F 52 
 
 H165 
 Copy 1 
 
 WHY THE EARLY INHABITANTS 
 
 OF 
 
 VEFLMOISTT 
 DISCLAIMED THE JUEISDIOTION OF NEW YORK, 
 
 AND ESTABLISHED 
 
 'AN INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT. 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 DELIVERED BEFORE THE 
 
 P 
 
 |orl jjistorupd ferietn, 
 
 DECEMBER 4th, I860. 
 
 BV 
 
 HILAND HALL. 
 
 BENNINGTON, VT. : 
 C. A. PIERCE: & COMPANY, PRINTERS. 
 
 1872. 
 
Why the early inhabitants of Vermont disclaimed the juris- 
 diction of New Yorky and established an independent government. 
 
 AN ADDRESS 
 
 Dl 1 1\ 1 RED BEFORE THE 
 
 \m |)orh faoriral §)orietij, 
 
 ^ 
 
 I) EC E M B E R 4th, i860, 
 
 HILAND HALL. 
 
 BENNINGTON, VT. : 
 C. A. PIERCE & COMPANY, PRINTERS 
 
 187,. 
 
TV? 
 
 /3 
 
<0 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 It is known to the readers of general history that the 
 territory now the State of Vermont was formerly claimed by 
 the State of New York; that the King of Great Britain 
 prior to our revolution had made an order in council that 
 it should constitute a part of that province; that the people who 
 inhabited the territory (which was then known by the name of 
 the New Hampshire Grants.) were dissatisfied with the conduct 
 ot the New York Government towards them; that they resisted 
 its authority, revolted from its jurisdiction, and set up for them- 
 selves an independent commonwealth, which was finally recog- 
 nized by New York as such, and admitted a member of the 
 federal Union. 
 
 The causes which produced this revolutionary separation 
 Irom New York are believed not to have been so generally 
 sought for as to be familiarly understood. I propose to occupy 
 about half an hour of your time this evening in exhibiting to you 
 the causes of this revolt — in the light in which they appear to a 
 \ ermonter. You w ill, of course, understand that the subject 
 cannot be fully discussed in so brief a space, and that all you 
 are to expect is an outline view. 
 
 One hundred years ago at this time England was in a high 
 state of exultation at the accession of the young King George 
 the Third, to the throne, and over the news then recently 
 
(4) 
 
 received of the complete extinguishment of the French power in 
 America. This latter event had been accomplished in the previ- 
 ous month of September (1760,) by the capture of Montreal, 
 and the formal surrender of the province of New France to the 
 English arms; and it furnished an occasion for great and extra- 
 ordinary rejoicing in this country. It not only put an end to a 
 long and bloody war in which the colonies, particularly those of 
 New England and New York, had largely participated, but 
 furnished the frontiers of those provinces with perfect security 
 against foreign and Indian depredations — a security which they 
 had never before enjoyed. 
 
 At that time the territory now embraced by the State of 
 Vermont, with a trifling exception, was an uninhabited wilder, 
 ness. It had, however, been frequently traversed by the men of 
 New England in their expeditions to the theatre of war in the 
 vicinity of Lakes George and Champlain, and the fertility of its 
 soil had become familiarly and favorably known to them. No 
 sooner, therefore, was the territory opened for safe occupation by 
 the conquest of Canada, than a strong desire pervaded the New 
 England colonies to emigrate to it. Settlements were accordingly 
 commenced in the spring of 1 76 1 , and continued thereafter to be 
 rapidly made. In the course of four or five years the settlers 
 could be numbered by thousands; they had cleared lands and 
 erected dwellings and out-houses; opened roads; organized 
 churches and built houses of worship, and established schools, 
 and were beginning to enjoy many of the advantages of cultiva- 
 ted society, with favorable prospects for future improvement and 
 prosperity. 
 
