Resolved unanimously, That the officers acting under the state of New-York, who were lately restrained of their liberty by certain persons of a district called the New-Hampshire Grants, ought to be immediately liberated. Resolved unanimously, That the committee appointed to repair to the inhabitants of a certain district known by the name of the New-Hampshire Grants, be directed to enquire into the matters and things contained in the letters of governor Clinton of the 27th of May and of the 7th inst. and that copies of the said letters be transmitted to the said committee; and that they be directed to report specially to Congress. Resolved unanimously, That it was not the intention of Congress by their resolution of the 1st inst. nor ought the same or any other part thereof be construed to hold up principles subversive of, or unfavourable to the internal policy of any or either of the United States: That as Congress expect very salutary effects from the appointment of the said committee, therefore all further proceedings on governor Clinton's letter be postponed until they report. WEDNESDAY, Sept. 22, 1779. After reciting the foregoing resolution of June 1, the record proceeds as follows: And whereas it so happened that a majority of the committee appointed in pursuance of the aforementioned resolution, did not meet in the said district, and therefore have never executed the business committed to them or made a regular report thereon to Congress: Ordered, that the said committee be discharged. Of the committee of five, only two visited Vermont-Messrs. Witherspoon and Atlee. They had an interview with Governor Chittenden, and an arrangement was made with the intent of preventing collisions between the Vermont authorities and the adherents to New-York. Of this interview and arrangement, a report was made to Congress on the 13th of July, but as only two of the committee acted, it could not be received and treated as an official report. No account can now be given better than that which may be gathered from the following documents. [From the Documentary History of New York, vol. 4, pp. 588-590.] John Witherspoon and Samuel J. Atlee, of the Committee of Congress, to Samuel Minott. BENNINGTON, June 23, 1779. Gentlemen-The Subscribers are here at present as Members of a Committee of Congress sent for the express purpose of endeavouring to bring about an amicable settlement of the Differences between the State of New-York and the Inhabitants of the New-Hampshire Grants who have formed themselves into a State called by them the State of Vermont. We have understood that you and others who adhere to the State of New-York have declined taking your Turn of Militia Duty for "and what renders their silence still more extraordinary is, that Ethan Allen, having the rank of a Colonel in the service of the United States, was a principal actor in this outrage."-See Doc. History of New York, vol. 4, p. 584. the Defence of the frontiers because the Requisition was made under the Authority of the State of Vermont, and that you have met with some Trouble on this Account. We have therefore sent this to inform you that we hope there will be by interposition of Congress a happy Accommodation of all Differences in a short Time; in the mean while we have obtained a promise from Governor Chittenden that you shall not be molested till matters are finally settled, and we have engaged to write to you voluntarily and freely to raise your full Proportion of Men whenever your Neighbours are called, and you are informed of this either by continental Officers or the New State till such Time as you have Special Directions from the Governor of New-York, which we hope to obtain for you on our Return home. This we are confident you will readily comply with, as otherwise People will be tempted to impute your Conduct to disaffection to the Cause of the United States. We hope you will understand that the Protection and Forbearance which is promised in your behalf is to be considered as on the condition of your cordially complying with our Request and in every Respect behaving quietly and orderly while the measures for Pacification are on foot. We are, &c. JOHN WITHERSPOON, Governor Chittenden to a Vermont officer in Cumberland County. BENNINGTON, 23d June, 1779. Sir,-Your favor by Mr. Tucker came to hand yesterday. Am unhappy to hear of a second insurrection and open Violation of the Authority of this and the United States; The present distressed Situation of our northern Frontiers absolutely demands the assistance of their Brethren and Friends. Am sorry to find that private difficulties should in the least impede and prevent a general Union in Defence of the Grand Contest on which the Liberty and happiness of the whole depends. With pleasure I can inform you (and desire the same may be communicated to the respective Inhabitants) that a Committee of the honorable Continental Congress have arrived at this Place, from which we may expect the most salutary and agreeable effect in a speedy Settlement of the unhappy Dispute between this and the State of New-York. From the Situation of the present affairs and the pressing necessity of securing our frontier Inhabitants together with the Advice of the Committee aforesaid transmitted in a Letter, I presume the Inhabitants will readily turn out in Defence of their Country agreeable to orders; and in the mean Time I would recommend while they continue to do their proportion in the present War, the suspending of all prosecutions in the Law against those who acknowledge themselves Subjects of the State of New-York, (except Capital Offences) until Congress makes a final Determination in the Matter. I am Sir Your humble Servt., A true Copy pr Jos. FAY. THOS. CHITTENDEN. Gov. Chittenden's Answer to the Queries of the Committee of Congress. STATE OF VERMONT, Bennington, 24th June, 1779. Gentlemen,-Agreeable to your Requisition I have made and subjoined to your Questions the following answers, viz. Q: Are there any Lands in this State still unpatented? A: Yes a large Body which was not granted previous to the King's Prohibition to the Governor of New-York. 2 Q: Are there any Lands which have been patented by the State of Vermont and in what Condition were they before? A: None as yet but many Petitions are made and are on File waiting for a settlement of the public Disputes. 3 Q: Are there any Lands patented under New-Hampshire and regranted to different Persons under New-York but are not yet occupied by either of the Grantees? A: Yes a large quantity. 4 Qu: Are there any Lands patented under New-York of date prior to the Patents under New-Hampshire and at present possessed under the New-Hampshire Title? A: Some old Patents of New-York are said to extend over some Parts of the Townships of Pownal, Bennington, and Shaftsbury. 5 Qu: Are there any Persons living in the State of Vermont upon the New-Hampshire Rights who have large Property in Lands in different Townships not yet improved? A: Some few there are and there is many that own small Quantities. 