The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1839-07-03
Communication to the Gorernor, from Hon. Ben
jamin Hazard.
Providence, Feb. g, 1889.

SIR,-ln a communication made his Ex-
ccllency the Governor of Massachusetts, to the
Legislature of that State, at its present session,
upon the subject of the boundary line contro-
versy between this State and that now pending
in the Supreme Court of the United States
find statement of facts which, with great def
erence to that high authority, believe to be
in some respects incorrect And as it may make
an impression (not intended certainly unfavor-
able to this State and its counsel, in regard TO
the management of that controversy on our
part il is proper that as one of the counsel OF
Rhode Island in the cause, | should point out
briefly what | consider TO be erroneous in that
statement.
The passage refer to is in these words, viz /:
1.-THE Counsel Of the Commonwealth moved
the Cou- CT the last term A. ID. 1889 that the
bill of Rhode Island should be dismissed, on
the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction Of
the case. The Court affirmed its jurisdiction,
and also granted TO X. /. leave TO amend her
BILL No information has since reached the
Counsel Of this Commonwealth Of any further
action the part of Rhode Island. Should
that State persevere in the suit, il might IN
some aspects of the case, be grave question,
whether Massachusetts, should not withdraw
her appearance"
BY this il appears that his Excellency had
not been informed, that Immediately after the
Court had rejected the motion Of Massachusetts,
TO have our Bill Of Complaint dismissed with
ont hearing, her Counsel made a second mo-
ton, TO the Court for leave to withdraw her ap-
pearance and defence heretofore entered; and
thereupon the Court at the same term, A. ID.
1888, made the following order, viz - IL is
now here considered and ordered by the Court,
that if the Counsel for the State of Massachu-
sets shall elect TO withdraw the appearance
heretofore entered, that leave be. and the same
is accordingly hereby given and that the State
of Rhode Island may proceed pdrtc. But
that, if the appearance be not Withdrawn, that
then, as no testimony has been taken, the par
ties be allowed to Withdraw or amend the plead |
ngs under such order as the Court shall here |
after make in the premises"
Thus we see that the farther proceedings in |
the case depended upon the election to be |
made by Massachusetts, whether to Withdraw
her appearance or not: But Massachusetts |
d'1 not make her election as permitted at the
last term, nor bas she done so TO this day on
the contrary, at the present term of the court, |
after the lapse of year, her Counsel moved
and urged the Court to allow still further time
to enable the Legislature of that State, to de-
liberate and. make up their minds whether 10
Withdraw or not-aedging that great bodies
move slow - and the Court did allow that State
until next August to make her election and a.
gain ordered that il she Withdrew, Rhode Is
land should proceed er pdrte and if not she
(Massachusetts) should answer our amended
bill by the second day of next term. Ii is very
plain that this great delay bas not been sought
or caused by Rhode Island. At the last term,
on the 10th Of March, our motion for leave to
amend our original bill was renewed and grant
ed, with an order that the amendments should
be made by day certain in August last and
ft,n thop J;.t
Iy drawn out at length and filed with the clerk
and were printed at the commencement of the
present term for the use of the Court: And
on the first motion day of the first week of the
term, motion was made by us for an order re- |
q,,iring Massachusetts to answer our amended
bill by shst day. This motion was resisted
by Massachusetts, and was disposed of as be- |
fore stated.
Perhaps had We passed hard upon Massa-
chusettSs, at the close of the last term, an or |
der might have been obtained, requiring her 10 |
make her election to withdraw or not, on or be-
fore August last, instead of next August
But Massachusetts cannot complain that she
was not so pressed upon. She was not obi
ged to wait for peremptory order of the Court,
compelling her to make her election. Ii was
to be supposed that when she asked leave to
withdraw, she wanted what she asked for, and
intended to withdraw: or at any rate. that she
would not require much time to make up her
mind whether TO withdraw or not. Rhode Is
land has not hndered her doing so.
The same message contains the following
passage, viz:
Tins suit is instituted by Rhode Island, in ,
etdcr, py the interposltlon Of the Federal ,
court to dwest Massachusetts of considerable
territory on her southern boundary, maintained
by Massachusetts to have been in her rightful
possession from the first settlement of the coun-
try, and TO have been admitted To belong TO her
by Rhoie Island, in a mutual adjustment of
tue question, about one hundred and twenty
years ago" If this is the true state o.. the
case, Rhode island is certainly very much in
the wrong, and Massachusetts very much in |
Jured. But his excellency will permit me to |
remind him that Rhode Island has always de- /
MED that there ever has been any fair or valid !
settlement of the line; and that in the year
Hol-2 Commissioners appointed by both
governments, Jointly agreed and recommended
that the dispute should be settled by an AMIGA
ble reference of il to Congress, or other dsin-
terested arbitrators; and that the Commission
ers on the part Of Massachusetts in their sep
arate report made to their own Legislature, ac-
know'edged that the proceedings OF the former
Commissioners, by whom the pretended adjust
ment had been made, had never been ratified by
either government.
The Bill of Complaint of Rhode Island con
isins a full, and | believe fair history of the
whole proceedings relating to the disputed line.
But while the cause is in the hands of the high
constitutional tribunal, which is TO make a final
decision upon il, it seems to me proper. only
that the progress and proceedings in the case
should be publicly communicated and not
proper that the parties out of Court, should
enter INTO discussions and make er parte state
ments respecting the merits of it. which can
have no good effect. Neither party can gain
any thing by pronouncing judgment in its own
favor, however confidently and positively. Itis
to be presumed, that the Legislature aud in
telligent people Of each State are already well
informed Of the merits Of the case, and need
not to be told that they are positively in the
ngh', and their opponents positively in the