 The settlers occupied their lands and held their titles under 
 charters from the province of New Hampshire, whose jurisdic- 
 tion they acknowledged. These charters were issued by Gov. 
 BENNING Wentworth, under the great seal of the province, 
 and in the name of the King — each covering a township of about 
 six miles square ; and the charters conferred on the future inhab- 
 itants the usual corporate powers of New England townships. 
 
 In the spring of the year 1765 the settlers were informed by 
 a proclamation of Lieut.-Governor CoLDEN, then administering 
 the Government of New York for the King, that his Majesty, by 
 an Order in Council of the 20th day of July preceding, had de- 
 clared the western bank of Connecticut River to be the boun- 
 
15) 
 
 darj between the provinces of New Hampshire and New York- 
 and the proclamation called upon them to yield due obedience 
 
 to the laws and officers of the latter province. 
 
 Immediately upon the promulgation of this order of the 
 Ring, the New Hampshire claimants were treated by Lieut- 
 Governor Colden as trespassers upon the lands they occupied, 
 and he proceeded to grant them anew to others. Then came on 
 the long and bitter strife for the possession of these lands. The 
 new claimants demanded their surrender, and when refused, suits 
 in ejectment for them followed ; then trials at Albany, in which 
 the New Hampshire charters are declared void and not allowed 
 to be read to the jury ; verdicts for the plaintiffs; writs of pos- 
 session issue; the Sheriff unable to execute them; the posse of 
 the county of Albany called to the aid of the Sheriff, and marched 
 three hundred strong to Bennington; the settlers appear in arms 
 and the posse, sympathizing with them, refuse to act ; the power 
 of the county being found ineffectual, application is made to 
 Gen. Haldinand, commanding the King's forces in New York, 
 and to the ministry in London, for a body of regular troops to 
 enforce submission, and refused ; the New York rulers and claim- 
 ants then resort to indirect measures ; their Opponents are indicted 
 at Albany as rioters, and rewards offered for their apprehension ; 
 remote lands are stealthily occupied by the New York claimants; 
 the occupants are treated as intruders and frightened away, or 
 driven off by force; more indictments for riots and threats of in- 
 vasion by regular troops; formation under Ai.i.i \ and Warner 
 of a military corps, — its members styling themselves Green 
 Mountain Boys. — denominated by Colden '"the Bennington 
 Mob"; summary condemnation and outlawry by the New York 
 Assembly without trial, of Allen, Warner and others, leaders 
 of the settlers; their defiant denunciation of this act of the 
 Assembly; they meet in conventions, appoint committees of safe 
 ty with extensive powers, and finally, in 1777, form a constitution 
 of government as an independent State. 
 
 During the period of tins controversy, the claims of New 
 York were elaborately stated and ingeniously advocated on two 
 occasions by James 1>i \m . an eminent lawyer of this city, 
 and for several years a dele-ate m the Continental Congress from 
 this State, and who had a deep personal interest in their success. 
 
 The first of these arguments, ol which Mr. 1>i \\i was the 
 
(6) 
 
 reputed author, is entitled " A state of the right of the colony of 
 New York with respect to its eastern boundary on Connecticut 
 River, so far as it concerns the late encroachments under New 
 Hampshire," and was published by the authority ot the Colonial 
 Assembly in 1773. The other document is an argument prepared 
 by Mr. Duane to be used on the hearing of the Vermont ques- 
 tion before Congress in 1780, and which is found in manuscript 
 in the archives of this Historical Society.* These two docu- 
 ments, so far as they relate to the origin of the claims of the re- 
 spective parties, and the causes of their difference are substan- 
 tially alike. They place the New York side ot the controversy 
 in its most plausible light, and are calculated to give the casual 
 reader a favorable impression in regard to the measures and posi- 
 tion of the rulers of that province. But I feel bound to say that 
 they are altogether unreliable. They are unreliable, not so much 
 because the facts which are stated are untrue, as that they are 
 unimportant to a right understanding of the questions discussed 
 — the main facts upon which the proper solution of these ques- 
 tions depend, being skillfully kept out of view. 
 
