to by him, as unconstitutional, impolitic, and destructive . to the property of the citizens.

As the constitution had expressly declared the counties of Cumberland, Gloucester, and Charlotte, which embraced the territory proposed to be ceded, parts of the state, it was urged that the legislature could not sever them from it that such a power had not been delegated to themthat, if delegated, it must have been to congress as the arbiters of peace and war-that such a dismemberment was only authorized by a case of extreme necessity, which was alleged not to exist. The presumption of danger from subsisting connections between Vermont and Canada, was denied. If it existed, where was the proof? The danger of the example of permitting a revolt of these counties was enlarged upon, and arguments were adduced to show that no public advantage, either in respect to revenue or other effects, would be derived from the admission of Vermont into the confederacy. The address was concluded with an earnest exposition of the rights of the proprietors of these lands to be indemnified by the state, and a suggestion of the appointment of commissioners to treat with the revolters.

Hamilton's reply is among the most able fragments of his eloquence which have been preserved. It fully met the objection to the act, which was drawn from that great principle of the social compact, that the chief object of government is to protect the rights of individuals by the united strength of the community; insisting that the efforts of a state were to be "proportioned to its abilities, warranted by a reasonable expectation of a favourable issue, and compatible with its eventual security; but that it was not bound to enter into or prosecute enterprises of a manifest rashness and folly, or which in the event of success would be productive of more mischief than good." He then reviewed the pretensions of Ver

mont, and contrasted her power to resist with that of New-York to enforce these territorial claims.

From this topic he passed on to an examination of the constitutionality of the bill, asserting that the power of dismembering the state, under certain circumstances, was a necessary appendage of its sovereignty. Instances of such dismemberments were referred to, and the writers on international law were quoted to establish the right "to lop off a limb for the good of the body." From an exposition of the right, he proceeded to a review of the policy of this measure; in the course of which, he adduced facts to show that Vermont had borne such relations to Great Britain during the revolution as to justify the belief, that, should a collision arise, she would receive aid from their recent enemy.

The remaining questions were, how far New-York had a right to acknowledge the independence of Vermont, and how far she was bound to make compensation to the owners of the disputed territory. He urged the actual independence of Vermont as an answer to the first inquiry; stated, that as to territorial claims, the confederacy provided a tribunal for their adjustment; and insisted that the state was not under a strict obligation to make compensa. tion to the losing proprietors. "The distinction," he said, "is this-if a government voluntarily bargains away the rights, or dispossesses itself of the property of its citizens in their enjoyments, possessions, or power, it is bound to make compensation for that of which it has deprived them; but if they are actually dispossessed of those rights or that property by the casualties of war, or by revolution, the state, if the public good requires it, may abandon them to the loss without being obliged to make reparation."

"In wars between states, the sovereign is never supposed to be bound to make good the losses which the subject sustains by the captures or ravages of the enemy, thougli

they should amount to the destruction of his whole property; and yet nothing can be more agreeable to natural equity than that those who happen to be the unlucky victims of the war should be indemnified by the community."

66

But in practice such a principle would be found attended with endless difficulties and inconveniences; and therefore the reverse of it has been adopted as a general rule. The true reason is, the resources of nations are not adequate to the reparation of such extensive losses as those which are commonly occasioned by wars and revolutions, and it would, therefore, be contrary to the general good of society to establish it as a rule that there is a strict obligation to repay such losses. It is better there should be individual sufferings, than to admit a rule which would fetter the operations of government, and distress the affairs of the community. Generosity and policy may, in particular instances, dictate such compensations. Sometimes they have been made by nations, but much oftener omitted. The propriety of doing the one or the other must depend on circumstances in which the ability of the public will always be a primary consideration."

As to the examples derived from Roman magnanimity, he remarked:-"Neither the manner nor the genius of Rome are suited to the republic or age we live in. All her maxims and habits were military-her government was constituted for war. Ours is unfit for it; and our situation, still less than our constitution, invites us to emulate the conduct of Rome, or to attempt a display of unprofitable heroism."- "One more observation will," he said, "conclude what I have to say. The present situation of our national affairs appears to me peculiarly critical. I know not what may be the result of the disordered state of government. I am, therefore, the more solicitous to guard against danger from abroad. Gentlemen who view our public affairs in the same light in which they present them

selves to my mind, will, I trust, vote with me upon the present occasion. Those, on the contrary, who think all is well, who suppose our government is full of energy, our credit high, our trade and finances flourishing, will probably see no room for any anxiety about the matter, and may be disposed to leave Vermont in its present state. If the bill should fail, I hope they never will have occasion to regret the opportunity they have lost."

At the end of this speech, the question was taken, and the bill recognising the independence of Vermont, on the condition of her entering into the confederacy, passed. By this well-timed measure a civil war was prevented, and another state soon after became a member of the union.

CHAPTER XLV.

THE Vote of the New-York legislature on the impost decided the fate of the confederation. The only hope of preserving an union of the states rested upon the issue of the contemplated convention.

The assembly of Virginia being the first state legislature in session after the adjournment of the commissioners at Annapolis, passed an act in October for the appointment of seven commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, and to join with the deputies of the other states, "in devising and discussing such alterations as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the times." New-Jersey was the second to act on this subject, appointing commissioners on the twenty-third of November, with powers similar to those previously granted by her. Pennsylvania chose delegates with like powers on the thirtieth of the succeeding month.

The report from Annapolis was submitted to congress soon after its date; but a determined opposition being made to the proposed convention, on the ground of its illegality, it was not acted upon: thus, tenacity of power grows with conscious weakness. When the legislature of Massachusetts assembled, Governor Bowdoin, still zealous for this great measure, sent them a message, in which, after a mention of the reasons that had induced the meeting at Annapolis to adjourn, he again declared his conviction of the importance of amending the confederation. Its