Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1865-11-07
lal Il Again Mr.. Van slYinkies saws, Hnor

tual Again Mr.. Van NYinkle says, 4 nor
was anything moving from either to the 9TH
er in. the nature of consid atiob y Mas'it
not proposition to ptoUe three counties from
one State to the. other Now Is that no con-
sideration 1 may be pardoned for saying,
with respect, that am not surprised that Mr..
Van Winkle should Sapprehend that such rea9
soning might be deemed ..eyasion," !" and that
it was necessary to guard against such a con-
clusion. . ~. ss4-s',is ~
Mr.. Van Winkle again answers me as fol-
lows: = s4 "sFst
'In all but one of the cases cited; by. Mr..
Dawes there seems SO have been an actual and
formal agreement 1he exception is the first
case between MassachusettsandR Rhode Island, !,
which was question of boundary, but in
which it does not appear that the consent of
Congress was ever invoked" /" },s'l.
1reply that it is not only true that in all.
these cases there was an ''actual and formal
agreement, but / have submitted that the
thing cannot be done without am ssacLual
agreement" or the taking of the new territory
by force. Nospardeular form is necessary,
but the actuality must be an agreement. Mr..
Van Winkle "not having access to the re.
ports of the Supreme Court" as he says, mis-
takes about the first case between Rhode
Island and Massachusetts, in which he saws
that the consent of Congress does not appear
to have been invoked: I stated in my first
letter that this question did not arise in that
case, and therefore the consent of Congress-
had nothing. to do with it. That was a case
of contested, not dtliuSted sboundary. Rhode
Island and Massachusetts, claimed that the
actual boundary, tablishedby the charter;
would take off from Massachusetts and trans.
. fer to her portion of territory within the
limits claimed and assertedby Massachusetts
The question for-;the Court to decide was.
where the actual boundary was And the
Court decided against Rhode Island. Inthet
second case Massaehusett sued Rhod Island.
setting up a similar ciaim,as to the line on
another part of their contiguous territory.
This suit was compromised by the two States
agreeing upon a new line, not where either
State claimed it, but one of greater convenience
tO. both. And they did it by separate aud
independent concurring acts of their Legis-
latures-one preceding the other-and as
much independent of each other, and as much
without negotiation, constitutional undertak-
ings or considerations moving from one to the
other as could possibly exist in the action of
the two Virginias under consideration. And
yet, as 1 stated in my first letter when their
line was brought into Court the Supreme
Court refused to enter up Judgment con,
: hrmlng and establishing it, until CONGRESS-
had assented. And I gave the action of
Congress, citing the law by which the assent,
was given. / have been informed since by
one of the counsel, formerly Judge of that
high Court, that it never was, for a moment,
made a'question between Court and counsel.
But that the consent of Congress was deemed
by all a constitutional aud adiudicated ne
1cesslty, so plain as not to be open to question
IN tr4t forum.
Mr. Van Winkle further observes:
cit may therefore be we'll to INQUIRE wheths
sersthere is isanything iasthe aeticnin;reference5
to the two counties, or in the nature Of the
case, that can injuriously affect the rights of
any other State.
''How anere change of the boundary be-
tween two States can, injuriously or other
wise, affect such rights and interests, is not
very obvious: What grave political conse-
quences could possibly have attended the
t"nSte[ ~ u boston corner from Massachu-
1et5S SCI ~ NeW horA' or' even II Little 'Rhody
1"N teu l'.rSe sice comparatively
SPe"A.nsJ oI her territory to the former,
Io,2H VIVA. snJury 10 olher states would have fol-
w.: .I answer 'HaC agree with hlm
Sl"S e.''"TI .I see Mn"I PossiDle INJURY can
s.Ta"t,, - Cos,, ."e c'''eS ny Inc transfer OF
YorE or IF two oo,t;oa - " ~
IT, " " VI Two Eoun,ies 3 from one TO the
thn n. aoa.;5n '" M DIS 'n'' oEes noE = answer
tnn 80" !"eSo'oe ne iraneTs OF the Co9stltu-
bo "erc Ti op.n,on? not ttIat there could not
wo",i go. ~ i,'a',on ol o.l.e nnes winch
tt. Mou'u noI NC INJURIOUS 10 other states, but
",',I i p?ssotS in'shc oe such an one that
" "'" D1 .ous' "nu t''i'! IL woula De wise,
5ii i''lu @ 'sa.ns' .p tna' PropaDiilty py requiring
H e. al cases S the co9sen! 3sS OF Congress. The
nutLcme oa9 CSure IN fi2Tlda %f vs. Georgia, al
49, s.n.oa teu Say sa Inc mere are twentyenine
Isnel "sa'es VINO are aiso interested IN this
t%o ~, wnose interests are represented Py
S fme S;f Gaa!eu ota.es e ror thelr Interests may
P p1 utlieFenI from those OF either OF these