 I cannot on this occasion enter into any detailed examina- 
 tion of the several points made in these labored documents. I 
 will, however, call your attention to a few of the most prominent 
 errors of fcct and argument which pervade them, and render false 
 the conclusions to be drawn from them. 
 
 It is assumed and claimed then, in behalf of the New York 
 colonial rulers that the early inhabitants of Vermont purchased 
 the lands they held under New Hampshire, knowing their titles 
 were of doubtful character, and that they were consequently to 
 be considered in the light of voluntary trespassers upon the New 
 York title. Nothing could be moie unfounded than this assump- 
 tion. 
 
 Prior to the Order of the King in Council, of July, 1764, be- 
 fore mentioned, declaring Connecticut River to be the boundary 
 between the two provinces, the eastern boundary of New York 
 had always been understood, in New England from whence the 
 settlers came, to be a line running from the southwest corner of 
 Connecticut on Long Island Sound, northerly to Lake Cham- 
 plain. It had been so laid down in all the maps of the American 
 colonies which had been published, either in England or Amer- 
 ica. I speak with much confidence on this point, having within 
 
 *See Note i, at the end of tlii-, Address 
 
(7) 
 
 the past twenty years examined all the maps of the colonies — 
 and they are numerous — which 1 have been able to find, either 
 in books or separately, in the principal public libraries in this 
 country, including the old library of Congress, those of the 
 States of Massachusetts and New York, of the New York His- 
 torical Society, and that of Harvard College; and in all of 
 them, without a single exception, is the before mentioned line 
 known as the twenty mile line from the Hudson River, marked 
 as the eastern boundary of New York, and the western boun" 
 dary of New England. Among these maps may be particularly 
 mentioned that of Dr. Mitchell, of the British American 
 provinces, prepared at the request, and under the direction of- 
 the English Board of Trade, and published in London in 1755, 
 in which New Hampshire is made to extend westward to that 
 twenty mile line, and to Lake Champlain, thus embracing the 
 present territory of Vermont. This territory haH been repeated- 
 ly recognized, and uniformly treated, by the English Crown and 
 Ministry, as belonging to New England and New Hampshire, 
 and never, as constituting a part of New York: and there can 
 be no doubt whatever, that the settlers under New Hampshire 
 were purchasers and occupiers of their land- in good faith, fully 
 believing their titles to be valid.* 
 
 Igain, it is claimed by Mr. Duane, in behalf of New York, 
 that prior to the order of the King, of July, 1764, before men- 
 tioned, the legal title of that province to extend eastward to 
 every part of Connecticut River, and thus to embrace the terri- 
 tory of the New Hampshire Grants, was 1 lear and unquestiona- 
 ble, under the Charter of KLlNG CHARLES, the Second, to his 
 brother, the Duke of York, in 1664. 
 
 Although the words of this Charter would at first view seem 
 to favor the construction given it by New York, yet its descrip- 
 tive language, as a whole, is so ambiguous that all effort to use 
 it to designate any territory with definite boundaries is unavail- 
 ing.t Without going into a critical examination of its terms, 
 which the occasion will not permit I think 1 may safely sa) that 
 this Charter claim of New York, when tested by the light of con- 
 temporaneous and subsequent history will be found at best to be 
 of very doubtful character. I haVe only time to say of it now 
 that, prior to the order of the King annexing the territo- 
 ry of the New Hampshire Grants to New York, in 1764 — 
 - 
 
