Excerpts from The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792

Robert A. Rutland, ed., 3 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1970).

1773 Documents

1773, Mar 20	George Mason's Last Will and Testament, pp. 147-161.

p. 154: "I also give and devise unto my said son John Mason . . . my Island in Potomack river, opposite the mo[u]th of rock Creek, which I hold under a patent from the lord proprietor of Maryland. . . ."

[This mention shows that GM knew that islands in the Potomac River belonged to Maryland, suggesting he knew personally that Maryland's border extended to the Virginia shore. The island, then called Barbadoes, later Mason Is., and now Roosevelt Is., lies below the fall line in the navigable part of the Potomac.]

1773, ca. July	Extracts [taken by Mason] from Virginia's Charters, pp. 163-185.

pp. 163-164: [1606 April 10] "Charter, or Letters Patent first granted by King James the First to the two Companys, commonly called the London Company & the Plymouth Company, for two several Colonies to be made in Virginia, & other Parts and Territories of America, along the Sea Coasts, between 34 Degrees & 45 Degrees of North Latitude."

"Sect: IV. Vizt. To . . . the first or London Company, to begin to settle & plant the first Colony any where upon the said Coast of Virginia or America between 34 Degrees and 41 Degrees of North Latitude; and granting them all the Country &c from the said first seat of their settlement or plantation for the space of fifty English Miles all along the said Coast, towards the West & South West, as the Coast lieth; and for the like space of fifty miles all along the said Coast, towards the East & North East or towards the North, as the coast lieth; with all the Islands within one hundred Miles directly over against said sea Coast; and also all the Country from the said fifty Miles every way on the Sea Coast, directly into the Main Land, for the space of one hundred English Miles, and that none other of his Majesty's subjects shall plant or inhabit behind, or on the back side of them, towards the main Land, without the express Licence or Consent of the Council of that Colony thereunto in writing first had & obtained."

[Clearly there was no mention of the Potomac in the bounds of this first charter.]

pp. 165-166: [Anno 1609] "a second and more extensive Charter was granted them by King James the first . . . granting them all those Lands, Countries and Territories situate, lying and being in that part of America called Virginia, from the Point of Land called Cape or point Comfort, all along the Sea Coast, to the Northward, two hundred Miles; and from the said point of Cape Comfort, all along the Sea Coast, to the Southward, two hundred Miles, and all that space or Circuit of Land, lying from the Sea Coast of the precinct aforesaid, up into the land, throughout from Sea to Sea, West & North West; and also all the Islands lying within one hundred Miles, along the Coast of both Seas of the precinct aforesaid; with all the Soils, Grounds &c. for ever; . . ."

[Still no mention of the Potomac, although its entire course was encompassed by this grant.]

pp. 169-170: [Anno. 1612] "A third Charter was granted by King James the First to the same Virginia Company, reciting & confirming their former Charter, and setting forth that the said Company had petitioned for . . . a more ample extent of their Limits & Territories into the Seas adjoining to, & upon the Coast of Virginia, . . . granting . . . all & singular those Islands whatsoever situate, lying & being in any part of the Ocean or Seas bordering upon the Coast of the said first Colony of Virginia, & being within three hundred Leagues of any of the parts heretofore granted . . . being within or between the one & fortieth & thirtieth Degrees of a Northern Latitude; together with all & singular the Soils, Lands, Grounds, Havens, Ports, Rivers, Waters, Fishings, Mines & Minerals &c. and all & singular other Commodities, Jurisdictions, Royalties, Privileges, Franchises and Preheminences, both within said Tract of Land upon the Main, and also within the said Islands & Seas adjoining. . . ."

p. 170, Mason's note: "This Clause, Sect. IV. of this Charter, respecting the ports, rivers, waters, & Fishings, and a Clause of the same nature in Sect. VI. of the Second Charter (not particularly recited in these Extracts) being of a publick Nature in which the People & Inhabitants were interested as well as the Company, it is presumed could not be destroyed or avoided by the Dissolution of the Virginia Company, & may avail us if the Proprietor of Maryland should ever disturb the peace or possessions of any of the People of this Colony, by an attempt to exercise the Rights he pretends to claim on the South side of the Potomack river, of which he hath never been in possession: for upon an attentive examination of the Virginia Charters, perhaps it may appear that the said Proprietor hath little Title, except Length of Possession, to many of the Powers he holds. How far these Charters can be urged against the Claim he is now setting up to that Tract of Country, between the great North and South Branches of Potomack river, the Inhabitants of

which have long been settled there as a part of this Colony, under the Faith of its Laws, & are represented in our Legislature; & who if the said proprietor's claim was to be established (besides the risque of their present Titles to the Lands) would be forced from under the immediate protection of the Crown & subjected to a proprietary Government; whereby their Lives and Fortunes might be at the Mercy, not of their Sovereign, but of a fellow subject, may soon become a Question of Importance."

p. 171, Mason's note: "The principal Design of this third Charter . . . seems to be to grant to the said Company the islands of Bermudas, otherwise called the Somer islands. . . ."

p. 176, Mason's note: "The Bounds of the Colony (as well as the Form of Government) remained unaltered until King Charles the First in the Year 1632, by Charter to Cecilius Calvert Lord Baron of Baltimore, established the Proprietary & Province of Maryland. That Country then being uninhabited, the Importance of it little known or attended to, and the scene of Confusion introduced by the Civil War in England prevented the people of Virginia making any Opposition. In the succeeding Reign (with equal inattention in the Virginians) the Provinces of Pensylvania and Carolina were erected; the Southern part of the first & the Northern part of the latter, being within the ancient Limits of Virginia. . . . And by these Means have the ancient & original Boundaries been contracted; and the Colony and Dominion of Virginia reduced to its present Limits."

pp. 176-177: Mason's note: "In the Year 1669 a Grant was made by King Charles the second to Henry Earl of Saint Albans, John Lord Berkley, Sir William Moreton and John Tretheway Esqr. of all that Tract of Land or Territory lying between Rappahannock & Potomack Rivers, commonly called the Northern Neck (now in the possession of the right honble. the Lord Fairfax) and altho' there was a proviso that the same should not infringe or prejudice any Contract or Grant whatsoever before made or granted by the Governor & Council or Virginia; . . . it aroused the Attention of the General Assembly; who . . . in 1674 passed an Act of Address & Supplication, asserting the Rights & Privileges granted to this Colony by his Majesty's Ancestors, representing the Dangers & ill Consequences of such Grants to Lords & others, & praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to revoke the said Grant, . . . of being removed from his Majesty's immediate protection, to confirm their Liberties, Privileges, Immunities, Rights & Properties, as aforesaid, by his Majesty's Royal Charter."

pp. 179-180: Mason's note: ""The Country of Virginia is only mentioned at large [in the charter of 16 October 1676] & in general Terms in this Charter, & is not described or ascertained by any particular Limits or Boundaries. It can't be confined to the Country then settled, which would be totally inconsistent with the Design of giving Encouragement "to Plantations there" and would exclude more than nine tenths of the present Inhabitants. It can't mean the Country at that time purchased from or ceded by the Indians; for this would also exclude the greatest part of the present Inhabitants. Nor can posterior purchases of Lands from the Indians be used as arguments against the Extent of this Charter, without impeaching the Crown's Right to those Lands at the time of making the Charter. . . . If such purchases could operate against the extent of the Virginia Charter, they would have operated against the Grant of the Northern Neck; far the greater part of which was possessed by the Indians, when the said grant was made, & not purchased from them for many years after. So late as Queen Anne's Reign the Blue ridge of mountains separated the possessions of the British subjects here from those of the Indians: Yet in the last reign the King and Council gave Lord Fairfax a Judgement for the Lands to the Fountain Head of Potomack River, near fourscore miles beyond the Blue Ridge. As our Settlements were extended & the wild Game destroyed, the Indians have been forced to remove further for the Convenience of Hunting. As they retired, purchase after purchase hath been made of them, and temporary lines or Boundaries from time to time accordingly settled between them & the English Inhabitants here. . . . Many of these purchases have been made since the Charter of Charles the second. If the said Charter was not affected by the former purchases from the Indians, neither is it by the last; nor can it be any purchase made hereafter. For (not to mention the liberal & beneficial Manner of Construction which we have a right to) the plain, natural, & obvious meaning of the Charter is, to grant & confirm certain Rights, privileges & Immunities to all his Majesty's Subjects, who then did or ever should inhabit that Tract of Country in America, usually called Virginia, according to the Description and Boundaries of the original Charters, not before otherwise appropriated or disposed of by his Majesty's Ancestors. In this situation hath it remained from the time of this last Charter; and in this Manner hath Virginia been constantly laid down ever since, in all the English maps, as well [as] those published by publick Authority as others, to wit, Bounded on the North by Maryland & Pennsilvania; on the East by the Atlantic Ocean; on the South by Carolina; and on the West by the great South Sea, or by the Western Limits of the British Dominions, which were never clearly ascertained until the last Treaty of Peace, in the Year 1763; fixed then by a Line drawn along the Middle of the River Mississippi. Several Acts of the British Crown & Government, as well as many Laws of this Colony (which received the Royal Assent are also Acts of the British Crown & Government) have from time to time corresponded with and confirm'd these Bounds of Virginia. It will be sufficient to mention a few Instances, as there are none which contradict them." [There followed some acts, some of which were for encouraging settlement on the Mississippi.]

