter Olcott and Bezaleel Woodward, a committee representing certain inhabitants on both sides of the Connecticut River, residing in the northern portion of the valley, asking for a speedy decision in regard to the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire Grants. It was declared to be the ardent wish of the petitioners that there might be a union "of the two sides of the river"; but if a new State were not admitted, annexation to New Hampshire was favored.

Replying to the resolutions adopted by Congress, June 9, 1780, Governor Chittenden, in a letter to President Samuel Huntington, dated at Bennington, July 25, informed him that the people of Vermont considered these resolutions as "subversive to the natural rights which they have to liberty and independence, as well as incompatible with the principles on which Congress governed their own right to independence." Very clearly Governor Chittenden declared that the act fixing a date for determining the matter of jurisdiction amounted to a denial of Vermont's right to existence as a free and independent State; which decision, if accepted, determined the most essential feature of the controversy. "If Vermont does not belong to some one of the interested States," argued Governor Chittenden, "Congress could have no such power, without their consent; * * * for it is utterly incompatible with the rights and prerogatives of an independent State to be under the control or arbitrament of any other power."

Referring to the proposal to divide the territory of Vermont between New Hampshire and New York, he compared it to the division of Poland by Prussia, Hungary and Russia. He reminded Congress of the service. Vermont had rendered in guarding the frontiers, a service appreciated by many residents of the States seeking Vermont's destruction. Having the approbation of disinterested States he considered Vermont "in a condition to maintain government." if Vermonters had been deceived in this matter they were "at liberty to offer or accept terms of cessation of hostilities with Great Britain, without the approbation of any

He warned Congress that

other man or body of men." If Congress refused to recognize the independence of Vermont, but rather the usurped authority of another power, then Vermont had not "the most distant motive to continue hostilities with Great Britain and maintain an important frontier for the benefit of the United States and for no other reward than the ungrateful one of being enslaved by them."

Notwithstanding the injustice with which Vermont had been treated, the State once more offered to enter into a union with the United States. If this offer should be declined, then the same proposition would be made separately to the various State Legislatures, and Vermont would take such other measures as self preservation might justify. The position of Vermont in this crisis was summed up by Governor Chittenden in the following words: "Unjustly treated as the people over whom I preside, on the most serious and candid deliberation conceive themselves to be in this affair, yet, blessed by heaven with constancy of mind and connexions abroad, as an honest, valiant and brave people are necessitated to declare to Your Excellency, to Congress and the world, that as life, liberty and the rights of the people intrusted them by God are inseparable, so they do not expect to be justified in the eye of heaven, or that posterity would call them blessed if they should tamely surrender any part.'

Governor Chittenden's letter was presented to Congress by Ira Allen and Stephen R. Bradley, together with their credentials, and a copy of Bradley's Appeal, and these documents were read on September 12. On the same day a letter from Bezaleel Woodward was read

in Congress, containing the information that Colonel Olcott again had been appointed agent in behalf of the people on both sides of the Connecticut River "from Charleston (Charlestown) upward," arguing for a union with New Hampshire. The writer challenged the statement that the people of New Hampshire Grants would claim the protection of Canada if the proposition of a new State were rejected, saying that there were very few who would not readily acquiesce in a decision of the dispute by Congress-"none of any consequence on this side of the Green Mountains and few on the other, however some of their leaders may desire to raise a tumult in opposition to them."

Allen and Bradley on September 15 asked the President of Congress to request that body to allow the Vermont delegates to attend sessions in which debates arose in any way affecting "the rights, sovereignty or independence of the State of Vermont."

On September 19, Congress notified Messrs. Allen and Bradley, Colonel Olcott and Luke Knowlton, the last named individual being the agent for the New York party in Cumberland county, to attend a hearing to be held that afternoon. The agents of Vermont, although admitted, were not treated as representatives having any standing before that body. Parts of two days were spent in the presentation of the claims of New York. The Vermont agents took notes of the proceedings, but declined to attend when New Hampshire's claim was presented. Both States maintained that Vermont had no right to independence and advanced their respective claims to jurisdiction over its territory. After hearing