(8) 
 
 one hundred years after the date of the Charter — that province 
 had never for a single moment exercised jurisdiction eastward to 
 any part of Connecticut River : that the territory covered by 
 those Grants had never been treated by the English Government 
 as belonging to New York, but as before stated, as constituting a 
 part of New Hampshire ; that there is the strongest reason to 
 believe that the Charter of King Charles to the Duke of York 
 in 1664, was not intended by the King, nor understood by the 
 Duke, as designating Connecticut River as a definite boundary 
 of the Duke's grant ; that the Charter, so far as it related to the 
 main land, was designed to embrace the territory of New Neth- 
 erland, then held by the Dutch, and that territory only, whatever 
 on being conquered its extent or limitation might be found to be : 
 that fourteen years prior to the date of the charter, a line less 
 than twenty miles from the Hudson River had been established 
 by treaty between the Governor of New Netherland and the 
 Commissioners of the New England Colonies, as the Dutch 
 eastern boundary, which treaty of boundary had been ratified by 
 the States General of Holland; that immediately on the con- 
 quest of New Netherland by the English, a few months after the 
 date of the King's Charter, a twenty mile line was solemnly ad- 
 judicated and determined by the King's Commissioners, who 
 accompanied the expedition, as the eastern boundaiy of the 
 Duke's grant ; that such boundary (being substantially the same 
 with the present,) was recognized and acquiesced in by New 
 York for more than three-quarters of a century, and that the first 
 serious claim ever made by that province to extend eastward to 
 Connecticut River, to the northward of the colony of Connec- 
 ticut, was as late as the year 1750 — eighty-six years after the date 
 of the Charter under which the claim was then made. 
 
 The King's Order in Council, of July, 1764, by which the 
 territory now Vermont was transferred from the jurisdiction of 
 New Hampshire to that of New York, does not appear to have 
 been founded on any considerations of public necessity or con- 
 venience. It weakened a small province to increase the power 
 and extent of a larger one ; and was made without consulting 
 the feelings or interests of the people who were the subjects of 
 the transfer, and contrary to their wishes. The reasons for mak- 
 ing it were doubtless political — those of state policy. The ministry 
 were then preparing their measures for taxing the colonies, and 
 
(9) 
 
 were anxious to circumscribe within narrow limits the stubborn 
 republican spirit of New England, from which they anticipated 
 the strongest opposition. New York was at that time a favored 
 colony. Cadwallar Colden, of high-toned, tory principles* 
 
 who was then at the head of its administration, as Lieut.-Gov- 
 emor, was aware of this favorable disposition of the ministry, 
 ami quite willing to take advantage of it. ■ 
 
 In urging on them the enlargement of his own government 
 at the expense of the territory of New Hampshire, he uses lan- 
 guage as follows : 
 
 " The New Kngland governments," he says, "are founded 
 on republican principles, and these principles are zealously incul- 
 cated in their youth, in opposition to the principles of the con- 
 stitution of Great Britain. The government of New York, on 
 the contrary, is established, as nearly as may be, after the model 
 of the English Constitution. Can it be good policy," continues 
 Mr. Colden, "to diminish the power and extent of His Majes- 
 ty's province of New York to extend the power anil influence of 
 the others ? " 
 
 The Ministry concurred with Lieut-Governor Colden in 
 the policy of curtailing the power and influence of the republi- 
 can colony, and hence its dismemberment for the benefit of the 
 more aristocratic province. 
 
 But the new jurisdiction, distasteful as it was to the settlers, 
 would doubtless have been quietly submitted to if nothing more 
 had been demanded. But Lieut.-Governor Colden and his 
 council claimed that the King's order not only gave them the 
 powers of government as far eastward as Connecticut River, but 
 that it had a retrospective operation, and was to be construed as 
 declaring that such had always been the extent of the province 
 of New York. As a consequence of this ingenius interpretation, 
 they held that all the grants which had been previously made by 
 Wentworth, Governor of New Hampshire — having been of 
 lands not within his province — were null and void, and that the 
 title still remaining in the crown, the land was subject to be 
 granted anew. 
 
