rials were referred to a committee, before which the delegates of Virginia indignantly refused to appear or plead. The movement was followed up by a motion introduced by two delegates of Maryland, which, after amendment, was adopted, and was as follows:
"Whereas, The appropriation of vacant lands by the several States, during the continuance of the war, will, in the opinion of Congress, be attended with great mischiefs; therefore,
"Resolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the State of Virginia to reconsider the late act of assembly for opening their land office; and that it be recommended to the said State, and all other States similarly circumstanced, to forbear settling or issuing warrants for unappropriated lands, or granting the same during the continuance of the present war." (Journal, vol. 3, p. 335-)
The tone of Maryland was beginning to change. Her present motion docs not ask Congress to use coercive measures to prevent Virginia from selling her lands. It is now a request or recommendation addressed to the State. Virginia made prompt and generous response by adopting, December 10th, her famous remonstrance. This able document so lucidly presents her case that the reader will be interested to peruse it in full:
"The General Assembly of Virginia, ever attentive to the recommendations of Congress, and desirous to give the great council of the United States every satisfaction in their power, consistent with the rights and constitution of their commonwealth, have enacted a law to prevent present settlements on the northwest side of the Ohio river, and will on all occasions endeavor to manifest their attachment to the common interest of America, and their earnest wish to remove every cause of jealousy, and to promote that mutual confidence and harmony between the different States so essential to their true interest and safety.