p. 181, Mason's note: "These Quotations & Examples are sufficient to shew in what sense the Charter of King Charles the second, respecting the Bounds of this Colony, hath been always understood; and to demonstrate that the Country to the Westward of the Alleghany Mountains, on both sides the Ohio River, is part of Virginia. And consequently that no new Government or proprietary can legally be established there."

p. 182-183, Ed. Note: "This treatise covered two subjects of vital concern to GM–headrights and the territorial limits of Virginia. It was probably written for the perusal of certain members of the General Assembly in the hope that a Petition would be sent to the Crown based on GM's chief arguments. The timing of the document was determined partly by circumstances and also by a personal decision. In Apr. 1773 the Privy Council curtailed a colonial governor's power to grant lands. Despite this, and shortly after Ann Mason's death, GM began accumulating headright certificates. . . . To buttress the legality of these claims, it seemed necessary to prove the validity of such headrights and of Virginia's jurisdiction over lands in the Ohio watershed. Certainly the lands GM hoped to gain through these warrants would have to be patented in the western counties, not in the Northern Neck (Harrison, 120n). Renewed interest in western land speculation was evident. . . . While the Ohio Company's plans faltered, GM may have reasoned that headrights would give him some personal advantage in acquiring western tracts. . . . Much of GM's treatise is borrowed from William Stith's History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia, which was first printed in Williamsburg in 1747. . . . GM relied most heavily on Stith's appendices for the several Virginia Charters (1606, 1609, 1612, and 1621). . . ."

p. 183, Ed. Note: GM's footnote four concerned boundary problems between Maryland and Virginia that surveys of 1736 and 1746 presumably had settled. But in 1753, the sixth and last Lord Baltimore claimed that the Maryland border encompassed all territory between the north and south branches of the Potomac. In 1771 Maryland surveyors marked a line northward from the source of the south branch, but this proved to be an empty gesture, for the Fairfax Stone planted on the north branch in 1746 became the basis for the final boundary (Charles O. Paullin, Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United States, ed. John K. Wright [Washington and New York, 1932], 77-78, and plate 98).
1775 Documents

1775, Feb 14?:	George Washington to George Mason [not found], pp. 219-220.

Ed. note: Thomas Johnson of Maryland had been working on a bill to improve navigation on the Potomac, and Washington appears to have discussed and perhaps encouraged GM to draft similar legislation for Virginia.

1775, Feb 17	George Mason to George Washington, pp. 220-221.

"I had gone a good Way thro' the Bill for improving the Navigation of Potomack, before I went to Maryland, & am happy in finding that I had fallen into many of Mr. Johnson's Sentiments, tho' I was a Stranger to them, 'til I recd. yr. Letter upon my Return last Night. I wish it was within my Power to spend a Day wth. him on the Subject. Some of his Remarks are not so intelligible to me as they wou'd be, if I had all the Queries which he seems to answer. When he mentions some kind of Jealosy least the Virginians shou'd have some Advantage, & that there shou'd be some Equality between the Maryland & Virga. Subscriptions, I can have no Idea of. What Matter is it whether the Majority of the Subscribers are Marylanders or Virginians if their Property is put upon an equal Footing & the Work is of general advantage to both Provinces? Nor can I think his Notion of proportioning the Tolls to the average Profits can well be reduced to Practice. A sufficient Sum can't be raised by those only who are locally interested; men who are not, will not advance their Money, upon so great a Risque but wth. Veiws of great & increasing Profit, not to depend upon future Alterations: the Tolls, to be sure, must be moderate, such as the Commodities will bear, with advantage to the Makers; it is probable for some Years they will yield very little Profit to the Undertakers, perhaps none; they must run the Risque of this, as well as of the ultimate Failure of the Undertaking, & surely if they succeed they have a just Right to the increased Profits; tho' in the process of Time they may become very great. If I am not misinform'd, this is the Principle upon which everything of this Nature has been successfully executed in other Countrys."
Ed. note: The Bill for improving the Navigation of Potomack was a project to cut a canal from the tidewater to Fort Cumberland. A plan already approved by the Virginia General Assembly (Hening, VIII, 570-579) had been written by GM's brother, Thomas Mason, in 1772 which would have created a private corporation to build and maintain the canal. Washington had served on the House of Burgesses committee with Thomas Mason and took an active interest in promoting the canal scheme. Speculators in western lands--which included Washington, Johnson, and GM--expected a rise inland values if a cheaper mode of transportation could be devised. Johnson had written Washington on 21 Feb. 1774 (Washington Papers, DLC) that he helped push a £3,000 appropriation for western road-building through the Maryland General Assembly and "made a shew of pushing for a further Sum for improving the River with a View to secure more certainly the £3,000 for the Road." Meanwhile John Ballendine publicly announced a scheme to build a canal and announced (Va. Gaz. [Purdie & Dixon], 3 Nov. 1774) the appointment of 21 Virginians and 22 Marylanders as trustees of the plan. The Virginians included GM, Thomson Mason, and Washington, while Johnson was listed as a Maryland trustee. A meeting of the trustees, scheduled at Georgetown on 12 Nov. 1774, drew scant attention and was rescheduled for 26 Jan. 1775 with no more success (Fitzpatrick, ed., Diaries of Washington, II, 170, 183). Ballendine continued to promote his scheme and announced in the Annapolis Md. Gaz., 16 Feb. 1775, that he was hiring 50 slaves to start work on a canal. On 24 Jan. 1775 Johnson had written Washington saying "you may depend on my best Endeavors to get a Bill passed here similar to yours . . . I Really believe if I had not a foot of Land above the falls I should be as warm a friend to the scheme . . ." (Hamilton, ed., Letters to Washington, V, 85). GM apparently had access to a later letter of Johnson's addressed to Washington, which is now lost. Thomson Mason's earlier bill provided for a public lottery, an elaborate system of tolls, and a deadline (1 Nov. 1773) which was not met, and the plan was thus stillborn. GM continued to work on a draft and reported his labors finished on 9 March 1775. GM's bill may have been the one passed by the Virginia General Assembly in June 1775 (JHB, 1772-1776, 274) which never became operative as the military crisis mounted. However, GM's participationin maters involving the Potomac continued to 1785.

1775, Feb 18	George Mason to George Washington, pp. 223-224.

"It has not been in my Power to do any thing, since I came from Maryland, towards the Potomack River Bill; but I will apply to it as soon as I can, & when finish'd forward it to you."

1775, Mar [8]	George Mason to George Washington, p. 224 .

"I have at last finished the Potomack River Bill; which I now send you, together with some very long Remarks thereon, & a Letter to Mr. Johnson; into which you'll be pleased to put a Wafer, when you forward the other Papers to him. I also return the Acts of Assembly, & Mr. Johnson's Notes, which you sent me. This Affair has taken me five times as long as I expected; and I do assure you I never ingaged in any thing which puzled me more; there were such a Number of Contingencys to provide for, & drawing up Laws a thing so out of my Way I shall be well pleased if the Pains I have bestowed upon the Subject prove of any Service to so great an Undertaking; but by what I can understand, there will be so strong an Opposition from Baltemore, & the Head of the Bay, as will go near to prevent it's passage thro' the Maryland Assembly, in any Shape it can be offered."

Ed. note: The Potomack River Bill, which had been on GM's mind for some weeks, was meant as a joint effort that would have evoked similar aid from Maryland in the construction of canals enabling ocean-going vessels to ascend the Potomac as far as Fort Cumberland. The idea appealed to western land speculators and GM, Thomson Mason, Washington, Thomas Johnson and others with trans-Allegheny interests had been enlisted by John Ballendine in a scheme that appeared to be on the verge of activity (see GM to Washington, 17 Feb. 1775, and notes). The bill may have been the basis for a measure introduced in the House of Burgesses by James Mercer, who certainly owed GM and Washington a favor, on 5 June 1775 (JHB, 1772-1776, 191). Neither the bill enclosed here not that Mercer introduced has been found. The latter bill, calling for a company capitalized at £40,000 to extend "Navigation of the River Potomack," passed the Virginia General Assembly but never became operative because the war intervened. Similarly, Ballendine's venture faltered and was abandoned, but the idea implanted was revived after the war. Johnson's notes and GM's letter to Johnson are lost. The Marylander's involvement is related in Edward S. Delaplaine, The Life of Thomas Johnson . . . (New York, 1927), 59-84. The Maryland General Assembly eventually acted on the proposal in 1784, and GM became a Virginia commissioner in the interstate negotiations of 1785. [But those negotiations did not deal with the inland navigation of the Potomac.]

