Although the terms offered by Congress were thus heedlessly declined by the people of Vermont at first, the subject was subsequently reconsidered by their representative Assembly, when a formal assent was given to the boundaries prescribed for the new State. Congress might well have thought themselves released from the obligation of accepting a compliance which was so tardy and ungracious; but they referred the question to a committee, which, composed, as all the preceding committees had been, of sympathizing elements, made a report on the 17th of April, 1782, recommending that "the district or territory called Vermont be recognized as a free, sovereign, and independent State," and that measures be taken for its admission into the federal Union.1

Before this report was taken into consideration

introduction of new States out of that territory, was "the assumption of an excrescent power," grow ing out of circumstances which imposed upon Congress the "task of overleaping their constitutional boundaries." [See Federalist, No. 38 and No. 43.]

It was to supply this defect of power, and to guard against the dangers of usurpation under the plea of necessity, that an express authority was given to Congress, in the constitution of 1788, to "admit new States into the Union," but under limitations which forbid the formation of a new State within the jurisdiction of another State,

or by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of Congress. These limitations are a precise fulfilment of the idea we have seen expressed by Mr. Madison in his letter to Mr. Jones of the 19th of September, 1780. [See ante, p. 469.]

1 See Journals of Congress, vol. IV. pp. 11, 12. The committee consisted of Mr. Clymer of Pennsylvania, Mr. Carroll of Maryland, Mr. Clark of New Jersey, Mr. Livermore of New Hampshire, and Mr. Law of Connecticut.

VERMONT COMMITS ACTS OF VIOLENCE. 477

by Congress, the authorities of Vermont committed fresh acts of violence on persons professing allegiance to the State of New York, by which some of them were condemned to banishment, "not to return on pain of death, and confiscation of estate," and others were fined in large sums, and deprived of their property. These facts were brought to the knowledge of Congress by a representation from the governor of New York; whereupon resolutions, moved by Mr. McKean of Pennsylvania, were adopted, declaring the aforesaid acts to be in direct violation of the resolutions of Congress passed on the 24th of September, 1779, to be highly derogatory to the authority of the United States, and dangerous to the confederacy,- requiring the people of the district (now again called the "New Hampshire Grants,") to make full and ample restitution, without delay, to the parties injured, — and "pledging the United States to take effectual measures to enforce a compliance with the aforesaid resolutions, in case the same be disobeyed by the people of the said district." 2

These resolutions, moved by the delegate of a State which had always hitherto been counted among the patrons of Vermont, were sustained by the votes of several other States alike committed to her cause, and finally passed, with the dissent only of Rhode Island and New Jersey.

1 See ante, pp. 467, 468.

2 See Journals of Congress, vol. IV. pp. 112-114.

Thus did these "turbulent sons of freedom" dash from their lips, by their own rashness, the cup of independence and admission into the Union, at the moment that it was held out to them by the generous hand of Congress. Instead of compliance, the resolutions last adopted by Congress produced only a tart and unbecoming remonstrance to the national council from the acting authorities of Vermont; and fears began to be seriously entertained, and nowhere with more painful anxiety than in the paternal bosom of the commander-in-chief, that brethren might be called to shed each others' blood in the closing, and otherwise triumphant, scenes of a contest commenced and prosecuted for the common liberty and happiness of all. The good genius of America forbade; and Vermont had to bide her time till, in the manner and form prescribed by the general provisions of the constitution of 1788, she was regularly admitted into the sisterhood of States.

1 See his letter to Mr. Jones, one of the delegates of Virginia in Congress, in Sparks's Washington, vol. VIII. pp. 382–384.

ton

CHAPTER XVI.

Complaints

Congress, after Provisional Articles of Peace, determine to dismiss a Portion of the Army on Furlough - Orderly and praiseworthy Conduct of Main Body of the Army on the Occasion and Mutiny of a Detachment of the Pennsylvania Line - They insult the Executive Council and Congress Mr. Madison's Statement of the Affair - Congress adjourn from Philadelphia to PrinceWashington indignant at the Conduct of the Mutineers Sends General Howe to reduce and punish them - Their Submission-Congress hold their Sittings in the College Buildings at Princeton - Proceedings on fixing a permanent as well as temporary Place of Meeting - Two Federal Towns to be established for the alternate Residence of Congress - Mr. Madison's Views on Question of Jurisdiction at Seat of Government - General Washington invited by Congress to Princeton - His Reception -Reception and public Audience of Dutch Minister - Delays in Conclusion of Definitive Treaty of Peace Change of Administration in England - Coalition of Mr. Fox and Lord NorthEvasions of Coalition Ministry in Negotiations at Paris Distrust and Uneasiness of Congress - They reject Proposition for disbanding the Army, and for farther Measures in Execution of Provisional Articles-Definitive Treaty at last concluded Congress vote Thanks to the Army, and issue Proclamations for their Discharge and for a Day of public Thanksgiving — Mr. Madison's Service in the old Congress closes.

-

In our last chapter, mention was incidentally made of the adjournment of Congress from Phil

adelphia to Princeton, in consequence of the freedom of their deliberations at the former place being interrupted by the mutiny of a band of soldiers. A circumstance so unusual, and at the same time admonitory, in the civil history of the United States demands a fuller development.

The uncertain and equivocal state of things produced by the long interval between the provisional articles of peace and a definitive treaty, gave rise to much embarrassment in Congress as to the disposal to be made of the army. Instead of a final disbandment, which was earnestly pressed by some, it was determined, on the 26th of May, 1783, that the commander-in-chief be authorized to grant furloughs to the men enlisted to serve during the war; so that, if the provisional articles should not be followed by a definitive treaty, the soldiers thus engaged might be promptly recalled to the standard of the country, without the necessity of a new enlistment. This measure even, without the means of paying the arrears due to the army, was not very easy of execution. Mr. Madison, in writing to a friend some months before, had said: "Without money, there is some reason to surmise that it may be as difficult to disband an army as it has been to raise one." 2

But the great influence which the commander

1 See Journals of Congress, vol. IV. p. 224. The furloughed men were allowed to take their arms with them.

2 See Madison Debates and Correspondence, vol. 1. pp. 174, 175.