Whealton, Maryland & Virginia Boundary Controversy, 1904,
msa_sc_5330_9_42
, Image No.: 30
   Enlarge and print image (52K)          << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Whealton, Maryland & Virginia Boundary Controversy, 1904,
msa_sc_5330_9_42
, Image No.: 30
   Enlarge and print image (52K)          << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
2$ pressed his surprise "that the executive and legislature of Virginia have remained uzzapprised at so late a date of any pretensions of the State of Maryland to a different boundary between them than that which had hitherto been permitted to subsist."'8 Governor Mercer afterwards became a member of the House of Delegates and, in i$o3, he made a report in that Assembly touching the boun- dary. He regarded it as evident that Virginia would pass no measure admitting a discussion of the claim to the land between the two forks of the Potomac. There ap- peared to him no possible settlement until loth states agreed as to the main branch. He says "as the Commit- tee are furnished with evidence satisfactory to them, that a source of the northern branch had been discovered some distance further to the westward than that which has been hitherto reputed the corner south boundary of the state, which consequently, in a line running due north for more than thirty miles, till it intersects the Pennsylvania line might add considerably, not only to the jurisdiction but also to the property of the state." '° A temporary line running from the most westerly source of the north branch was proposed by Mercer but no action was taken. The suggestion of the former Gover- nor does not seem to have received the attention due it, for after fifteen years had passed, his conditions were offered by Maryland to Virginia. In i8i$, an act was passed in Maryland providing for the afpaintment of commissioners (conditional on Vir- ginia doing the same), to "commence at the most western source of the north branch of the Potomac River and to run a due north course." Also to adjust conflicting claims to terntary.5o The primary importance of this 's B. 8. Pigrnan's report on the boundary. 1834, Appendix. `< Laws of Maryland, F$3I, Resolution 128. " John F. Mercer's report on the boundary in Maryland House of Delegdtes, November Sess., p. b5, i8o3. p ,~ Laws of Maryland," t8i8, eh. ao6. In i8io another feeble attempt wasmade to effect an adjustment. Maryland virtually repeated her sct of i$ot which provided for the