1775, Mar 9	George Mason to George Washington, pp. 226-227.

"I beg you to inform Mr. Johnson that the Bill I have drawn is intended only as a Ground-work, & that I desire every part of it may be submitted to his Correction."

1776 Documents

[1776, May 31]	Resolution Denying Governor Eden a Safe-Conduct Pass, pp. 293-295.

p. 293: "Resolved, . . . that the said Proceedings . . . have been obtained thro the undue Influence of the proprietary Interest and present Government in the said province of Maryland; that they tend to dissolve the Union upon which alone the Salvation of American Liberty depends; . . ."

[Letters from the British secretary of state, Lord George Germain, to Maryland's royal governor, Robert Eden, were intercepted in the Chesapeake Bay and turned over to Virginia's Major General Charles Lee, commander of the Southern Department of the Continental army. Lee ordered Baltimore's Committee of Observation to arrest Eden, who was later freed by Maryland's Council of Safety. Maryland then recommended to Eden that he leave the country and applied for his safe conduct through Virginia. GM wrote this angry resolution denying safe passage. Although a softer resolution was finally adopted, the result was a distinct chill between the Virginia and Maryland conventions on the eve of the writing of Virginia's constitution of 1776.]

[1776, June 8-29]	Mason's Plan for the Virginia Constitution of 1776, pp. 295-31.

p. 298, Ed. Note: A significant addition [to the constitution] came with the inclusion of an article (portions of it taken from Jefferson's draft) which was meant to squelch the claims of land speculators by reaffirming Virginia's boundaries under the 1609 charter. From Mason's viewpoint, Jefferson's proposition was well timed, for it gave support to the Ohio Company [of which GM was a member] claims and could have been assigned to selfish motives had the thought come from him.

[The reaffirmation of Virginia's earliest boundaries, including, presumably, the Potomac to its north shore, did not originate with GM.]

[29 June 1776]	Final Draft of the Virginia Constitution of 1776, 304-310

pp. 308-309: "The territories contained within the Charters erecting the Colonies of Maryland, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina, are hereby ceded, released, and forever confirmed to the people of those colonies respectively, with all rights of property, jurisdiction, and government, and all other rights whatsoever which might at any time heretofore have been claimed by Virginia, except the free navigation and use of the rivers Potowmack and Pohomoke, with the property of the Virginia shores or strands bordering on either of the said rivers, and all improvements which have or shall be made thereon. The western and northern extent of Virginia shall in all other respects stand as fixed by the charter of king James the first, in the year one thousand six hundred and nine, and by the publick treaty of peace between the courts of Great Britain and France in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty three. . . ."

[Apparently Virginia was willing then to cede any claims to border lands also claimed by other states, in exchange for having an unimpeded title to western lands, for expansion.]

[17 Dec. 1776]	Resolutions on the Virginia-Pennsylvania Boundary Settlement, pp. 319-322.

p. 320: "Resolved, that as the Bounderies expressed in the Pensilvania Charter may admit of great Doubt, & a Variety of Opinion may arise on the Construction, and it is expedient & wise to remove, as much as possible, all Cause of future Controversy (the great Principle upon which the Virginia Convention acted in making the aforesaid Cession & Release) . . . & to take from our common Enemies an Opportunity of fomenting mutual Distrust & Jealousy, this Common-Wealth ought to offer such reasonable terms of Accommodation (even if the Loss of some Territory is incurred thereby) as may be cordially accepted by our Sister-State, & an End put to all future Dispute, by a firm & permanent Agreement & Settlement."

pp.321-322, Ed. note: Clashes between rival factions of settlers in western Pennsylvania early in 1775 stemmed from the vagueness of the Virginia-Pennsylvania boundaries. . . . Because of extensive land speculations by groups in Pennsylvania and Virginia, the contest defied an easy or speedy solution; and indeed GM's long connection with the Ohio Company gave him a vested interest in preserving the area south of the Ohio River under Virginia jurisdiction.

1778 Documents
[14 Jan. 1778]	A Bill for Settling Land Titles, pp. 414-422.

p. 415: ". . . and where two or more persons shall claim the same Land under different Surveys, the person claiming under that Survey which was first actually made shall have the Preference."

[This point isn't much on topic, except to show that Virginia recognized the rights of prior claimants to land.]

[12 Dec. 1778]	Resolutions Calling for a Conference to Determine the Pennsylvania-
Virginia Boundary Line, pp. 457-458.

"Resolved, That the southern boundary offered by the Pennsylvania Assembly, is inadmissible; and that no part of the offer heretofore made by the Assembly of this Commonwealth, is, or ought to be, binding upon Virginia, unless the whole had been, or shall be, accepted by the Assembly of Pennsylvania."

Ed. note: Wrangling over the southern Pennsylvania-Virginia boundary and its westward extension had been a discordant note since the early days of the Revolution. A temporary boundary line had been proposed by the Virginia Convention of 1776, but the problem grew more complex as settlers pushed into the southwest corner of Pennsylvania. . . . GM served on the committee studying the question in 1776 and his proposal was adopted by the Convention on 17 Dec. (q.v.). . . . A final survey of the boundary was delayed until 1784-1785.

1779 Documents
12 April 1779	George Mason to Richard Henry Lee, pp. 497-500.

pp. 498-499: I see the Maryland Declaration, upon the Subject of Confederation, & their modest Claim to part of the back Lands, after skulking in the Dark for several Months, has at last made it's Appearance. It has confirm'd me in an Opinion I have long had, that the secret & true Cause of the great Opposition to Virginia's Title to her chartered Territory was the great Indian Purchase between the Obache & the Illionoise Rivers, made in the Year 1773 or 1774, in which Governor Johnston, & several of the leading Men in Maryland, are concerned with Ld. Dunmore, Governor Tryon, & many other Noblemen & Gentlemen of Great Britain. Do you observe the care Governor Johnston (for I dare say the Declaration in his Manufacture) has taken to save this Indian Purchase[?] In the explanatory articles which the Maryland Assembly require, before they will accede to the Confederation, after reserving the back Lands as a common Stock to the United States, is the following Exception "not granted to, surveyed for, or purchased by Individuals at the Commencement of the present War."

"Was Congress to declare that every Purchase of Lands heretofore made, or hereafter to be made of any Indian Nation, except by public Authority, and upon public Account shou'd be void, it wou'd, in my Opinion, be more effectual, upon this Subject, than all the Argument in the World. Had the British Ministry employed a Mansfield, or a Wedderburne to have managed the M[atte]r they cou'd not more effectually have pleased the Cause of Great Britain than this Declaration has. In the Year 1744 when the Canada Bill was passed by the British Parliament, the Bounds of that Province were extended so as to include the whole Country between the Ohio & the Mississippi Rivers; this being before the Rupture between Great Britain & her Colonies, the Parliament's Authority to pass such a Bill can not be impeached, upon any other G[ro]und than the Right of some of the old Colonies to that Country, by their Charters; aware of this, & to preserve giving too great an Alarm, a Cause of Exception was inserted, saving to any of the Colonies the Territory within their respective Charters; but the Declaration, denying the Right of any of the States by their Charters, if it proves any thing, proves that all the Country is part of the British Province of Canada; and unless the United States conquer Canada by Force of Arms, what Claim have we upon it? Or what Arguments cou'd be urge, in a Negotiation with Great Britain, for curtailing the Bounds of Canada, as setled by the Canada Bill; but that the Country they included was part of the Chartered Territory of the other Colonies at the time the said Bill passed; and the Consequences of suffering the Bounds of Canada to remain, in that extended Manner, surrounding great Part of the United States, are too obvious to mention."

p. 500, Ed. note: The Maryland Declaration had been presented by her delegation to the Continental Congress on 6 Jan. 1779. It claimed that the western lands belonged to all the states as common property. GM spoke sarcastically of this modest Claim because the pique of certain Maryland land speculators was known to be a major stumbling block to the ratification in Annapolis of the Articles of Confederation. The Indian Purchase between the Obache [Wabash] and the Illinois Rivers was the grant of 1773 secured by the combine of Maryland and Pennsylvania land speculators who later included Lord Dunmore in a second grant north of the Ohio River, and in time the Wabash and Illinois claims were merged by interlocking members of both schemes. Governor Thomas Johnston (Johnson) of Maryland was indeed a participant in the venture, which had already drawn GM's public concern with his suspiciously worded resolution of 18 Dec. 1778, above, which called upon the Virginia Delegation in Congress to inquire into American citizens' involvement "with some of the King of Great Britain's late governors in America" in the Illinois or Wabash companies. After a courtesy hearing for the out-of-state claimants, the House of Delegates on 9 June 1779 followed GM's suggestion with a sweeping renunciation of the validity of every purchase of lands . . . made of any Indian Nation, but the battle with a powerful combination of speculators continued until the western public domain was created in 1784. Meanwhile, the Virginia delegation at Philadelphia was so anxious to place the Articles of Confederation in force that they suggested the pact be implemented without Maryland.

