( 366 ) 
substantial value. * For New York had never used or ap- 
propriated these lands in any way. When the treaty was 
made, there was not the remotest probability that Ver- 
mont would ever be regained, or the land-claims ever made 
effective. They had been virtually lost for years; not by 
any act of New York, but by Vermont’s rebellion and suc- 
cessful revolution. The claims had, therefore, become prac- 
* 1 Kent 178. Hamilton’s Speech on his bill to recognize the independ- 
ence of Vermont in 1787, from which I have here drawn (Hamilton’s works, 
a! Ww 
however, the basis of ie Acts passed in 1789 pee oe, In this speech he 
State of New York,” ich, ged, the Bill would be a ‘‘ most fat: 
blow ” — like “ the — of Brutus from those to whom they looked for 
protection.” The main points of his address were : 
I) That it was espe tasaal to divide the State; (2) butif necessary, 
compensation must be made to those who suffer by it; (3) that Hamilton’s 
u 
value ; (4) that aia, should be sovght through commissioners 
rom each state—the method analy adopted in the treaty of 1790, and 
through commissioners a ce character and ability. 
w York Senate, like oe 
ov 
B 
ot 
4 
® 
.o 
B 
oO 
b* 
@ 
7) 
basil longer, till 1789; but without any benefit to the New York claimants, 
y improvement in their situation or prospects of compromise. ‘Their 
Cais had become oe 
Mr. . Heaton in Mag. Amer. Hist., 23: 145, says New VYork’s claim 
to the serait was for a decade ‘‘as acien an absurdity as King George’s 
own was soon to become.”? And Mr. B. H. Hall in his History says (p. 553) 
that in 1783 the idea of the reduction of Vermont was ‘ foolish and chimer- 
ical.” 
