POSTHUMOUS ATTACK ON MR. MADISON. 441.

mittee to be "incorrect in all its parts," though he produces no statement of what those proceedings were; and he charges that the "object" of the statement was "to represent Hamilton as voting in favor of a breach of faith." [History of the American Republic, vol. II. pp. 353– 356.] Now, it is obvious to remark that, in the view of the reporter, there was no breach of faith in the vote imputed to Hamilton; and the greater the rate of depreciation for which Hamilton had voted, the more praiseworthy the reporter would have considered the vote, as protecting the public from the effect of unconscionable, if not fraudulent, speculations.

The writer, finding from the journals that Congress acted on the subject of depreciation on the 7th of January, 1783, arbitrarily and gratuitously confounds the proceedings of the House with the proceedings of the grand committee, and then accuses Mr. Madison of "altering" the date of those proceedings from the 7th of January to the 7th of December, and of representing the proceedings as having taken place in grand committee instead of the House, in order "to give color to his alteration of the date,” and to escape the danger of contradiction by the journals, as he elsewhere says. [History of the American Republic, vol. II. p. 399.]

It certainly does not follow as a matter of course, because the House acted on the report of the grand committee on the 7th of January, as the journals show, that the grand committee did not meet and deliberate on the subject of their report on the 7th of December preceding, as Mr. Madison states. The grand committee met also on the 24th of December; and all the various rates of depreciation proposed at their previous meeting having then successively failed, it was finally agreed, at the last meeting, to report in favor of 1 for 40. [See Madison Debates, vol. 1. p. 239.]

states, the chair

have been filled

But upon the coming in of the report, Mr. Madison decided that, according to rule, the blank should not up by the committee; and so the rate was expunged. This, doubtless, led to the motion made by Colonel Hamilton in the House, when the report of the committee was taken up for consideration on the 7th of January, to fill the blank with the word "forty," that having been the final vote of the committee. The motion received the votes of only three States out of the twelve present, Colonel Hamilton's own State being divided [Journals of Congress, vol. IV. p. 142]; and if the rejection of 1 for 40 was a breach of public faith, as the writer alleges, it certainly met with a very large sanction for an act of national dishonor.

But the final and conclusive argument triumphantly brought forward by the writer against the truth of Mr. Madison's report is, that "Colonel Hamilton was not a member of the committee, and consequently could not have given the vote imputed to him by Madison, or any other vote." In support of this assertion, the writer refers to the Journal of Congress, which, in giving an account of the action of the body on the report of the grand committee on the 7th of January, professes to enumerate the names of the members of whom the committee consisted, and does not include among them that of Colonel Hamilton.

The journal, in this enumeration, is evidently governed by the list of those who originally composed the committee, which had been raised during the preceding Congress. That Colonel Hamilton was subsequently put upon the committee, and was a member of it at the time to which Mr. Madison's statement relates, is sufficiently shown by other facts appearing upon the journal, as well as by the positive averment of Mr. Madison. A grand committee consisted, as its title imports, of a member from each State. Mr. Duane was the member of the committee originally taken from New York, and his name appears as such among those given in the journal. The journal, however, shows that he and his colleague, Mr. L'Hommedieu, obtained formal leave of absence from Congress on the 27th of November, 1782, and that he did not resume his seat until the 16th day of July, 1783. [See Journals of Congress, vol. IV. pp. 110 and 239.]

Some one must have been taken from New York to supply the place left vacant in the grand committee by his absence; and who so likely to be chosen for the vacancy as Colonel Hamilton? He came in, with a distinguished reputation, as a member of the new Congress that commenced its term the first Monday in November, 1782, and took his seat in the body on the 25th of that month. Mr. Floyd, who took his seat two days later, was the only other member from New York present for several months after the departure of Messrs. Duane and L'Hommedieu.

