RESOLUTIONS. 1834.

We hold by a Charier, a charter which has been fully and ——————
solemnly recognized by the State of Virginia, but in the in-
terpretation of that instrument, the two States have not been
agreed. It is right—even indispensable, that the interpreta-
tion should be settled, and the limits of the States ascertained,
and our sister State cannot but some time perceive that in.
that settlement her voice (admitted to be equal) is not en-
titled to preponderating influence.

The State of Maryland seeks or desires nothing which is
not hers of right, and it is necessary for her honor, that in
her controversy, though amicable, and with her eister, the
terms of adjustment shall not be dictated to her.

A brief review of the proceedings of Maryland, would
demonstrate that she has from time to time mildly reminded
her sister State of her claims, and sought to refer them to
the examination of commissioners, to be appointed by the
parties, from among their own citizens respectively, desiring
only to provide for the appointment of an umpire by one of
our disinterested sister States, in the event of disagreement
among the commissioners. In such propositions Maryland
has evinced her confidence in the justice of her cause, but
has suggested nothing incompatible with the dignity of
Virginia. She has desired, and still desires the peaceful
ascertainment of her rights, never doubting but Virginia
would deem it necessary to her true glory to do right at
whatever sacrifice, just that the relative rights of herself and
neighbors should be equitably ascertained, and govern her-
aeli accordingly, without reckoning her means ol resistance.
The la'w of Virginia, before referred to, of March 5th,
1833, has been understood by us as not only not in accord-
ance with, but directly repulsive of, the equitable and mo-
derate wishes of Maryland, as an undertaking in truth, by
one of the parties, absolutely to settle and pronounce
against the claim of the other.

So regarding it, the State of Maryland determined to lay
her controversy before that high and independent tribunal,
empowered by all the States to hear and decide "all contro
versies between two or more States;" and she has unshaken
confidence that when the founders of the union agreed that
all controversies between these States, should be settled by
appeals to justice, and not to arms, they did not fail to
achieve that peculiar and brightest glory of our country.

It is, however, gratifying to learn from a source entitled
to so much respect, that we may have misconceived the pro-
ceedings and intentions of Virginia, and to be allowed to