 It must have been plain to the rulers of New York that such 
 new grants could not be made without doing great injustice to the 
 claimants under New Hampshire. For even if it should be ad- 
 mitted that the title of the settlers to the lands they occupied was 
 
(jo) 
 
 not in legal strictness a valid one, still there could be no doubt 
 that it was in a high degree equitable. The lands had been 
 chartered in the name of the King, by one of his royal Govern- 
 ors having apparent authority to grant them, and had been pur- 
 chased and improved by the settlers in good faith, they fully 
 believing in the validity of their titles. It would be manifestly 
 unjust and oppressive in the King— a palpable fraud on his sub- 
 jects, to allow another of his Governors to deprive them of 
 property thus honestly acquired. Yet such fraud and oppression 
 was attempted in the royal name and earnestly sought to be con- 
 summated by the then ruling authorities of New York. The 
 motive for this conduct on their part deserves particular consider- 
 ation, and will now be inquired into. 
 
 Among the emoluments of the King's colonial Governors, 
 those connected with the land grants formed a very important 
 part. This was especially the case in New York, where the fees 
 exacted were much larger than in any other province, amounting 
 to over two thousand dollars for every tract or township of six 
 miles square — of which the Governor's share exceeded seven 
 hundred dollars, the residue being divided between the Govern- 
 or's Secretary, the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, and 
 other officials. This source of income was, however, becoming 
 nearly exhausted — the previous grants having been so enormous 
 as to cover nearly all the desirable lands in the province from 
 which the Indian title had been removed. This new acquisition 
 of territory from New Hampshire, if the lands could be re-grant- 
 ed, promised a rich and almost unlimited harvest of fees; and 
 besides the perquisites of office which might thus be obtained by 
 r e-granting the lands, the Governor would be enabled to distrib- 
 ute them at his pleasure among his favorites and friends, thereby 
 furnishing them, as was supposed, with the ready means of mak- 
 ing fortunes, by disposing of them to the settlers and others. 
 
 Neither the interest of the crown nor that of the public re- 
 quired the making of these new grants. The declared object of 
 the crown in authorizing the colonial Governors to grant lands 
 was to promote the clearing up and cultivation of the country, 
 and they were forbidden in their instructions to grant them unless 
 they were needed by the grantees for actual settlement. 
 
 Prior to the promulgation of Lieut-Governor Colden's 
 proclamation in the spring of 1765, before mentioned, which an- 
 
nounced the change of jurisdiction, about one hundred and thirty 
 townships had been chartered within the territory by New 
 Hampshire. The lands had been either granted to, or purchased 
 by New England men, who were rapidly removing to and set- 
 tling upon them There was no desire in New York to emigrate 
 to this territory — there was no demand in that province for these 
 lands for purposes of cultivation. All this was well known to 
 Lieut-Governor Colden, as well as to his official and unofficial 
 advisers ; but the temptation arising from the money to be pock- 
 eted and the patr§nage to be wielded, made him regardless of the 
 claims and rights of others, and he proceeded at once to re-grant 
 the lands in large masses to the officers of his government and 
 others, principally residents of this city — not forgetting in his 
 liberal donations to his favorites and friends, to take very prudent 
 care of himself and family. And so rapidly were these grants 
 made that nearly all the valuable land that had been settled upon, 
 situated on the west side of the Green Mountains, was covered 
 with New York patents within a few weeks after the reception of 
 the King's order by the Lieut. -Governor annexing the territory to 
 the province, and before the settlers could have had any oppor- 
 tunity to apply at New York for a confirmation of their New- 
 Hampshire titles. 
 
 Such was the condition of the New Hampshire claimants 
 who had eeated themselves nearest the old province of New- 
 York. The settlers on the east side of the mountain, whose 
 lands were more remote from the city speculators and less covet- 
 ed by them, may in general be said to have tared somewhat bet- 
 ter, most of them being allowed the privilege of purchasing their 
 lands a second time, by paying the exorbitant patent fees of the 
 Lieut. -Governor, and his associate crown officers. 
 
