The Comtt of the week, viz.: Mr Gilman, Mr Clark & Mr Huntington having recd a petition signed by a number of inhabitants of a tract of Country called Kentuckey reported that it should be read & filed.(1) The reading was first called for, and the purport of the petition was to state that the petitioners had, at the risk of their lives, settled a tract of country westward of the Allegheny Mountains on the waters falling into the Ohio, that the State of Virginia had lately granted large tracts of land within that district without any condition of settlements, that she had undertaken to form them into Counties and claimed jurisdiction there, that being removed above 800 miles from the seat of Government, it could not be exercised with justice & energy; that they were in danger of losing their rights, if they must go to Richmond where the Supreme Court sat & there contend with the last Grantees; that they have taken an Oath of Allegiance & considered themselves subjects of the United States & not of Virginia, that the Charter under which Virginia claimed that Country, had been disolved; that in consequence of the dissolution the Country belonged to the Crown of G. Britain & that by the revolution the rights of the Crown was devolved on the United States, and therefore praying Congress to erect them into a separate and independent State and admit them into the federal Union.

   Mr Lee was surprized that the Comtt had not explained in their report the nature of the petition, as they ought to have done, as that might have prevented its being read. The countenancing such petitions was an insult to the State of Virginia.(2) As the petition had been read, the only thing now to be done was to refer it to the State of Virginia. The petitioners were subjects of that State, if they suffered grievances they should apply to the legislature of that State for redress, and not to Congress. What right had Congress to interfere? that the rights of the Crown devolved upon Congress was a groundless, an extravagant & idle supposition. Could they devolve on Congress before it had an existence? Congress derived its power from the Confederation, it had no right but what the Confederation gave it. The United States individually were in existence before Congress was. They were sovereign free and independent & retained all the rights of sovereign free and independent states, except what they voluntarily gave to Congress by the Confederation. That the rights of the Crown to the vacant Lands within the bounds of any state could not devolve upon Congress but on the individual state within the bounds of which the lands lay.

   Mr Madison supported the propriety of referring the paper to the legislature of Virginia. The State he said had already taken measures

   Mr Williamson observed that the petition involved a question of a very serious nature; that no doubt a time would come when it would be discussed: that whenever it was discussed it would be attended with most serious consequences, and he apprehended the sword alone would decide. He wished it might be put off a long time, & not revived in our time, nor in the time of our children or their grand children.

   Mr McKean, was sensible it was a question of a very serious nature -- that it must be discussed. He was not for putting off the discussion to so distant a period. He was not for leaving it to posterity. He was willing to face it with all its consequences, and hoped it would be decided before the present war was concluded. If the people of Kentuckey have taken an Oath of Allegiance to the U. S., he will take them by the hand. He is not afraid of Virginia. He hopes no State in the union will ever be so great as to give laws to all the rest, nor that any will be suffered to acquire so much power that the others cannot controul it.

   Mr Clark wants to be informed more particularly respecting the conduct and views of Virginia with regard to that western country, & what the meaning of the provision is of the Constitution of the State. He understands that they have it in contemplation to form the western country into distinct subordinate governments & to send out lieutenant governors to rule them. This will be going on the plan of Great

   Britain with regard to her former Colonies, & must bring on another revolution, which will be attended with convulsions & break the peace of the union. If he is rightly informed, that plan is already in part adopted and is one of the grievances complained of by the people and the foundation of the present petition. He is apt to be jealous, but he thinks it right to be jealous in such a case as this. He wishes for full information.

   Mr Howell observed that the right to the western Country was vested in the Crown of Great B. That by the proclamation of 1763 the King had prohibited his Governors from granting lands beyond the heads of the waters falling into the Atlantic; that by that proclamation reserved to himself the right of pre-emption; that the Crown of England claimed and had always exercised the right of setting off new governments -- that both these rights devolved on the United States. Congress had acted upon the former when they passed the resolution recommending it to the states who claimed the western Country, not to make any grants of unappropriated lands. See Oct. 30, l779, (3) in opposition to which the State of Virginia made grants of which the present petitioners now complain and the 11th Article of the Confederation provides for the exercise of the latter right by the words "no Colony shall be admitted into the union until such admission be agreed to by nine States." This is not to be confined to Colonies then or now in existence, but extends to any future Colony that may at any time be established or formed.

   Mr Witherspoon began by observing that one of the gentlemen from Virginia said it could not enter into the thoughts of any man that the rights of the Crown devolved on the United States. He supposed he intended that only as a figure in rhetorick, not as an assertion that would be admitted. It certainly could enter into the thoughts of men and had actually entered into his thoughts, and it had entered the thoughts of the petitioners and into the thoughts of very many sensible men at the beginning of the present Controversy. The western uncultivated and unappropiated lands belonging to the Crown were considered and spoken of early in the controversy as fund for discharging the debts that might be contracted in the war by the U. S. It would appear a strange whim if a sentiment which occupied and engrossed the minds not only of speculative, but of illiterate men and of the bulk of the inhabitants of many of the States had not some solid foundation to rest on. For his part he thought it founded on truth, on justice, on the nature of things, and was warranted by the Laws of Society. This controversy was begun and the war was carried on by the united and joint efforts of the thirteen States. By their joint exertions and not by those of any one State the dominion of Great Britain was broken, and consequently the rights claimed and exercised by the crown devolved on all, and not any individual State. Why should one

   State reap more advantage than another. He admitted the consequence that not only the right of the unappropriated soil but also of the quit-rents and confiscated estates devolved on the U. S. As to the quit-rents it seemed to be the general opinion that they should be no longer collected, but that each man should enjoy the portion of land he was possessed of, clear of all incumbrance of quit-rents, and therefore they were not made an object; with respect to confiscated estates, they were too inconsiderable to excite attention. Had a major part, or even one-half of any State joined the enemy, and their estates thereby became confiscated, he apprehended it would have been a matter of serious discussion whether they should belong to the U. S. or be appropriated to the sole benefit of the other half of the Citizens of the State.

   With regard to the powers of Congress, or of the U. S. collectively taken, they could not be exactly defined in the articles of Confederation. Cases would arise for which no previous provision could be made. These came under and were decided by the great law of necessity, which was admitted as a law of nations. It might happen that a State would grow so powerful and so ambitious as to be dangerous to the other States in the union. In such a case the law of necessity and of self-preservation might compel the others, by a sovereign act of authority, to abridge the power of that State, and even to divide it into two or more distinct and independent States. He would not undertake to say that the petitioners were within or without the bounds of Virginia, or that it would be proper or improper to grant the prayer of the petitioners; but he saw no impropriety in letting the petition remain on the files of Congress, and should therefore vote in favor of that question.

   Mr Williamson insisted there was nothing before the House in which a question could properly be taken; that the bulk of the names to the petition which had been read appeared to be signed by one or two hands; they might be forged. No body could say that the signers or the persons whose names were written lived on the lands in question, that therefore the paper should be dismissed. This brought on a new debate, and at last an adjournment was called for and agreed to.

   MS not found; reprinted from NYHS Collections, 11 (1879): 145-50.