[I include this letter and the editor's note because it illustrates the distrust between Virginians and Marylanders over their respective designs on western lands which formed the background of Virginia's resolution of 1776 (in which she gave up her claims to lands described in other states' charters), as well as the Mount Vernon Conference of 1785.]

[The foregoing letter does not appear in James Curtis Ballagh, ed., The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, Vol. II, 1779-1794 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1914.]

4 June 1779	George Mason to Richard Henry Lee, pp. 506-509.

p. 508: "A Committee is appointed to answer the Maryland publications. . . ."

p. 509, Ed. note: The committee appointed to answer the Maryland publications was appointed 31 May after Speaker Benjamin Harrison exhibited "certain proceedings of the General Assembly" of Maryland which had been forwarded by the Virginia delegation at the Continental Congress. Jefferson was named chairman, with GM as one member of the drafting body. The matter concerned Maryland's failure to ratify the Articles of Confederation and the Virginians' proposal to declare the Articles ratified without their sister state's assent (Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, XIV, 617-618). GM apparently did not become involved in any effort to chide the Maryland legislature, but he did draft a resolution calling for a remonstrance to the Congress reasserting Virginia's claims to western lands and denouncing the Indiana Company for its attempts to "interfere with the Laws and internal Policy" of Virginia (15 June 1779, below).

[The foregoing letter does not appear in Ballagh, ed., The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, Vol. II.]

19 June 1779	George Mason to Richard Henry Lee, pp. 522-525.

p. 522: "The Indiana Company's Title, after two or three Days Debate, & every Effort, within & without Doors, to support it, is rejected; and an Act passed, in the most explicite Terms, firmly asserting the Commonwealth's exclusive Right of Pre-emption from the Indian's, within our own Territory, declaring that all Deeds or Cessions heretofore made to the Crown shall inure to the Use & benefit of the Commonwealth. . . ."

[Control over its own western lands seems to have been Virginia's aim when it released any claims to western lands described by the charters of other states in its Resolution of 1776. The giving up of jurisdiction over the Potomac River was the unintended, or at least unavoidable, consequence of that attempt to secure ownership of the western lands.]

[The foregoing letter does not appear in Ballagh, ed., The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, Vol. II.]

[10 Dec 1779]	Remonstrance of the General Assembly of Virginia to the Delegates of the United American States in Congress Assembled, pp. 595-598.

pp. 595-597: "Congress have lately described and ascertained the Boundaries of the United States as an ultimatum in their terms of peace. The United States holds no Territory but in the right of some one individual State in the Union. The Territory of each State from time immemorial, hath been fixed and determined by their Respective Charters: there being no other Rule or criterion to judge by, should these in any Instance (where there is no disputed Territory between particular States) be abridged without the consent of the States affected by it, general confusion must ensue; each State would be subjected in its turn to the incroachments of the others, and a field opened for future Wars & bloodshed; nor can any arguments be fairly urged to prove that any particular tract of Country, within the limits claimed by Congress on behalf of the United States, is not part of the chartered territory of some one of them, but must militate with equal force against the right of the United States in general; and tend to prove such tract of Country (if North West of the Ohio River) part of the British province of Canada."

"When Virginia ceded to the Articles of Confederation, her Rights of Sovereignty and jurisdiction within her own territory were reserved & secured to her, & cannot now be infringed or alterd without her Consent. . . ."

"But altho' the General Assembly of Virginia would make great Sacrifices to the common interest of America (as they have already done on the subject of Representation) and will be ready to listen to any just & reasonable propositions for removing the ostensible causes of delay to the complete Ratification of the Confederation; they find themselves impelled . . . to remonstrate and protest. . . ."

pp. 597-598, Ed. note: Essentially, the remonstrance was aimed at a small faction in the Congress, prodded by the Maryland delegation, which had connections with the Indiana-Vandalia speculators or with the Illinois-Wabash group, and which had explicitly denied the Virginia charter claims to territory between the Alleghenies and the Mississippi. In Jan. 1779 the Maryland delegation had presented to Congress a manifesto which said, in effect, that Maryland would not ratify the Articles of Confederation as long as Congress lacked full power and jurisdiction in the transmontane West (Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, XIII, 29-30). The Articles of Confederation, still inoperative because Maryland had not ratified them, recognized the Congress as a court of appeal only in land disputes involving states (Morison, Sources and Documents Illustrating the Revolution, 182-183); hence the declaration that the pretentions of a private company to a congressional decision might introduce a most dangerous precedent. . . . The ostensible causes of delay to the complete ratification was, of course, an innuendo aimed at the Maryland delegation in Congress and the Maryland General Assembly which hinted that Virginia sought "to cover the designs of a secret ambition" by holding on to her western land claims (letter of instruction to Maryland delegation, 15 Dec. 1778, Hening, X, 553-556). The rancor exhibited in Annapolis and Williamsburg had an explosive potential. . . . The remonstrance was approved by the Senate on 14 Dec. and read to Congress on 28 Apr. 1780.

1780 Documents

[4 July 1780]	A Resolution to Suspend the Sale of Public Lands, pp. 638-639.

"Resolved, That the treasurer be required to forbear receiving money for the purchase of any waste or unappropriated lands, except upon certificate of settlement or pre-exemption rights, until the further orders of the General Assembly therein."

Ed. note: [This resolution] appears to be a reversal of Virginia's attitude and an attempt to bring it into harmony with the congressional resolution of 30 Oct. 1779 (Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, XV, 1226-1230). . . . Privately, some influential Virginians had acknowledged that retention of the state's western territory was not desirable (R. H. Lee to Henry, 15 Nov. 1778, Lee Papers, ViHi; Joseph Jones to Jefferson, 30 June 1780, Boyd, III, 473). Thus the 4 July resolution is not a repudiation of the remonstrance [of 10 Dec. 1779], but an expression of willingness by the Virginia General Assembly to cooperate with Congress. Congress had made its own friendly gesture on 23 May 1780 with a resolution acknowledging that the states had complete jurisdiction over their own territory, an expression that did not make much sense unless the delicate western land dilemma was considered (Hunt, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, XVII, 452). And by July 1780 Congress took under consideration a report (from a special committee studying the western lands problem) which called on the states with transmontane claims to pass laws that would "effectually remove the only obstacle to a final ratification of the articles [of Confederation]" ibid., XVII, 580, 586, 807). These conciliatory moves seemed to have had an impact in Richmond. Besides pressure to meet Congress half way on the matter, Virginia was also involved with North Carolina in a boundary settlement complicated by uncertain land titles along their common border (JHD, 1827 ed., 4 July 1780). Added to these considerations [was] . . . an awareness that eventual cession of western lands would reduce friction with both impatient settlers and jealous sister states.

27 July 1780	George Mason to Joseph Jones, pp. 655-663.

p. 655: "The agreement of the commissioners from the two states, for settling the dispute of territory between Virginia and Pennsylvania, by fixing the line commonly called Mason and Dixon's line as the southern boundary of Pennsylvania [etc.] has been at last ratified by our assembly. . . ."

"I think it the duty of a staunch whig, and friend to his country, to do every thing in his power to remove any cause of ill will or disagreement with a sister state; and therefore (though I clearly saw from the proceedings that our commissioners had been overmatched by those of Pennsylvania) I labored the ratification of the agreement, as heartily as I did any subject in my life. There was so strong an opposition that we were able to carry it only by a small majority; for this reason, and from my attachment to the common cause of America, I sincerely wish the dispute may now be closed, and not remitted again to our assembly."

p. 656: "Nothing has been moved in our assembly respecting our western territory since the remonstrance to congress, nor do I think there will be shortly, unless there are some propositions from congress on the subject; but I am sure the most judicious men in our legislature, and the firm friends to American independence, are well disposed for the sake of cementing our union, and accelerating the completion of the confederation, to make great cessions to the United States, and wish for such reasonable propositions from congress as they can unite in supporting. You will observe a hint in the remonstrance to this purpose; it was intended to bring on offers from congress, and there can't be a fitter time than the present, upon our having settled our dispute with Pennsylvania."

[Mason goes on to delineate 7 conditions under which he thinks Virginia cede most of its western lands to the United States. Taken in its entirety, this letter forms an interesting discussion of the western lands issue from Virginia's point of view.]