 On the west side of the mountain the New Hampshire 
 claimants met with few favors. So pressing indeed were the de- 
 mands of the speculators, and so greedy were the New York offi- 
 cials for the fees to be obtained from land patents, that even the 
 solemn prohibition of the crown was insufficient to restrain their 
 issue. By an Order of the King in Council, made July 24, 
 1767, on application of the settlers, the Governors of New York 
 were forbidden in the most peremptory terms and " on pain of 
 his majesty's highest displeasure," from making any more grants 
 within the disputed territory; but the order was put at defiance. 
 
(12) 
 
 and wholly disregarded — Lieut. -Governor Golden and his suc- 
 cessors proceeding still to issue patents, as if no such order had 
 been made. 
 
 The character and extent of these grants may in a great 
 measure be ascertained from the records now remaining in the 
 office of the Secretary of State, at Albany. 
 
 One of the noticable features of these grants, particularly 
 those of an early date, is the irregular shape of the tracts of land 
 which they describe. Instead of townships in a square or rec- 
 tangular form bordering on each other, like those of New Hamp- 
 shire, the New York patents would appear to have been issued 
 upon surveys made to include the rich valley lands along the 
 streams, and to avoid the rougher hills and mountains ; and they 
 were thus scattered over the territory in detached parcels and in 
 all sorts of shapes, some of them having ten or more angles or 
 corners. 
 
 These New York patents were in general issued for the ben- 
 efit of a comparatively small number of persons, and of course 
 in very large quantities to most of them. A few of these fa- 
 vored individuals may be mentioned. Among them Attorney 
 General Kempe came in for a very large, though unascertained 
 quantity of land ; William Cockburn, a noted surveyor, for 
 30,000 acres, and Simon Metcalf, another surveyor, for 28,000 
 acres. Wm. Smith, a member of the Council, and author of the 
 history of New York, had 46,000 acres; James Duane, before 
 mentioned, 68,000 acres ; John Kelly, a New York City 
 lawyer, 115,000 acres ; and Goldsbrow Banyar, Secretary to 
 the Governor and Council, 145,000 acres. Besides these, there 
 were many other grantees of lesser, though of large quantities — 
 ranging from 2,000 to 20,000 acres each. 
 
 Nor did the New York Colonial Governors content them- 
 selves with their office fees for issuing patents ; they also took 
 special care to provide themselves with very respectable portions 
 of the lands they granted. 
 
 By the King's instructions to the Governors of New York, 
 lands were only to be granted, as before stated, to persons desir- 
 ing them for actual cultivation ; and in order to guard against 
 grants for speculative purposes, no individual was to receive a 
 quantity exceeding one thousand acres. But the object of the 
 King in making this limitation was wholly perverted by his Gov- 
 
(ifl) 
 
 emors, who, by the fraudulent use of nominal grantees, issued 
 their patents for the benefit of themselves and their triends 
 for any quantity they chose, knowing the lands were not 
 wanted for actual settlement, but only for purposes of specu- 
 lation. In this manner the large grants which have already been 
 mentioned were made. And //a/s Lieut. -Governor Golden, in 
 making his grants, not only provided largely for the members of 
 his family, but reserved for himself 21,000 acres by issuing pat- 
 cuts in the names of twenty-one of his friends for 1,000 acres 
 each, who immediately conveyed the land to him. 
 
 Lord Dunmore, who administered the government for the 
 King but about eight months, during parts of the years 1770 and 
 1771, in this manner obtained 51,000 acres lying in one body in 
 the present county of Addison, in the State of Vermont, embrac- 
 ing a portion of the beautiful lake which bears his name. The 
 patent was issued to fiity-one individuals, among whom were sev- 
 eral members of his council, Secretary Banyar, James Duane, 
 Simon Metcalf and John Kelly, before mentioned, and other 
 noted speculators. The patent bore date July 8, 1771, and five 
 days afterwards, on the 13th day of the same month, every one 
 of the fifty-one patentees conveyed their shares to the Governor. 
 
