HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsva0621 and id is 1 raw text is: Slavery.-Stale Boundary. 237
No. . ResItoltlon iiaslracthttg tile governor to return certain resolutions to tile state of
Veraiont.- (dopted February 5, 1847.]
Resolved unanimously by Mhe general assembly of Virginia, That the execu- Resolations rela-
tive of this commonwealth be instructed to return forthwith the resolutions of tive to slavery t,
the state of Vermont upon the subject of slavery, this day communicated by , rurned to
him to this body.
No. ,.-Preatnblo ant resoltotiOm relative to the boundary between Virginia and Ohio.
[tdopted Tarch 3, 18-17.]
Tite select conmittee have, according to order, had under consideration the l'teatnth,.
.joint resolution of' the general nssenibly of' the state of Ohio to them referredf,
and beg leave to report, that they have examined carefully the questions in
controversy between the state of Ohio and this commonwealth as to the pro-
per boundary of territory and jurisdiction between the two states. The com-
inittee are of opinion that the title of Virginia to the territory northwest of
the Ohio river, as to so much thereof as wias within the litits of her charter,
was clear anti indisputable, and moreover has been so long recognized and ac.
quiesced in by the governments, both of the confederation ant of the Union,
that it ought not to be considered as open to discussion.
The state of Virginia having title to such territory on tie thirtieth of De-
cember, seventeen hundred and eiglhty-three, authorized her delegates in cotn-
gress to convey to the United States all of such territory lying and being to
tme northwest of the river Ohio. A cession thereof was made soon thereaf-
ter in purstance of' this authority, and in confortmity with its terms.
Trlhe committee are satis iiled that according to tihe true intent and proper le-
Jal interpretation of' her said deed of cession, Virginia reserved to herself her
former title, as well of soil and jurisdictiont as of sovereign dominion over the
whtole river Ohio, so f'ar as it lay within the limnits of her charter, and ttat con-
sequently tite trim boundary between Virginia and Ohio is the northern or
northwester bank of the river from the western boundary line of Penntsyl.
vania to tl,e eastern boundary line of the state of' Kentucky.
The committee are also satisfied that tite sovereignty and jurisdiction of Vir-
ginia is coextensive with the bed of the river Ohio between the banks, at all
times, whether the entire bed be at all times covered by tile water of tlte river
or not, and that as well in regard to the soil of such bed, when covered by the
water, as when it is left bare by the temporary receding of the water.
The committee express these opinions with some confidence, notwithstand-
ing the diversity of opinion which prevails anong the judges of tle general
court as disclosed in the opinions of' the judges who sat in the trial of the case
of The Commonwealth v. Garner, &c. With the utmost respect and de-
ference for that high court, the committee are of opinion that the judgment in
that case ought not to be regarded as afileting the right of' Virginia to claim
the sovereignty and jurisdiction over the whole of the river between Omior and
Virginia. Although a tiajority of the judges who sat in that case were of opi-
nion that the jurisdiction of Virginta was not coextensive with the whole bed
of the river, yet they were only eight judges of a court which when full con-
sists of twenty-two, and these eight judges diftred widely amongst them-
selves, both as to the actual boundary of jurisdiction and the manner in which
it was to be exercised.
The general court, although the court of highest authority in the coumnon-
wealth in criminal canes, is itself an inferior tribunal, and its decisions of eto
binding authority except in criminal prosecutions.
Tile committee, therefore, cannot regard such judgment as att authoritative
exposition of the law ; and the weight which am, united and harmonious judg-
ment of even this inferior tribunal woutl have, is greatly dimtinished by the
inconsistent and conflicting opinions of those who concurred in the particular
judgment in the case referred to.
While tite committee entertain these opinions as to the rights of Virginia,
diversity of opinion exists in regard to thetm. The state of Ohio insists upon
her right to a diflbrent boundary from that which is claimed for Virginia, and
certainly she has the same right to insist on her claim as we have to main.
tain ours.
It is a conflict of' title asserted by two sovereign states, which has produced,
and nisay again produce, exciting controversies between tite people bordering
on the river, and which may involve serious collisions between the states
themselves.
It is therefore obviously desirable to both, and the common duty of both, if'
practicable, to settle by amicable negotiation and treaty this distracting con-
troversy.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsva0621&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)