In 1888 the question arose again in the Assembly of Maryland. On March 13, a resolution

was passed in the Senate to the effect that

Sen. Jour.,

1888.

whereas, while Maryland had ratified the Michler line of 1859, Virginia had never done so; and whereas Maryland had endeavored, without avail, to induce West Virginia to adopt it, or to settle the matter by a joint commission, that State had not complied, that now the Attorney-General of the State be applied to, to advise the proper remedy.. The Attorney-General replied (March 17) saying:

"In my judgment, no definite settlement of that matter can be accomplished by the appointment of Commissioners, or by negotiations between the Legislatures of the respective States. The controversy has been going on for more than a century, and the State of Maryland has appointed commission after commission to make such adjustment, but all to no purpose."...

"In my judgment, therefore, there are but two courses open to bring this long-pending controversy to an end. One is for the State to cause proceedings to be taken against the State of West Virginia in the Supreme Court of the United States for the purpose of procuring a final legal adjustment and settlement of the boundary line between the States; and the other is to submit the matter in controversy to arbitrators appointed by the States."

He concluded by recommending the passage of an act providing for an arbitration, and submitted the draft of such an act.

The bill was introduced in the Senate on March 19, and referred to the Committee on Federal Relations.

We may infer that upon mature consideration it was judged inexpedient to entrust a decision of so much moment to the State to the judgment of a single man (since this is what an arbitration usually comes to), and when the bill providing for arbitration was reported back to the Senate, it was reconsidered, and the enacting clause stricken out.

Thus stands the question at the present moment. Nothing final has been done since the Virginia Convention of 1776, which acknowledged the right of Maryland to her charter-boundary, and waived all claims that Virginia might have made to any territory within it, incorporating these words, for the greater solemnity, in the Constitution of the State.

In conclusion, your committee beg to offer the following Resolutions:

RESOLVED, That, in the opinion of this Society, it is highly desirable that the true western boundary of Maryland which has been so long in dispute, should be equitably and finally determined; and this Society approves the view of the late John V. L. McMahon, that the best mode of settlement is

by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

RESOLVED, That a copy or copies of this report be transmitted to the members of the Hon. Legislature of Maryland at their next session.

All which is respectfully submitted.

WM. HAND BROWNE,

Committee.

ALBERT RITCHIE,

APPENDIX.

Pat. Roll, 8, Charles I, III, 2594.

APPENDIX A.

“Totam illam partem peninsule sive chersonesus jacentem in partibus Americe inter oceanum ex oriente et sinum de Chessopeake ab occidente a residuo ejusdem per rectam lineam a promontorio sive capite terre vocate Watkins Point juxta sinum predictum prope fluvium de Wighco scituato ab occidente usque ad magnum oceanum in plaga orientali ductam divisam et inter metam illam a meridie usque ad partem illam estuarii de De la Ware ab aquilone que subjacet quadragesimo gradui latitudinis septentrionalis ab equinoctiali ubi terminatur Nova Anglia totumque illius terre tractum infra metas subscriptas videlicet transeundo a dicto estuario vocato Delaware Baye recta linea per gradum predictum usque ad verum meridianum primi fontis fluminis de Patto womack deinde vergendo versus meridiem ad ulteriorem dicti fluminis ripam et eam sequendo qua plaga occidentalis et meridionalis spectat usque ad locum quendam. appellatum Cinquak prope ejusdem fluminis ostium scituatum ubi in prefatum sinum de Chessopeak evolvitur ac inde per lineam brevissimam usque ad predictum promontorium de Watkins Point."

33