 In like manner his successor, Governor Trvon, a few months 
 later, provided himself with 32,000 acres through the instrumen- 
 tality of the same set of public officers and land traders. He 
 also by the same mode furnished his son-in-law, the notorious 
 Edmund Fanning, with several large tracts of land, including 
 one full township of six miles square. All of these grants of t he 
 Governors to themselves and members of their families were 
 made in direct and palpable violation of the King's order in coun- 
 cil of July, 1767, prohibiting them in the strongest possible lan- 
 guage from making any further grants. These patents having 
 been issued, not only without the authority of the crown, but in 
 defiance of it, would seem very clearly to have been illegal and 
 void, and they would doubtless have been declared so by any 
 impartial tribunal competent to decide upon their validity. No 
 such tribunal could, however be resorted to by the settlers— the 
 forms of judicial proceedings constituting an important part of 
 the governmental machinery contrived by their adversaries to 
 overcome and subdue them.* 
 
 To these ami such like rapacious and mercenary claimants 
 
 *See Note 4. 
 
were the early inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants re- 
 quired by the New York rulers to surrender lands which they 
 had once fairly purchased, and had made more valuable by cul- 
 tivation and improvement. The settlers were freemen, — intelli- 
 gent, hardy and brave. Is it surprising that they should have re- 
 sisted ? Would it not, indeed, have been matter of astonishment 
 if they had done otherwise ? 
 
 The settlers in various publications maintained the rightful- 
 ness of their forcible opposition to the measures of the New 
 York claimants and government, on the principles which justify 
 revolution, and seemingly with entire success. The American 
 people revolted from the mother country, because of the imposi- 
 tion of taxes, which though small in amount, were founded on a 
 principle that would allow the extortion of any further sum the 
 parliament might at any time think proper to demand ; thus de- 
 stroying the security by which they held the residue of their prop- 
 erty, and leaving it at the mercy of the government. In the case 
 of the inhabitants of the New Hampshire Grants the principle 
 of government exaction was carried at once by New York to its 
 utmost extent, by requiring of the settlers — not a fraction of their 
 property — but an immediate surrender of their worldly estate — 
 leaving them houseless, and most of them penniless. If revo- 
 lution was justifiable in the former case, as is now universally ad- 
 mitted, it would seem to have been much more clearly so in the 
 latter ? 
 
 If the measures adopted by the settlers to defend themselves 
 and their property against the open and covert attacks of their 
 enemies — the Yorkers — sometimes wear the appearance of un- 
 feeling harshness, they will, I think, be found on due considera- 
 tion, to have been of a character well suited to the occasion, and 
 in general no more severe than wisdom and sound policy dictated 
 as a means of protection, and to save the necessity of resorting 
 to the infliction of still greater evils. And when it is remember- 
 ed that a complete separation from the government of a powerful 
 province and State was forcibly effected, with but a trifling injury 
 to property, and with small, if any, sacrifice of human life,* we 
 shall, I think, find quite as much to approve and admire in the 
 acts and measures of those conducting it, as to condemn. 
 
 See Note 5. 
 
THE FOLLOWING NOTES ARE ADDED IN 1872. 
 
 NOTE 1, PAGE 6. 
 
 rhe document referred to in the text has been published in the Collections of the New 
 
 York Historical Society, for i8 7 o, from which it would seem that it was prepared about 17 8 S 
 
 Bed on the boundary question then pending between New York and Massachusetts I 
 
 ^eparedbyMr.Duane.andissubstantuOly the same as his ar.ument before 
 
 NOTE 2, PAGE 7. 
 
 
 ma i!t H 6 7t"T u thCSe 3nd thC ° ther hiSt ° rical statements in this Add ^. Terence is 
 
 d and the * , " ?V ''"' ***** * ' 86S ' "^ thc ^"^ «• -l.ec 
 ted, and the subject of the controversy with New York treated at large. 
 