1782 Documents

19 Oct. 1782	George Mason to Edmund Randolph, pp. 746-756.

[This long letter contains more discussion of Virginia's claim to western lands, none of which discussion has anything to do with Maryland. However, GM does mention briefly the Virginia Charter and his earlier appointment to settle the jurisdiction of the Potomac with Maryland:]

pp. 754-755: "I have not bye me Copys of the Virginia Charters in 1606 & 1609, or I shou'd have made some Remarks on them, endeavouring to shew that . . . the Charter of 1609 [was] confirming & enlarging, not destroying that of 1606; that tho' the Virginia Company was dissolved, and the Government resumed by the Crown, the Charter, so far as the Setlers & their Posterity are interested or affected, remains valid; and among other things, the Covenant in the Charter of 1606 that no new Colony shou'd be setled to the westward; which seems to have been one of the Causes of the great western Extension of the second Charter; whereby the repetition of the former Clause became unnecessary; . . . that the Charter granted to the Colony of Virginia in 1667, by King Charles the second, has Reference to the Country described in the former Charter of 1609; . . . that the Crown has always considered the Charter of 1667 in this Light, and acted accordingly, until the present Reign; when all Reverence to Law & Justice was thrown aside, and a Resolution formed to abolish the ancient Constitution of the Colonies, annihilate their Charters, and establish Despotism & Slavery in their Stead; that the Proclamation of 1763 [limiting jurisdiction to land east of the Appalachians] therefore was absolutely illegal & void. . . ."

"The Charters I presume may all be found in the House of Delegates Office: I had them all in my Possession (made up in one Bundle) when I was formerly appointed to settle some Matters of Jurisdiction in Chesapeake Bay and Potomack River with the State of Maryland; but our Assembly not thinking it prudent to enter into any Engagement with that State, while it refused confederating, I returned the Charters into the House of Delegates, at the Clerk's Table."

[It should be useful to examine any records of that earlier deliberation of the Virginia Assembly.]

1785 Documents

28 Mar 1785	The Mount Vernon Compact, pp. 812-822.

pp. 812-813, Ed. Note: The Mount Vernon Conference of 1785 was the first in a series of cooperative endeavors which culminated in the Federal Convention of 1787. . . . As neighboring colonies, Maryland and Virginia had separate governments . . . with . . . a mutual interest in their shared lifeline, the Potomac. Once the royal mantle was removed from the Chesapeake, old rivalries and disagreements over navigation, coastal defense, fishing and riparian rights, customs duties, lighthouses, and safety regulations became matters of continuous concern between the two states. . . . The maze of interstate regulations had a restrictive tendency despite the provisions of the fourth Article of Confederation which guaranteed Americans "free ingress and regress to and from any state." Cooperation between the two neighbors was not enhanced by the reluctance of Maryland leaders to ratify those Articles, an unfriendly act which was partly laid to speculation by Marylanders jealous of Virginia's extensive western land claims. [Perhaps we should examine the later cooperative endeavors with an eye to finding common patterns. And a look at the court cases that resulted from the reanimation of those old rivalries and disagreements could lead us to understand the intent behind the seventh article of the compact.]

Notwithstanding all these problems, the two states recognized their need for agreement on the jurisdictional limits in their shared waterway. In 1778, Virginia had appointed commissioners to work toward that end, but the exigencies of war shoved the plan aside. [What are the records of this earlier appointment?] Peace in 1783 brought a return to normal oceangoing commerce, and the increased trade made an interstate agreement vital, if the Potomac was to be a flourishing avenue for shipping and a food source for fishermen, without cumbersome prohibitions.

In June 1784 the Virginia General Assembly declared that "great inconveniences are found to result from the want of some concerted regulations between this State and the State of Maryland, touching the jurisdiction and navigation of the river Potomac." The legislators proceeded to appoint four commissioners, empowering "any three of them" to meet with a Maryland commission to "frame such liberal and equitable regulations concerning the said river, as may be mutually advantageous to the two states . . ." (JHD, 1828 ed., 28 June 1784 entry).Implicit in the resolution was the governor's responsibility for notifying Mason, Edmund Randolph, Alexander Henderson, and James Madison of their appointment as commissioners. After the resolution was dispatched to Maryland, however, it was placed in a clerical pigeonhole and forgotten. Months passed without any action by the Virginia appointees, such as Mason, who were completely unaware of their commission. Then, rather suddenly, the commissioners converged upon Alexandria, reconvened at Mount Vernon, and in the space of a few days reached an agreement that was to have impact upon the whole structure of the fledgling confederation.

pp. 816-817: THE COMPACT BETWEEN MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION AND NAVIGATION OF THE POTOMAC AND POKOMOKE RIVERS

"At a meeting of the Commissioners appointed by the General Assemblies of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Maryland, for forming a compact between the two States to regulate and settle the Jurisdiction and navigation of the Potomack and Pokomoke Rivers and that part of the Chesapeake Bay which lieth within the Territory of Virginia to wit George Mason and Alexander Henderson Esquires on the part of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer, Thomas Stone and Samuel Chase Esquires on the part of the State of Maryland, at Mount Vernon in Virginia on the twenty eighth day of March in the Year one thousand seven hundred and eighty five, the following compact was mutually agreed to by the said commissioners."

p. 817: <Article the> "First.

The Commonwealth of Virginia disclaims all Rights to impose any Toll Duty or Charge, prohibition or Restraint on any Vessel whatever sailing through the Capes of Chesapeake Bay to the State of Maryland, or from the said State through the said Capes outward bound, and agrees that the Waters of Chesapeake Bay and the River Pokomoke within the limits of Virginia be forever considered as a common High Way free for the Use and Navigation of any Vessel belonging to the said State of Maryland or any of its Citizens, or carrying on Commerce to or from the said State or with any of its Citizens and that any such Vessel inward or outward bound may freely enter any of the Rivers within the Commonwealth of Virginia as a Harbour, or for safety against an Enemy without the payment of any Port Duty or any other Charge and also that the beforementioned Ports of Chesapeake Bay and Pokomoke River be free for the Navigation of Vessels from one part of the State of Maryland to another."

[Note that the Potomac River is not mentioned in this article, because this one deals with Virginia waters. The commissioners from both states understood that the Potomac was wholly owned by Maryland. Third, the lower reaches of the Chesapeake Bay lay within Virginia's borders, so it was critical for Maryland to obtain free navigation of them. Mason later admits this point was the "sine qua non" for the Maryland commissioners. Third, that part of the Pokomoke River lying in Virginia is wholly below tidewater. By the time the Pokomoke ceases to be navigable, it lies within Maryland. Fourth, the definitions of the words "vessel," "sailing," "navigation," "harbour," and "port" all stamp this article as referring solely to the tidewater.]

p. 817: "Second

The State of Maryland agrees that any Vessel belonging to the Commonwealth of Virginia or any of its Citizens, or carrying on Commerce to or from the said Commonwealth or with any of its Citizens may freely enter any of the Rivers of the State of Maryland as a Harbour or for safety against an Enemy without the payment of Port Dutys or any other Charge."

[This article is the counterpart of the first, and delineates what Maryland gives up as a balance to Virginia's earlier cessions. Free entry to the Potomac, one of Maryland's rivers, was encompassed by this article.]

pp.817-818: "Third

Vessels of War the property of either State shall not be subject to the payment of any Port-Duty or other charge."

[This is a mutual article, granting equal rights to both states. Again, the words "vessels" and "port" denote that this article refers to the tidewater.]

p. 818: "Fourth

Vessels not exceeding forty feet Keel nor fifty Tons burthen the property of any Citizen of Virginia or Maryland, or of Citizens of both States trading from one State to the other only, and having on board only the produce of the said States, may enter and trade in any port of either State with a Permit from the naval officer of the District from which such Vessel departs with her Cargo and shall be subject to no Port Charges."

[It would make no sense for a naval officer to be stationed at an inland town, above the navigable portion of any river, because no vessel could have reached him there. Nor would there have been any duty or charge for him to collect, because any such duty would already have been collected at a port on the navigable portion of the Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries in either state. The only duties or charges that could have been due would have been those resulting from overland transport, which were payable at the county courthouse, there being no possibility of a "port" inland. The description of the vessels' size was not intended to include tiny boats, but only those smaller sea-going vessels that could carry only a small quantity of goods.]

p. 818: "Fifth

All Merchant Vessels (except such as are described in the fourth Article) navigating the River Potomack shall enter and clear at some Naval office on the said River in one or both States according to the Laws of the State in which the Entry shall be made, and when any Vessel shall make an Entry in both States such Vessel shall be subject to Tonnage in each State only in proportion to the Commodities carried to or taken from such State."

