Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1845-03-07

however, massachusetts must be content 10 wen
sackcloth and sit in darkness, consonq berselr nc
she may, ~ dreaming ofthe gentlemah's tinspol,en
enlogy, until some more suspicious and ionrer hon
shall enable him TO bestow upon her the cheerina
encouragement Of such just measures of commen.
dalton as, upon strict and impartial scrutiny he
shall adlude her to merit.
regret, sir that instead of indulpinr in course
OF remark calculated neither to convince nor tc
persuade, the gentleman had not thought proper tc
give us the assistance ofhis eminent talents in dis.
cussing the question of expediency We should
then have had this point presented in the fairesl
light Tor give the gentleman credit for the abili.
" to make the most Of the argument; and | an
persuaded that his frankness and sincerity would
nave scorned to skulk from avowal of the rea.
sons which are most conclusive In the minds of the
Jealous and influential advocates Of annexation.
he history of the State which |, with my col.
leagues nave the honor TO represent, has been APP
pealed to IN manner which seems to call for some
notice on the part of her delegation
II has been assumed, with great apparent conf
dence, that the admission of Vermont to the Amer
lcan Union Is parallel case to the proposed an
neXaton of Texas and therefore sanctions that
measure by the authority Of a venerable precedent
but there Is not the smallest analogy between the
cases sufficient distinction is to be found in the
single fact, that by the treaty of 1888, which re-
cognzed the independence, and fixed the bounda.
RES OF the Union, the United States claimed. and
treat Britain conceded to them, jurisdiction over
the territory of Vermont The United States new
er surrendered this claim, or recognized the indie.
pendcnce of Vermont, and her admission was mere.
~ the erection OF portion of the territory of the
United States into confederate State Thus far,
then, the case is not distinguishable in principle
from that OF the States afterwards formed in the
Northwest Territory and the fact that. in the lat
ter case, the soil was the property of the nation is
unlmportant because the right of jurisdiction and
territory is independent of the fee, and may and of
ten does exist without it But the argument by no
means rests on the single fact alone TO which I
nave adVcrted. The territory Of Vermont was orig
mai y claimed by both Now Hampshire and New
York. New Hampshire had made extensive grants
of land in the disputed district before il was de-
termined by royal ordinance in 1867 to belong to
New York. New York then attempted to set aside
the grants which had been made by New Hamp.
shire. This was resisted by the grantees who,
however, were willing to submit to the jurisdiction
OF New York, provided the New Hampshire grants
were confirmed. The jurisdiction of New York
was IN tact extended over the territory in question:
Counties were organized, and Courts established.
by the provincial Legislature of New York. and del
egates were sent to that body by the people of
these new counties. 1t was only upon the often
repeated refusal of New York to recognise the va
Ildity of the New Hampshire grants, and her dis
sent from the resolutions Of the Provincial Con.
8resS OF I|I, that the inhabitants of Vermont re-
solved to declare themselves independent.
The first resistance TO the authority of the royal
courts within the jurisdiction of New York took
place in the New Hampshire Grants, and was oc &.
casoncd by the dissatisfaction of the inhabitants
OF the Grants with the refusal of New York to a.
dept the resolutions Of the Provincial Congress-
(Ihompsons Civil History of Vermont, PSI Yer
mont thus early gave proof of her attachment to
the principles and cause of American liberty, and
in
surrendered IN l715; acted their heroic comman-
der declared, under the authority of the great Je-
hoVal and the Continental Congress- As an in
tegral part of the State of New York. Vermont was
member of the Confederation, and through the
whole Revolutionary struggle she recognised the
authority OF Congress, and annually renewed her
to that body for admission into the I'm
ION vermont State papers, 63, GA, 81, 90, 90 ~,
-, and elsewhere0 The Constitution adopted by
Vermont in M, provides for the election of dele
gates TO Congress, ibid 2l8,) as does also that re-
vsed by her Council of Censors in 1885, ibid SOL
o&o) Various acts of the Legislature provided for
he punishment oftreason against the United States
lbid 293, Alb, Ala, 4l5.) By resolutions of Con.
gress on the 9Th and goth Tor 2lst of August, $751;
lne iatn OF that BODY was pledged to the admission
of Vermont, (ibid l57, 1859; see also the report of
a committee of Congress- ibid 40, I7Il Vermont
acceded to the conditions imposed by those resolu-
tons, by the advice of Gen. Washington, ibid I67.
les, l69 y ana though Congress most uniustfably
refused to redeem the pledge, yet the resolutions Of
the 9Th and goth of August, 1881, and the accep-
lance OF their conditions by Vermont, must be con
sdered as constituting compact which either par
ty had right to enforce. The phraseoopy of the
Constitution was altered, we learn from the Mad
lson Papers, by substituting the word "jurisdc-
ton Tor limits for the very purpose of meeting
the case of Vermont. The application of Vermont
Tor ADMISSION to the Union was renewed soon after
the adoption of the Federal Constitution and the
only obstacle which had ever existed being remov.
ed by the formal consent of New York, she was ad.
mltled at the same time, and upon the same princi-
pies as Kentucky, and the obligations of the Gen.
eral Government were thus at length though tardi.
!y, fulfilled.
The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Kennedy
in his very able speech, very important
fact which is entirely conclusive, in regard to the
views OF all parties, as to the relation in which Yer
mont stood to the Union Her Senators and Rep.
resentatives were immediately admitted to their
seats whereas, If she had been considered as for
eign territory up to the time Of her admission, they
would have wanted the constitutional qualification
OF nlne and seven years citizenship, respectively
II is, therefore, perfectly clear, that the supposed
analogy between the case of Vermont and that of
Texas is entirely mistaken. | am aware that an
attempt may be made to get over the objection TO
the admission of Texas upon the ground of the
10 WHICH nave lust uuNor
ted, by arguments drawn from singular and a.
nomalous feature Of the institutions of Texas
Naturalization and citizenship there, it is said may
be acquired without remuneration of allegiance TO
the United States, and Texas may be Immediately
represented by persons now owning fealty to both
countries. But the law of nations recognises no
such divided allegiance, Naturalization in for
eign State, without formal remuneration of allie.
glance to the native sovereignty, is expatriation,
and, pso .jacto, works forfeiture of all the rights
of native citizenship. The acquisition of political
franchise under new sovereignty, necessarily i'm
plies their extinction under the old Allegiance is
OF necessity entire, and man can be at once the
subject of two supreme and independent jurlsdic-
tons Texas, therefore, if admitted u State,
must remain unrepresented in bot! branches OF the
National Legislature until the constitutional term
of citizenship shall have expired, unless she choos'
es, what we have right TO assume IN this argu'
ment, to be represented by persons who shall mi
CRATE thher from the United States after her adj.
mission.
II has been said that Vermont acted not only M