Whealton, Maryland & Virginia Boundary Controversy, 1904,
msa_sc_5330_9_42
, Image No.: 29
   Enlarge and print image (50K)          << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Whealton, Maryland & Virginia Boundary Controversy, 1904,
msa_sc_5330_9_42
, Image No.: 29
   Enlarge and print image (50K)          << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
27 In these letters it appears that Virginia had passed reso- lutions appointing a commission, but had restricted its powers to the settlement of the western end of the line. In X802 the Virginia Hose of Delegates had cited an act of the Maryland Assembly, which had been passed with a view to settlement of boundaries and rival claims. This citation was followed by a preamble stating that the Assembly was "uninformed as to any claim which the State of Maryland may have, or set up, to any territory or lands within the limits of this Commonwealth, as also the causes of any discontent which may have arisen with respect to the southern boundary of the said State, al- ready so well known and established." Maryland's Gov- ernor was requested, by this act, to state his claims to Virginia's territory, and the causes which had brought about debate concerning their common boundary, "in order that a fair and equitable settlement" might be made. Further, a resolution was adopted appointing three com- missioners to settle and adjust the western boundary of the two states.4$ The next year the Virginia Assembly passed resolu- tions providing for the appointment of the commission- ers, just spoken of, whenever Maryland should do the same. In this act likewise the Virginia Assembly did not recognize any disputed claims; yet expressed itself as "willing at all times to treat with respect any application coming from so respectable a source, even when they entertain no doubts themselves."" Three per- sons were appointed to collect testimony on the said boundary and report to the next General Assembly. Governor Mercer, in a letter to Governor Monroe, ex- * "Virginia Statutes," Samuel Sheppard, v. 3, pp. 395-49% '7 John V. L. McMahon, in his " History of Maryland," at page 65, of nol. I, says: " Virginia was unwilling even to enter into a dis- cussion of her right to the territory between the two branches, whilst Maryland went upon the broad principle of referring the whole subject to the commissioners." In the acts passed by Vir- ia in 1 8nz and in i8o3 nothing can be plainer than the desire for ~~dly and equitable settlement.