[Larger sea-going vessels would have to enter at designated ports only, and pay such charges as required by the laws of the relevant state. This article would, again, be meaningless as applied to the upper Potomac, not only because it's nonsensical to speak of a Naval Officer inland, but also because a vessel could not "enter and clear" the falls that mark the limits of navigability.]

p. 818: "Sixth

The River Potomack shall be considered as a common High Way for the purpose of Navigation and Commerce to the Citizens of Virginia and Maryland and of the United States and to all other Persons in amity with the said States trading to or from Virginia or Maryland."

[Again, this clause cannot refer to inland navigation of the Potomac because of the reference to commerce from the other states in the Union, none of which could have reached the inland portions of the Potomac unless they crossed through the inland territory of Virginia or Maryland first. This clause, therefore, refers only to navigation and commerce entering the navigable portions of the river.]

p. 818: "Seventh

The Citizens of each State respectively shall have full property in the Shores of the Potomack River adjoining their Lands with all Emoluments [profits] and advantages thereunto belonging and the privilege of making and carrying out Wharfs and other Improvements so as not to obstruct or injure the Navigation of the River; But the Rights of fishing the River shall be common to and equally enjoyed by the Citizens of both States, provided that such common Rights be not exercised by the Citizens of the one State to the Hinderance or Disturbance of the Fisheries on the Shores of the other State, and that the Citizens of neither State shall have the Right to fish with Nets or Seines on the Shores of the other."

[This is the first article that seems to refer to inland portions of the river, as well as the navigable portions. But I would argue that the scope of the agreement has already been set by the first six articles, and is limited to the tidewater portions of the river. So, even though fish live in the upper parts of the river, too, this article governs only the tidewater reaches. Furthermore, although it is possible to build wharves on inland portions of the Potomac, because of the shallow and rocky conditions there, they could serve only small boats. This article specifically refers to wharves that might obstruct and injure navigation, meaning large-scale, sea-going navigation worthy of interstate regulation, not small-scale inland navigation (which would, in any case, be regulated by the Potomac Company, not the two states).]

pp. 818-819: "Eighth

All Laws and Regulations which may be necessary for the preservation of Fish or for the performance of Quarentine in the River Potomack, or for preserving and keeping open the Channel and Navigation thereof, or of the River Pokomoke within the limits of Virginia, by preventing the throwing out Ballast, or giving any other obstruction thereto, shall be made with the mutual Consent and Approbation of both States."

[The inclusion of the Pokomoke in this article, a river that is wholly navigable where it is within the bounds of Virginia, helps show that the article applies only to tidewater matters. And the concept of "ballast," of course, makes no sense when applied to small river boats, which do not require such stabilization.]

p. 819: "Ninth

Light Houses, Beacons, Bouys, or other necessary Signals shall be erected fixed and maintained, upon Chesapeake Bay, between the Sea and the mouths of the Rivers Potomack and Pokomoke and upon the River Potomack, at the Expense of both States–if upon Potomack River at the joint and equal Charge of both States and if upon the beforementioned part of Chesapeake Bay, Virginia shall defray five parts, and Maryland three Parts of such Expence, and if this proportion shall in future times be found unequal, the same shall be corrected. And for ascertaining the proper places, mode and Plans for erecting and fixing Light Houses, Bouys, Beacons and other signals as aforesaid, both States shall upon the application of either to the other appoint an equal number of Commissioners, not less than three or more than five from each State to meet at such times and places as the said Commissioners or a major part of them shall judge fit, to fix upon the proper places, mode and Plans for erecting and fixing such Light Houses, Beacons, or other Signals and report the same with an Estimate of the Expence thereof to the Legislatures of both States for their approbation."

[Lighhouses and bouys are devices to ensure the safety of open navigation, and make no sense for inland navigation.]

pp. 819-820: "Tenth

All Piracies, Crimes or Offenses commited on that part of Chesapeake Bay which lies within the limits of Virginia or that part of the said Bay where the Line of Division from the South Point of Potomack River (now called Smiths Point) to Watkins's Point near the mouth of the Pokomoke River may be doubtful and on that part of Pokomoke River within the limits of Virginia, or where the line of Division between the two States upon the said River is doubtful, by any Persons not Citizens of the Common wealth of Virginia against the Citizens of Maryland shall be tried in the Courts of the State of Maryland which hath legal Cognizance of such offenses. And all Piracies, Crimes and Offences commited on the before mentioned Parts of the Chesapeake Bay and Pokomoke River by any Persons not Citizens of Maryland against any Citizen of Virginia shall be tried in the Courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia which hath legal Cognizance of such offences. All Piracies, Crimes and Offences commited on the said Parts of Chesapeake Bay and Pokomoke River by Persons not Citizens of either State against Persons not Citizens of either State shall be tried in the Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia having legal cognizance of such offences. And all Piracies, Crimes, and Offences commited on the said Parts of Chesapeake Bay and Pokomoke River by any Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia or of the State of Maryland, either against the other, shall be tried in the Court of that State of which the offender is a Citizen. The Jurisdiction of each State over the River Potomack shall be exercised in the same manner as is prescribed for the beforementioned Parts of Chesapeake Bay and Pokomoke River in every respect except in the case of Piracies, Crimes and Offences commited by Persons not Citizens of either State upon Persons not Citizens of either State. In which Case the offenders shall be tried by the Court of the State to which they shall first be brought. And if the Inhabitants of either State shall commit any Violence Injury or Trespass to or upon the Property or Lands of the other, adjacent to the said Bay and Rivers, or to any Person upon such Lands, upon proof of due Notice to the Offender to appear and answer, any Court of Record or Civil Magistrate of the State where the Offence shall have been commited having jurisdiction thereof, may enter the appearance of such Persons and proceed to trial and Judgement in the same manner as if the legal Process had been served on such offender, and such Judgement shall be valid and effectual against the Person and Property of such Offender both in the State where the offence shall have been commited and also in the State where the said offender may reside, and execution may be issued by the Court or Magistrate giving such Judgement, in the same manner as upon Judgements given in other Cases or upon a transcript of such Judgement, properly authenticated being produced to any Court or Magistrate of the State where such offender may reside having Jurisdiction within the State or County where the Offender may reside in Cases of a similar Nature. Such Court or Magistrate shall order execution to issue upon such authenticated Judgement in the same manner and toi the same extent as if the Judgement had been given by the Court or Magistrate to which such transcript shall be exhibited."

pp. 820-821: "Eleventh

Any Vessel entering in any Port on the River Potomack may be libelled or attached for Debt by Process from the state in which such Vessel entered, and if the commercial regulations of either State shall be violated by any Person carrying on Commerce in Potomack or Pokomoke Rivers, the Vessel owned or commanded by the Person so offending, and the property on board may be seized by Process from the State whose Laws are offended, in order for trial, and if any Person shall fly from Justice in a civil or criminal Case or shall attempt to defraud Creditors by removing his Property, such Persons or any Property so removed may be taken on any Part of Chesapeake Bay of the Rivers aforesaid by Process of the State from which such Person shall fly or Property be removed. And Process from the State of Virginia may be served on any Part of the said Rivers upon any Person, or Property of any Person, not a Citizen of Maryland indebted to any Citizen of Virginia or charged with Injury having been by him commited; and Process from the State of Maryland may be served on any Part of the said Rivers upon any Person, or Property of any Person, not a Citizen of Virginia indebted to any Citizen of Maryland or charged with Injury having been by him commited; and in all cases or trial in pursuance of the Jurisdiction settled by this Compact Citizens of either State shall attend as Witnesses in the other upon a Summons from any Court or Magistrate having Jurisdiction, being served by a proper officer of the County where such Citizens shall reside."

[Even if we disregard the meaning of the words "vessel"and "port," both of which apply to sea-
going, as opposed to riverine, navigation, this article clearly refers to the tidewater portion of the Potomac, because it is impossible for any vessel to "enter" (from the Chesapeake Bay) the portion of the Potomac above the falls.]

p. 821: "Twelfth

The Citizens of either State having Lands in the other shall have full liberty to transport to their own State the produce of such Lands, or to remove their Effects free from any Duty Tax or charge whatsoever for the liberty to remove such Produce or Effects."

p. 821: "13TH

These Articles shall be laid before the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, and their approbation being obtained, shall be confirmed and ratified by a Law of each State never to be repealed or altered by either without the Consent of the other."