6 Qu: Are there any Persons in actual Possession of Lands under the New-York Title to which others have a prior Right under NewHampshire? A: Yes some few. 7 Qu: Are you satisfied that the Proclamations by the Governor of New-York would secure your Property in the Soil tho' the jurisdiction were allowed? A: By no Means, as it is only a shadow without any principle Substance, calculated to answer sinister Purposes. which is implied in his second Proclamation vizt: "That all such lands which have heretofore been granted by the Government of New-Hampshire or MassachusettsBay and have not been since Granted by the Government of New-York," the words," and have not since been granted by the Government of NewYork" wholly exclude the most valuable Lands in this State; including that which is in actual Possession, as the State of New-York have since made Grants of the same Lands-and I presume to say it is not in the Power of the Legislature of New-York to confirm those Lands, being previously granted to others. There are sundry other Passages in the same Proclamation equally insufficient and dissatisfactory. 8 Qu: If the Property of your Lands were perfectly secured to you would you be willing to return under the Jurisdiction of New-York? A: We are in the fullest sense as unwilling to be under the Jurisdiction of New-York as we can conceive America would to revert back under the Power of Great Britain (except a few disaffected Inhabitants who say they will become willing subjects of this state on the approbation of Congress) and we should consider our Liberties and Privileges (both civil and religious) equally exposed in future Invasions. 9 Qu: Would your returning under the Jurisdiction of New-York promote or hinder the complete Settlement of the Country? A: Experience has taught me to believe that it would greatly impede the settlement of this Country to have it affixed to New-York. 10 Qu: What was the occasion of Colo Allen's proceeding by arms to take and confine sundry officers in Cumberland County who professed to be subjects of the State of New-York? A. Colo. Allen proceeded into Cumberland county under Direction of the Civil Authority of this State to assist the Sheriff in the Execution of his office in apprehending a certain Number of Persons for the Purpose of bringing them before the Superior Courts of this State for Trial for riotously impeding a certain officer in the Execution of his Office in selling Estate taken by said officer according to Law from Persons who refused to do their tour of Militia Duty in Guarding the Frontiers of this and the United States of America against the Common Enemy agreeable to Orders of the Board of War of this State issued in Pursuance of advice received from Brigr. General Clinton for that Purpose. 11 Qu: Are you willing and do you think it is the Minds of the People to refer the final Decision of this Matter at any Rate to the Congress of the United States? A: I believe I may be warranted to say in Behalf of the People of this State, that they would think themselves happy in submitting the long controverted Differences subsisting between this and the State of New-York to the Determination of Congress, they being allowed equal Privilege as the State of New-York in supporting their Cause, reserving to themselves in the Trial al Rights, Privileges, Immunities and advantages which they had or might have by any former Grants, Jurisdictions, Powers, and Privileges on account of any Province or State heretofore had, notwithstanding any subsequent Transaction. I am Gentlemen with the highest Esteem Your obt. humble servant, THOS. CHITTENDEN. The Honble Doct" Witherspoon & Col. Atlee, Members of a Committee of Congress. [From Hiland Hall's Early History of Vermont, p. 292.] On the 11th of June, some time before the arrival of the committee, Gov. Chittenden had issued an order for raising men for service on the frontier, and after the committee had left Bennington, he received information that the property of some delinquents in Cumberland county had been sold under such order in conformity to the law of the State, which information he at once communicated to them by letter, in which he stated that as this was occasioned wholly by reason of those persons neglecting to do their proportion of duty in the present war, they would readily perceive it could not be construed to be any breach of the engagement which, agreeably to their advice, he had entered into with them." In their answer, dated at Albany the 28th of June, they say they were not willing to consider it a breach of the agreement," but expressed great apprehension that it might be the means of defeating all their endeavors for procuring peace," and gave it as their opinion that the agreement would be wholly frustrated unless a stop was put to further proceedings of the kind, and restitution made to the people whose cattle had been thus seized. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. To comply with one provision of the act for the publication of the record of the Councils, it has been necessary to commence the printing of this volume before the copy for it entire had been completed; and hence errors have passed through the press which, most of them at least, would have been otherwise avoided. These are now indicated as follows, with a few additions and explanations. Capt. John Grant, p. 7.—The suggestion that he may have declined service in Warner's first regiment is incorrect. He served with credit, and was appointed captain in Warner's continental regiment, July 5, 1776. See page 160. Col. William Marsh.-The first note on p. 15 should refer to page 22. Josiah Fish.-"Joshua Fish," p. 21, should probably be Josiah Fish. See p. 15. Benjamin Hickok, James Bentle, and Thomas Braten, on pages 15 and 22, should probably be Benjamin Hitchcock, James Bentley, and Thomas Brayton. Col. William Williams.-Joseph Williams, p. 67, line 4, should be William Williams. Matthew Lyon, pp. 71-74, 123–128; and Benjamin Emmons.-HENRY S. DANA, Esq., of Woodstock, (whose contributions and criticisms the editor has gladly received,) is of opinion that Matthew Lyon was not a member of the Council of Safety, for the reasons that in 1798, in his defence before the Committee of Privileges of Congress on the Griswold affair, and in his speech on the subsequent resolution of expulsion, he named sundry of his services and offices in Vermont, and did not name membership in the Committee of Safety; and also that, for a period after his retreat from Jericho in 1776, he was “in disgrace." Both of these points are alluded to in the text; and the first one (suggested on page 73,) is strong enough to make one doubt, at least: but after all, the editor has not been able to find a person with so good a claim to the honor as Lyon had. Mr. Dana suggested Hon. BENJAMIN EMMONS in lieu of Lyon, remarking that some of Mr. E's. descendants ranked him as one of the Council of Safety. In a subseqent letter, however, Mr. D. wrote thus: "I think Lyon is excluded by his own witness, but I rather |