RESOLUTIONS. 1831.

western boundary at a stone planted by Lord Fairfax, on the
head waters of the Potomac; and thus they were tied down
to the old adjustment between Fairfax and the Crown. the
Virginia act therefore was entirely different from that of
Maryland, which directed the commissioners to begin at the
most western source of the North Branch, and did not justi-
fy the appointment of commissioners on the part of Maryland.
Our act of eighteen hundred and eighteen expressly direc-
ted that the appointment on the part of this state should be
made only after Virginia had embraced its propositions, by
the passage of a similar act. But this was overlooked by
the executive of Maryland; and commissioners were appoint-
ed on the part of both states, who assembled on the head
waters of Potomac in the summer of eighteen hundred and
twenty-four. McMahon's History of Maryland. But the
instructions of the Virginia commissioners being confined to
the Fairfax stone, put an end to all further negotiations. By
an act of eighteen hundred and eighteen, the executive of
this state had no authority to appoint commissioners until a
similar act was passed by Virginia; and as no similar act
ever did pass by the latter, the appointment of commission-
ers by the executive of this state, was premature and unau-
thorised, although done from patriotic motives. This state
therefore, is no way committed or obliged to be confined to
the most western source of the North Branch, because it
being an offer of compromise, and refused by Virginia, Ma-
ryland is remitted to her original rights. As however, the
proceedings of this state, under the act of eighteen hundred
and eighteen, were intended on our part to settle in an and-
cable way our southern and western limits, the committee
respectfully, refer to the correspondence between the com-
missioners appointed by both states. At the moment of
their assemblage, the Virginia commissioners opened their
instructions which confined the beginning at the Fairfax
stone, which was repelled with becoming energy and de-
cision on the part of our commissioners.

In another part of this report, the committee have fully
shewn, that the Fairfax stone, was planted by two interest-
ed parties, Virginia and Lord Fairfax, without the know-
ledge or consent of either of the Baltimores, and by a pro-
ceeding to which neither of them was a party. That Vir-
ginia in her constitution made an express recognition of our
rights within the limits of our charter, without confining us
to the Fairfax stone, but evidently intending an ascertain-
ment of these limits according to the true intent and mean-
ing of our charter. It has therefore surprised your com-
mittee, that the state of Virginia, so enlightened, just and
68