It is in the same manner that Mr. Madison became a member of the grand committee. His name does not appear among those enumerated in the journal, any more than that of Colonel Hamilton. The mem

ber there mentioned as being upon the grand committee from Virginia was Mr. Arthur Lee. But it is shown by the journal that he obtained leave of absence on the 4th of October, 1782, and did not return until the 16th day of July, 1783, the day of Mr. Duane's return. Mr. Madison was, doubtless, put in his place, though no entry either of his appointment or of that of Colonel Hamilton, appears upon the journal;

POSTHUMOUS ATTACK ON MR. MADISON. 443

which was kept, as is well known to all who have had occasion to look into our early congressional history, in a very loose and imperfect manner. If the silence of the journal is to be regarded as of any weight, it proves that no persons whatever were appointed to supply the places of Mr. Lee and Mr. Duane on the grand committee, for there is mention of none but that is a supposition wholly inadmissible."

We have thus, once for all, and with a revulsion of feeling which it is difficult to describe, noticed charges of the grossest and most offensive nature against one of the purest and most elevated characters that ever adorned humanity, one "whose pure and spotless virtue," a great contemporary, who knew him well, has said, "no calumny has ever attempted to sully." We would fain indulge the hope that we might have spared ourselves this unwelcome task; for who that cherishes the national reputation, who that has the slightest faith in the principles of truth and honor in the human breast, can seriously believe that one who had so long and so conspicuously enjoyed the respect and veneration of his countrymen in places of the highest trust, could ever have been capable of the acts of baseness and falsehood with which he is now charged by a solitary accuser?

CHAPTER XV.

-

Questions in Congress growing out of Cession of Northwest Territory by Virginia-Influence of Land Companies - Geographical and political Combinations against the Claims of Virginia — Letters of Mr. Madison with Regard to them-Proceedings and Report of the Committee to which the Subject was referred — Attempt to set up adverse Title in New York - Researches and Labors of Mr. Madison in Defence of Virginia Title - Alliance between Adversaries of the territorial Rights of Virginia and Partisans of the Independence of Vermont - Mr. Madison's Account of the State of Parties in Congress on these two Questions- He predicts the ultimate Acceptance of the Terms of Virginia, if the State remain firm and prudent- Mr. Witherspoon's Resolutions New Committee appointed to consider Cession of Virginia — Remonstrance of New Jersey - Design of Adversaries of Virginia to limit her Western Boundary, if possible, to the Alleghany Mountains- Final Compromise, and Acceptance of the Cession by Congress Influence of Mr. Madison in accomplishing the Result History of Vermont Question Proceedings of Congress upon it-New York and New Hampshire resist Claim of Vermont to be considered an independent State-Views of Mr. Madison on the Subject Powerful Combination of Interests in Congress favorable to Independence of Vermont, and her Admission as a State into the Confederacy — Acts of Violence committed by her Authorities prevent Consummation of the Plan - Compelled to await the regular Exercise of the Power granted by the Constitution of 1788, before she is finally admitted into the Union.

TERRITORIAL CESSION OF VIRGINIA. 445

AMONG the important subjects which occupied the attention of Congress at this time, few were attended with more complications, or exercised a more sensible influence on the reciprocal interests and relations of the States than the questions which grew out of the cession of her northwestern territory by Virginia. We have seen what jealousies had been excited in many of the States by the great extent of the limits of Virginia, as defined by her charter; and that, to quiet those jealousies, and to promote harmony and union, she had, on the 2d day of January, 1781, proffered to Congress a cession of the whole of the territory claimed by her northwest of the river Ohio, embracing what are now five of the most prosperous and powerful States of the Union.

To this munificent donation were annexed such conditions as appeared to her plainly just and equitable. Among them were the following: that she should be reimbursed the expenses incurred by her in conquering and defending the ceded territory during the war; that the French and other inhabitants, who had professed themselves citizens of Virginia, should be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and property; that Colonel George Rogers Clarke, and the officers and soldiers who accompanied him in the expedition by which the British posts in that country were reduced, should have a certain quantity of land laid off for them, in fulfilment of the promises made to them by Virginia; and also, if the