Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/109

1783.]

A motion was made by Mr. HAMILTON, who had been absent on the question on the ninth paragraph of the report on revenue assessing quotas, to reconsider the same. Mr. FLOYD, who, being the only delegate from New York then present on that question, could not vote, seconded the motion. For the arguments repeated, see the former remarks, on the 7th of April.

On the question the votes were—Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Maryland, no; Virginia, ay; South Carolina, no.$27$

, April 9.

A memorial was received from General Hazen in behalf of the Canadians who had engaged in the cause of the United States, praying that a tract of vacant land on Lake Erie might be allotted to them.

Mr. WILSON, thereupon, moved that a committee be appointed to consider and report to Congress the measures proper to be taken with respect to the western country. In support of his motion, he observed on the importance of that country; the danger, from immediate emigrations, of its being lost to the public; and the necessity, on the part of Congress, of taking care of the federal interests in the formation of new states.

Mr. MADISON observed, that the appointment of such a committee could not be necessary at this juncture, and might be injurious; that Congress were about to take, in the report on revenue, &c., the only step that could now be properly taken, viz., to call again on the states claiming the western territory to cede the same; that, until the result should be known, every thing would be premature, and would excite in the states irritations and jealousies that might frustrate the cessions; that it was indispensable to obtain these cessions, in order to compromise the disputes, and to derive advantage from the territory to the United States; that, if the motion meant merely to prevent irregular settlements, the recommendation to that effect ought to be made to the states; that, if ascertaining and disposing of garrisons proper to be kept up in that country was the object, it was already in the hands of the committee 'on peace arrangements, but might be expressly referred to them.

Mr. MERCER supported the same idea.

Mr. CLARK considered the motion as nowise connected with the peace arrangements; his object was to define the western limits of the states, which Congress alone could do, and which it was necessary they should do, in order to know what territory properly belonged to the United States, and what steps ought to be taken relative to it. He disapproved of repeatedly courting the states to make cessions which Congress stood in no need of.

Mr. WILSON seemed to consider, as the property of the United States, all territory over which particular states had not exercised jurisdiction, particularly northwest of the Ohio; and said, that within the country confirmed to the United States by the provisional articles, there must be a large country over which no particular claims extended.