 NOTE 3, PAGE 7. 
 
 bv o,h h 'r7 h r er ° f K,nS Char ' eS "^ hem * M ^ S-ith in his History of New York, and 
 2 " £*' " tm S t0 the Duke "-D ^e land from the west side of Connecticut 
 
 nmr to the east s.de of Delaware Bay." and such, in ,S6o, was supposed by the wr te to be 
 - 'anguage. But u, the original charter, preserved in the State Library at Albanv t e word 
 ■ no. found, after that of Connecticut. The actual grant was of - all the and from 
 • S«l« Of Connecticut tothe west side of Delaware Bay." The charter of C " e c ,u 
 brfbeen granted by Sesame King Charles two years previous (l6 6 a .) and the colony -I 
 well known » England to reach within about twenty m iles of the Hudson. If the words 
 of Z c r l t 0fC0nneCtiM ' t " we - ""-ded to apply to the colony.., the language 
 
 wol . "L 77 t0 . ,mP ° rt ' ,hC diffiCUlty ° f *"** the P r °P er «»t Of i te terr^orV 
 
 be removed, and all claim of New York under it to reach eastward toConnecticut river 
 lude Vermont within its limits, would be at once extinguished 
 
(i6) 
 
 NOTE 4, PAGE 13. 
 
 The quantity of Vermont lands granted by the several governors of New York, from the 
 spring of 1765 to the commencement of the Revolution, for which patent fees werj receivable, 
 exceeded 2,100,000 acres, more than 1.900,000 acres of which were granted in direct viola- 
 tion of the King's Order in Council, of July, 1767, prohibiting any such grants. 
 
 The quantity of lands thus granted by the several governors during the above period, as 
 appears by the colonial records at Albany, with the amount of fees allowable to each, was as 
 follows : 
 
 Lt. Gov. Colden, 965,500 acres, his fees being $30,171, 81 
 Governor Moore, 144,620 " " " " 4,519.37 
 
 Gov. Dunmore, 455,950 " " " " 14,248,44 
 
 Governor Tryon, 549,540 " " •' " 17,173,12 
 
 2,115,610 ?66, 112,74 
 
 For these same grants the fees to the Attorney General, the Surveyor General, thi 
 tary of the Province, the Clerk of the Council, the colony Auditor and the Receiver General, 
 amounted to $124,820,99 more, making the enormous levy on Vermont lands for patent fees of 
 §190,933,73. For a list of these grants see Collections of the Vermont Historical Society, Vol . 
 I, page 147—158. 
 
 NOTE 5, PAGE 15. 
 
 No lives were lost in the actual contest between the settlers and the New York govern- 
 ment, or with its land claimants as such. In 1784, after the Vermont government had been in 
 successful operation for six years, in consequence of opposition to its authority, in the town of 
 Guilford a small body of State Militia was sent, and for a time, stationed there. In a skirmish 
 in January of that year one Silvanus Fisk of the Militia received a bullet wound of which 
 he died a few months afterwards. In March following, Daniel Spicer in coming from Mas- 
 sachusetts into Guilford in the night, was hailed by a Militia sentinel, and not giving such 
 answer as was desired, was fired upon and mortally wounded. If these deaths occuring under 
 such circumstances, so long after the actual separation of the State from New York are to be 
 considered as belonging to the original controversy, then there was a sacrifice in it, of two hu- 
 man lives — otherwise none. The Westminster massacre of March 1775 was in a contest be - 
 tween Whigs and Tories as such, for which the controversy with New York was not responsi- 
 ble. See on this point the report of the Cumberland County Whig Committee in Slade's 
 State Papers page 55, Colden to Ld. Dartmouth of April 5, 1775, and Hall's Eastern Vt. 239. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 042 987 9