Wednesday, November 27

The report of the committee on the letter from the lieutenant-governor of Rhode Island (see November 25) was made, and taken into consideration.

It was moved by Mr. M’KEAN, to insert, in the first clause on the journal, after directing the apprehension by General Washington, "in order that the persons may be brought to trial." The reason urged for the motion was, that it might appear that the interposition was not meant to supersede civil process further than the necessity of the case required. Against the motion it was urged, that it would lead to discussions extremely perplexing and dilatory, and that it would be more proper after the apprehension should have taken place. The motion was lost, six states only being for it (See p. 31.)

With respect to the main question, it was agreed on all sides, that it was indispensable to the safety of the United States that a traitorous intercourse between the inhabitants of Vermont and the enemy should be suppressed. There were, however, two modes proposed for the purpose, viz.: the direct and immediate interposition of the military force, according to the report; and, secondly, a reference in the first instance to the acting authority in Vermont, to be followed, in case of refusal or neglect of justice on the offenders, by an exertion of Compulsive measures against the whole body.

In favor of the first mode it was said, that it would be the only effectual one, and the only one consistent with the part Congress had observed with regard to Vermont since a reference to the authority of Vermont, which had itself been suspected and accused, would certainly be followed at the best by a mere mock trial; and would, moreover, be a stronger recognition of its independence than Congress had made or meant to make.

In favor of the second mode it was alleged, that the body of the people in Vermont were well attached to the revolution; that a sudden march of military force into the country might alarm them; that if their rulers abetted the traitors, it would disgrace them in the eyes of their own people, and that Congress would be justified, in that event, to, "split Vermont up among the other states." This expression, as well the [p.9] arguments on this side, in general, came from Mr. HOWELL, of Rhode Island, whose object was to render the proceedings of Congress as favorable as possible to the independence of Vermont

In order to compromise the matter, Mr. ARNOLD moved that the commander-in-chief should be directed to make a previous communication of his intentions, and the evidence on which they were founded, to the persons exercising authority within the district in question.

It was suggested by Mr. MADISON, as a better expedient, that he should be authorized to make the communication, if he should deem it conducive to the more certain apprehension, of the suspected persons.

The delegates from New York said they would agree, that, after the apprehension should have been effected, the commander might give notice thereof to the persons exercising authority in Vermont.

It was finally compromised as it stands on the Journal.

In the course of the debate, Mr. CLARK informed Congress that the delegates of New Jersey could not vote for any act which might oppose force to the authority of Vermont, the legislature of that state having so construed the resolutions of the 7th and 20th of August as to be incompatible therewith, and accordingly instructed their delegates.

The communication directed to the states on this occasion, through the commander-in-chief, was objected to by several members as an improper innovation. The object of it was to prevent the risk of discovery, if sent before the plans which might be taken by General Washington were sufficiently advanced, of which he was the proper judge.Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) 27th November, 1782, vol. l, p. 245.

Journal of Assembly of New Jersey, 1782, p. 10. Journal of Council of New Jersey, 1782, p. 7.

The instructions of the legislature of New Jersey, after undergoing ranch discussion and alteration, were passed on the 1st November, 1782, in the following form: --

" To the Honorable Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Elmer, and Silas Condict, Esquires, delegates representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

"GENTLEMAN--Application having been made to the legislature for instructions on the important subject of dispute subsisting between the states of New York, New Hampshire, and the people on the New Hampshire Grants, styling themselves the state of Vermont, which is under the consideration of Congress, they are of opinion, (as far as they have documents to direct their inquiry,) that as the competency of Congress was deemed full and complete at the passing of the resolutions of the 7th and 20th of August, 1781, each of those states having made an absolute reference of the dispute to their final arbitrament,) those acts may be supposed to be rounded on strict justice and propriety, nine states having agreed to the measure, and that great regard ought to be had to every determination of Congress, where no new light is thrown upon the subject, or weighty matters occur to justify a reversion of such their decision; and more especially, as it appears that the people on the New Hampshire Grants have, by all act of their legislature, on the 22d of February last, in every instance complied with the preliminaries stated as conditional to such guaranty.

"The legislature, taking up this matter upon general principles, are further of opinion, that Congress,considered as the sovereign guardians of the United States, ought at all times to prefer the general safety of the common cause to the particular separate interest of any individual state, and when circumstances may render such a measure expedient, it ought certainly to be adopted.

"The legislature know of no disposition in Congress to attempt to reduce the said people to allegiance by force; but should that be the case, they will not consent to the sending any military force into the said territory to subdue the inhabitants to the obedience and subjection of the state or states that claim their allegiance.

"They disclaim every idea of imbruing their hands in the blood of their fellow-citizens, or entering into a civil war among themselves, at all times; but more especially at so critical a period as the present, conceiving such a step to be highly impolitic and dangerous.

"You are, therefore, instructed to govern yourselves in the discussion of this business by the aforesaid opinions, as far as they may apply thereto."4