Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 182?-183?, 1832-06-22

that the South Branch flows from the first
fountain, and the Committee believe that j,
settles the question nContestibly. Alluson
is made 10 the dispute between Frederick
Lord Baltimore and Lord Fairfax, touching
the Southern and Western limits Of the Ma.
! ryland charter, and after ipves' igating the
subject, the Committee are ofopinion that no
authority was given 10 plant the Fairfax
stone on the North Branch were il is now
found IT is contrivance of two interested
parties, viz Of Virginia 10 extend her ter
ritorial jurisdiction and of Lord Fairfax 10
increase his lands A law suit was carried
on IN England for their mutual benefit and
I being decided that The line should run be-
tween "the river Potomac and Rappahan-
mock, instead of between the heads of those
rivers. The line was run accordingly MAX
ing the head spring of the Potomac on the
North Branch where the stone now is
! This was a usurpation of the rigts of Lord
Baltimore; he was no party TO the suit,
neither had he notice of it; and his success
| sors protested against it, he having died
while il was pending. After thiseX- parte SET
Element, Fairfax issued grants of land so far
to the west as 10 raise the question of location
OF the head oitLe Potomac, and caused Fred
erick Lord Baltimore, who succeeded 10 his
( fathers domain 10 issue instruction to (the
then) Governor Sharpe 10 prohibit settle
menls under Fairfax in the country north Of
| the South Branch. The council of Mary
land, in compliance with these instructions,
summoned an old settler Col. Cresap, who
stated that the South Branch was the longest
stream and ran about sixty miles further in
/ a n. w. direction than the North Branch
Ia informing Fairfax thereof, the governor
states his belief that there had been mis-
take in fixing the fountain head of the Poto-
mac on the North Branch &c and express
cd hope that he would concur in causing
such an examination 40 wnnlh sat the cues
/ ton at rest forever. Fairfax, however, con
tinued 10 adhere TO the line run by himself,
and the Proprietary OF Maryland continued
TO assert his claim to the first fountain, be
| that where il might.
! But for the intervention of the American
! Revolution, a collision would have ensued
between Fairfax and Baltimore, which
would probably have terminated The dispute.
That event, however, vested ii in the States
of Maryland and Virginia. The latter in
( forming her Constitution expressly recog-
nized all the rights of Maryland within the
limits OF her original charter and left nothing
TO be done but TO fix those limits by actual
survey. The Committee here remark that
the vlrtuous precept of the constitution of
that Stale has never been adhered TO. While
Maryland has only asked for an honorable de-
flnition of her limits as acknowledged by
! Virginia, the latter has demanded the prvi-
lege OF fixing beforehand the place at which
those limits should begin.
/ Soon after the Revolution in order TO fulfil
existing engagements 10 the officers and sol
diers of the Maryland line, ii was necessary
j IN lnpa fo Ia, II
berland fortheir benefit The Commission
ers therefore ran temporary meridian with
In the just limits, which the Legislature in
I 1888 declared TO be far within what the State
might rightfnly claim, as its western boua-
Diary. In 1895, and subsequently,, commits
sioners were appointed by Maryland 10 fix
the lines, but refusal 10 act =, and other
causes delayed the execution of the matter.
In 1901 correspondence on the subject took
place between governor Mercer OF Mary
land and Monroe of Virginia, and the Leg
lslature OF the latter state appointed COM
missioners but limited their power 10 the
settlement of the western line only. In the
correspondence governor Mercer informed
Monroe that no measures could be adopted
IN relation TO the western boundary until il
should first be determined which was the
main branch of The Potomac. The Com
mittee remark that Maryland has often pro-
posed the. settlement Of the question, while
virginia has as often evaded il by refusing
TO define the location Of the first fountain.
In 1903 Intellectual efforts were made by
Maryland TO take up the subject; again, in
1910, and subsequently in 1878. In 1921
, virginia instructed commissioners TO com
mence at the Fairfax stone, which put an
end 10 all negotiations at the meeting. a
correspondence took place between governors
Kent, of Maryland, and Tyler, of Virginia,
which was laid before the Md Legislature
IN 1926, since which nothing has been done.
The reason ofils revival at this time arises
from petition presented by some of the cili-
zens ofAlleghany county totbe Legislature OF
this State, asking IFS interference on their
behalf, in consequence of The authorities OF
an adjoining county in Virginia having as
sumed jurisdiction over them. The Report
concludes by expressing the opinion of the
committee, that although in legal proceed
ing Maryland ought TO claim all her origin
al charter calls for, il would nevertheless be
proper TO leave the matter open for amicable
adjustment They therefore recommends
The appointment of Commissioner on the
part OF this State TO meet commissioner from
Virginia, TO adjust the affair. In case Of
disagreement the Governor Of Delaware
should be requested 10 name an umpire whose
decision should be final
Itappears by the Virginia papers that the
governor of that state has appointed
CHARLES J. FAULKNER, Esq. Of Mar
tinsburg, Commissioner 70 collect and pre-
pare testimony in relation TO the boundary
in dispute. The claim Of Maryland, en-
braCing as has been stated above, nearly hall
L. r. q t.1g