G.Mason	Commrs. for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Alex.Henderson

Dan. of St. Thos. Jenifer

T. Stone	Commissioners for

Samuel Chase	the State of Maryland

28 Mar 1785	TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, pp. 822-823.

p. 822: "In Pursuance of Directions from the Legislatures of Virginia and Maryland, respectively to us given, we beg Leave to represent to the State of Pennsylvania, that it is the Contemplation of the said two States to promote the clearing & extending the Navigation of Potomack, from tide-Water, upwards, as far as the same may be found practicable; to open a convenient Road, from the Head of such Navigation, to the Waters running into the Ohio, and to render these Waters navigable, as far as may be necessary & proper; that the said works will require great Expence, which may not be repaid, unless a free Use be secured to the said States, & their Citizens, of the water of the Ohio & it's Branches, as far as the same lie within the Limits of Pensylvania: that as essential Advantages will accrue from such Works to a considerable Portion of the said State, it is thought reasonable that the Legislature thereof shou'd by some previous Act engage, that for the Encouragement of the said Works, all Articles of Produce & Merchandize, which may be conveyed to or from either of the said two States, thro' either of the said Rivers, within the Limits of Pensylvania, to or from any Place without the said Limits, shall pass throughout, free from all Duties, or Tolls whatsoever, other than such Tolls as may be established, & be necessary for reimbursing Expences incurred by the State, or it's Citizens, in clearing, or for defraying the Expence of Preserving the Navigation of the said Rivers. And that no Articles imported into Pensylvania thro' the Channel or Channels or any Part thereof to be opened as aforesaid, and vended or used within the said State, shall be subject to any Duties or Imposts, other than such Article wou'd be subject to, if imported into the said State thro' any other Channel whatsoever."

p. 822: "We request, Sir, that you will take the earliest Opportunity of laying this Representation, on Behalf of the two States, before the Legislature of Pensylvania; and that you will communicate the Result to the Executives of Virginia & Maryland."

p. 823: "By Acts of the Legislatures of Virginia & Maryland for opening the Navigation of the River Potomack above tide-Water, the Citizens of the United States have the same Right of trading thro' the said Water, which the Citizens of Maryland & Virginia enjoy; and we have no Doubt but the Legislature of your State will, agreeably to this Principle, give every Encouragement to Measures, which have for their Object, the Interest & Convenience of their Citizens, and those of the other States in the Union."

p. 823: Ed. Note: The clearing and extending the Navigation of Potomack was a project delayed by the war, but close to the hearts of Washington and others with property on the shoreline (see above, the correspondence between GM and Washington, 8, 9, Mar, 1775). After his return to Mount Vernon in 1783, Washington renewed his interest in the scheme and his prestige probably helped muster legislative support for the project (see Va. Journal & Alexandria Advertiser, 4 Nov. 1784). Later, Maryland legislators notified Delaware lawmakers of the Mount Vernon Compact and invited participation in a uniform code for the Chesapeake Bay.

11 May 1785	Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer to George Mason, p. 824-825.

p. 824: "Pray have you heard from the Attorney General or Mr. Maddison on the Subject of our Proceedings at Mount Vernon[?]"

p. 825: Ed. Note: The Attorney General was Edmund Randolph, who along with James Madison, had missed the meeting because of a mistake by the Richmond officialdom.

2 June 1785	James Madison to George Mason, p. 825.

Ed. Note: In his letter to Madison of 9 Aug. 1785, GM acknowledged a message from Madison [not found], which apparently sought details of the Mount Vernon Conference of March 1785.

9 Aug 1785	George Mason to James Madison, pp. 826-828.

p. 826: "I shou'd have answered your Favour of the 2d. of June, long ago, had not ill Health, & the Absence of my Sons from Home, disabled me from making out the Copys of the Proceedings of the Virga. & Maryd. Commrs. which I now inclose; and upon which I wish to be favour'd with your Sentiments."

p. 826-827: "So great has been the Neglect in some of our public Departments, that neither Mr. Henderson or myself had been furnished with Copys of the Assembly's Resolutions [leading to the Conference]; and I shou'd not have known that I was one of the Persons appointed, had I not, by mere Accident two or three Days before the Meeting, been informed of it, by two of the Maryland Commissioners writing to me. . . . His Excellency General Washington happened to have a Copy of the Assembly's Resolutions respecting the Application to be made to the Government of Pennsylvania, which he very obligingly gave us; by which any two or more of the Comrs. were empowered to proceed; and it was natural for us to conclude that these last Resolutions had pursued the Style of the former respecting the Jurisdiction of the two States; as well as that this Subject had been taken up, upon the same Principles as in the Year 1778; when Comrs. were directed to settle the Jurisdiction of Chesapeake Bay & the Rivers Potomack & Pokomoke; in which Sentiments, Mr. Henderson, from what he was able to recollect of the Resolutions, concurred."

p. 827: "Some Time after, Mr. Henderson wrote to Mr. Beckley (Clerk of the House of Delegates) for a Copy of the Resolves; upon receiving which, we were surprized to find no mention made of Chesapeake or Pokomoke River, that our Powers were confined to Potomack River, and to not less than three of the Commissioners. I am still inclined to think that the Ommission of Chesapeake Bay & Pokomoke River was owing to Mistake, or Inadvertence, in not attending to the Resolves of 1778; and if so, it was perhaps lucky, that we had not been furnished with a Copy of the Resolves; for the Maryd. Comrs. had an express Instruction, from their Assembly, to consider the Relinquishment, on the part of Virginia, of any Claim of laying Tolls &c, on Vessels passing thro' the Capes of Chesapeake, as a sine qua non; and if it was refused, immediately to break off all further Conference with the Virginia Commissioners."

p. 828: Ed. Note: The Assembly's Resolutions which Washington gave the commissioners must have been those passed at the June 1779 session of the General Assembly (Hening, X, 520; JHD, 1827 ed., 4, 24 June 1779). GM was thinking of the resolution also passed in the Year 1778, when he, Richard Henry Lee, and James Henry had been named to serve on a commission authorized to meet with Maryland delegates to adjust "the use and navigation of, and jurisdiction over, the Bay of Chesapeake, and the rivers Potomac and Pokomoke" (JHD, 1827 ed., 10 Dec. 1777). That body had never been able to function, apparently because the British naval blockade of the bay made jurisdictional matters purely academic.

9 Nov 1785	George Mason to George Washington, pp. 833-834.

p. 834: " I intended to go down to Richmond about the 15th of this month, to have reported the Compact with the Maryland Commissioners; but I have lately had so severe a Fit of the Convulsive Cholic, or the Gout in my Stomack, that I dare not venture far from Home."

Ed. Note: Although GM was apprehensive that the Mount Vernon Compact of 28 Mar. 1785 might be declared void because of a technicality, his absence from Richmond did not impeded ratification of the agreement between Maryland and Virginia.

7 Dec 1785	George Mason to James Madison, pp. 835-838.

[GM quoted herein much of the text of his earlier letter to Madison, dated Aug. 9th.]

p. 837: "My Paper draws to an End, & leaves me only Room to beg your Attention to the inclosed Memorandum, to express my Desire of hearing from you on the Subject of the Compact."

Ed. Note: The inclosed Memorandum, printed below, appears to have been ignored when the House of Delegates voted to accept the Virginia commissioner's report and ratified the Mount Vernon Compact (JHD, 1828 ed., 26, 29, 30 Dec. 1785).

pp. 837-838: [enclosure] [7 December 1785] "Memdm. The concluding Clause of the seventh Article of the Compact is not so clearly expressed as it ought to be, & is capable of a Construction, which was not intended; and tho' it wou'd be a strained and unnatural one, it had better be removed."

"The Words are–"Provided" &c, "and that the Citizens of neither State shall have a Right to fish with Nets or Seins upon the shores of the other." This may be construed to restrain the Citizens of either State, having Lands upon the River in the other, from fishing with Nets or Seins upon their own Shores; which wou'd be unreasonable & unjust; altho' in it's present form, it seems to be the Grammatical Construction. The Addition of two or three words will set it right. Thus–"and that the Citizens of neither State shall have a Right to fish with Nets or Seins upon the Shores of the Citizens of the other." I never observed this Circumstance, 'til very lately, or I am sure I cou'd easily have had it altered by the Maryland Commissioners, at any time before the Meeting of their Assembly. The Fisherys upon Potomack River are becoming a very important Object; & therefore I cou'd wish the above Clause in the Compact properly amended: if the Amendment goes no further than I have mentioned, it will occasion no Objection from Maryland; and I wish the Article to be no[t] otherwise altered; for this was the most difficult Business we had to settle with the Maryland Commissioners. The Idea of the Right of fishing on both Shores of Potomack River is one the Marylanders are not fond of parting with; and I trust it will be found we have obtained every thing for Virginia, with Respect to Potomack River, which she can desire. The exceptionable Part of the Article before mentioned was really a Mistake. Not having time now to write to my Friend the Attorney [Edmund Randolph] upon this Subject, Mr. Madison will be pleased to mention it to him."

[The fact that GM sought to amend this part of Article 7 proves that he had continued think about the Compact of 1785 after he had signed it. One may conclude that he considered whether the other parts of Article 7 (including the part about wharves and other improvements) were in any way flawed, but concluded that they were not, since he offered no corrections there. Note that GM considered Article 7 the "most difficult Business we had to settle": more evidence that the commissioners from both states took particular care to ensure this article was otherwise worded correctly. Marylanders clearly considered the right to fish off both shores of the Potomac as theirs to retain or cede as they chose, another indication that they owned right up to the Virginia shore.]

Ed. Note: Despite GM's concern and positive recommendation that the concluding Clause of the seventh Article of the Mount Vernon Compact be amended, Madison apparently made no effort to insert the words GM thought desirable. The text of the ratified compact in Hening, XII, 50-55, indicates that the legislators were inclined to leave a good job untouched.

8 Dec 1785	George Mason to Benjamin Harrison, pp. 838-839.

p. 838: "I flattered myself I shou'd have had the pleasure of paying you my Respects in Person, and delivering you the inclosed Packet, containing the Proceedings of the Commissioners on the Compact between the States of Virginia & Maryland; but am disabled by ill Health, from undertaking a Journey to Richmond."

1786 Documents

26 Feb 1786	George Mason to William Fitzhugh, p. 846.

"I suppose you have heard that the Compact, between Maryland and Virginia, is signed."

[ca. 19 Aug 1786]	James Monroe to George Mason, pp. 851-852.

Ed. Note: Monroe was a Virginia delegate in the Continental Congress and a member of a special committee studying a proposed Spanish treaty advocated by John Jay. Monroe wrote Jefferson on this day with a full explanation of Jay's plan to appease Spain by surrendering American navigation rights on the Mississippi for as long as 30 years in return for liberal terms in a commercial treaty. Monroe regarded Jay's proposition as in "every way highly injurious" (Boyd, X, 275-276). On 29 Sept. 1786, Monroe wrote Madison that he had sent a letter to GM "some weeks since . . . upon this subject . . . but have received no answer from him, from which circumstance, as well as that of R. H. Lee's being in the opposite sentiment, there is room to conjecture he is not with us" [because Lee and GM so often agreed] (quoted in Rowland, II, 95). Advocates of free navigation on the Mississippi and its tributary, the Ohio, were numerous in Virginia because of the importance of river transportation to the trans-Allegheny region. Monroe's fellow delegate in Congress, Henry Lee, sounded Washington on the critical matter and suggested that if the General Assembly took a stance "much will depend on Mr. Mason's sentiments." Why Monroe assumed that Richard Henry Lee would influence GM to favor surrender of navigation rights is a mystery, for Lee had long been a supporter of free use of the western rivers (Lee to Gov. Patrick Henry, 14 Feb. 1785, Ballagh, ed., Lee Letters, II, 332). Washington assured Henry Lee that GM, if "able to attend the Assembly . . . will advocate the navigation of that [Mississippi] River (letter to H. Lee, 31 Oct. 1786, Fitzpatrick, ed., Writings of Washington, XXIX, 35).

28 Nov 1786	George Mason to John Fitzgerald, pp. 858-859.

p. 858: "I am lately inform'd there is now a strong Party for establishing only one Port at Norfolk; & that a Bill was brought in last week for that purpose. I always knew (& have often told the Gentlemen of Alexandria) that this was the original Scheme & Purpose of the contrivors & patrons of the Port-Law. . . . Such a Law will ruin the Trade of Virginia upon Potomack River, & force it into a smuggling channel with Maryland: indeed the former Port Bill wou'd have done this, tho' in a much smaller Degree."

p. 859: The rumor GM heard of a strong Party for establishing only one Port was not founded on fact. . . . The real object of GM's wrath was the Port-Law passed at the May 1784 session of the General Assembly (Hening, XI, 402-404) which limited all foreign vessels (i.e., ships not owned by citizens of Virginia) to five port cities "and at no other ports or places therein." GM regarded the restrictions oppressive and at about this time wrote a protest against the port bill; see immediately below.

[Nov-Dec?, 1786]	Protest by "A Private Citizen" against the Port Bill, pp. 859-864.

p. 860: "Is there any greater, or more dangerous error in government, then that of governing too much?"

"Will not the Port Bill be particularly hurtful to the revenue and trade of Virginia in Potowmack river, by inducing many vessels, which would otherwise enter and load in both States, to enter and load only in the State of Maryland? And will not the inhabitants of [Virginia] counties . . . have just cause to complain of the unnecessary charge of freight to Alexandria, on their Indian corn and other bulky produce of their lands; and instead . . . be compelled to buy them in future, burthened with the charge of freight to and from Alexandria, or running the risk of smuggling them from Maryland?"

p. 861: "Has not every man a just right to the natural advantages accruing from the situation of his estate?"

"Are not all the lands upon tide water, in consideration of these advantages, rated in our tax laws much higher than lands of superior quality without them?"

p. 863: Ed. Note: A port bill passed by the May 1784 session of the General Assembly had generated much controversy. . . . The bill "to restrict foreign vessels to certain ports within this commonwealth (Hening, XI, 402-404) was meant to encourage the ownership and navigation of shipping by Virginians, to make smuggling more difficult, and to encourage the easier collection of duties upon imported goods. . . . The 1784 act had limited oceangoing vessels owned by foreigners (i.e., persons who were not Virginia citizens) to the ports at Norfolk-Portsmouth, Bermuda Hundred, Tappahannock, York, and Alexandria.

1787 Documents

The Federal Convention of 1787

p. 885: Ed. Note: George Mason's decision to accept a place on the Virginia delegation at the Federal Convention is understandable only in the light of events from March 1785 onward. By an accident of history he was unaware of his appointment to what became the Mount Vernon Conference of 1785 until the business was at hand. His refusal to serve would have been a deathblow to the scheduled meeting, which may have been planned for his convenience (Alexandria was the original site) in the first place. The accord reached by Mason and Alexander Henderson with the Maryland delegates was the entering wedge for those nationalists who believed the new nation could not survive unless the Articles of Confederation were drastically restructured.

p. 886: Most informed citizens in 1787 agreed that the preceding year had been an unusually bad one for the Continental Congress. . . . The wrangle with Spain over navigation rights on the Mississippi had revealed an ugly sectional split among the states regarding the fundamental western policy of expansion.

1 Oct 1787	Richard Henry Lee to George Mason, pp. 996-1000.

p. 997: "You are well acquainted with Thos. Stone & others of influence in Maryland–I think it will be a great point to get Maryld. & Virginia to join in the plan of Amendments & return it with them"

20 Oct 1787	George Mason to Elbridge Gerry, pp. 1005-1007.

p. 1005: "After [my son John's] Return [from London] he will settle in Trade, either in Alexandria or George Town; if the Inland Navigation of Potomack River succeeds, he will probably prefer George Town, or the Situation opposite to it, on the Virginia Side; where the Land belongs to me, for about three miles upon the River, in such Manner as to command all the deep Water on that Shore."

4 Nov 1787	George Washington to George Mason, pp. 1009-1010.

p. 1009: "In consequence of a resolution which passed at the last meeting of the Potomk. Company, and in behalf of the Directors, I transmit the enclosed Petition to you. . . ."

p. 1010: Ed. Note: The enclosed petition sought help from the Virginia legislature through a specific enactment that would compel shareholders in the Potomack Navigation Company to pay their levies promptly. Predictably, Washington's prestige brought a prompt response from the lawmakers. . . .

1788 Documents

11 June 1788	Supporters of the Constitution Use Weak Arguments. . . ., pp. 1059-
1068.

[reprinted from David Robertson, comp., Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia . . . June, 1788 . . . , 2d ed. (Richmond, 1805).

p. 1066: "Maryland and Potowmack have been mentioned [by Gov. Edmund Randolph]. I have had some little means of being acquainted with that subject, having been one of the commissioners who made the compact with Maryland. There is no cause of fear on that ground. Maryland, says the gentleman, has a right to the navigation of the Potowmack. This is a right which she never exercised. Maryland was pleased with what she had in return for a right which she never exercised. Every ship which comes within the state of Maryland, except some small boats, must come within our country. Maryland was very glad to get what she got by this compact, for she considered it as next to getting it without any compensation on her part. She considered it at least as next to a quid pro quo."

1792 Documents

20 Aug 1792	George Mason to John Mason, pp. 1271-1273.

p. 1272: "I see in a late Alexandria News-Paper, notice of an intended Application to the Virga. Assembly, at the next Session, for their projected Bridge over Potomack River, opposite, or nearly opposite to George Town, & for a Condemnation of Land to join the Southern Abuttment to, & for a Road, if necessary."

[This entry suggests a possible line of inquiry, because the building of a bridge between Virginia and Maryland (or, in this case, the future District of Columbia) required clarification of jurisdictions on either side of the river.]