1. JM to Randolph, 10 Apr., and n. 5. On 12 April Thomas FitzSimons, a merchant of Philadelphia and a delegate from Pennsylvania in Congress, asked President John Dickinson and the Supreme Executive Council “whether vessels or goods coming into this State from Great Britain, or any of her ports or Colonies, can be admitted to entry at the Custom house” (Colonial Records of Pa., XIII, 555). Although couched in economic terms, the question implicitly posed the constitutional issue of the effect, if any, of the proclamation of Congress of 11 April “Declaring the cessation of arms, as well by sea as by land” on the statute of Pennsylvania banning trade by sea with the British.

As soon as Congress on 15 April ratified the preliminary terms of peace and President Dickinson in Council issued a proclamation the next day “strictly” to “charge and command” Pennsylvanians “to forbear all acts of hostility, either by sea or land, against his Britannic Majesty or his subjects,” the naval officer of the port of Philadelphia inquired how he should respond to applications “to enter vessels from New York.” Uncertain of what his response should be, Dickinson in Council requested the Pennsylvania delegates to submit the naval officer’s letter to Congress. On 18 April 1783 Alexander Hamilton, chairman, Oliver Ellsworth, and James Wilson were named as a committee to recommend a reply. Beside the entry in his committee book, Charles Thomson wrote “Report verbal,” but it was submitted in writing on 22 April (ibid., XIII, 559–61; NA: PCC, No. 20, II, 151–52; No. 69, fols. 445–46; No. 186, fol. 195; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 238–40). Congress appears to have agreed with the “opinion” of the committee that “it is inexpedient for Congress to come to any formal decision on the subject of that letter” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 267). Four days later a merchant vessel from New York City apparently unloaded her cargo in Philadelphia without interference (Pa. Packet, 29 Apr.). See also Randolph to JM, 26 Apr. 1783, n. 6.

2. JM interlineated the words from “for” through “Cessions” long after he first drafted his notes. The ninth paragraph of the original report of the committee on restoring public credit was under debate. This paragraph, which urged states to offer Congress their titles to land west of the Appalachian Mountains, closed with the words: “and to the states which may have passed acts complying with the said resolutions” of 6 September and 10 October 1780 “in part only, to revise and complete such compliances” (Report on Restoring Public Credit, 6 Mar., and n. 14; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 172). Theodorick Bland, seconded by John Rutledge, moved to delete this quoted passage (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 256). See also Delegates to Harrison, 29 Apr. 1783, and n. 3.

3. JM Notes, 9 Apr. 1783, and nn. 2, 4, 6–11. On 2 January 1781 the Virginia General Assembly had offered to relinquish to the United States jurisdiction and title to her western lands, with the exception of the district of Kentucky and of a limited acreage potentially needed as bounty lands for her troops; and provided that “all purchases and deeds” from Indians and “royal grants” to private persons “inconsistent with the chartered rights, laws and customs of Virginia” be declared invalid (JHDV description begins Journal of the House of Delegates of the Commonwealth of Virginia; Begun and Held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg. Beginning in 1780, the portion after the semicolon reads, Begun and Held in the Town of Richmond. In the County of Henrico. The journal for each session has its own title page and is individually paginated. The edition used is the one in which the journals for 1777–1786 are brought together in two volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in 1827 or 1828, and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , Oct. 1780, p. 80). Virginia’s offer, contrary to John Rutledge’s statement, was a compliance with the resolution of Congress of 6 September 1780, which had asked the “landed” states only to make “a liberal surrender of a portion of their territorial claims” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVII, 806–7). As late as 20 June 1783, JM would correct a misstatement that “Congress had declared the Cession of Virginia to be a partial one” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXV, 973).

Rutledge also overlooked or ignored the terms of Connecticut’s offer of cession. On 12 October 1780 she had proposed to relinquish to the United States her title to all her trans-Appalachian lands but withheld political jurisdiction over them (Papers of Madison description begins William T. Hutchinson, William M. E. Rachal, et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (6 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , IV, 32; 35, n. 8). This offer seems to have been compliance “in part only,” for the resolution of Congress of 10 October 1780, with its reference to forming “distinct republican states” almost certainly implied that prior to statehood Congress could govern the ceded area as well as dispose of its land (NA: PCC, No. 66, II, 178–79; JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XVIII, 915; XIX, 99).

4. James Wilson assumed as a self-evident truth that the title of the United States to the territory between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River, conferred by Great Britain in the preliminary treaty of peace in consequence of a large sacrifice of “blood and treasure” by the American people, superseded the titles held by six of the states to portions of that vast area. Hence, although he may not have explicitly advocated that it be equally divided by Congress among the thirteen sovereign states, he evidently believed that to do so would be more in accord with “the principles of right” than would be an acknowledgment by Congress of the claims of the “landed” states to the west. Wilson apparently did not explain how he could give the four New England “Atlantic States,” not to mention New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, “access to the Western Waters” without traversing the sovereign state of New York or his own commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

5. The brackets were inserted by JM. The twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth rules of procedure, adopted by Congress on 4 May 1781, may have justified Joseph Jones in calling Wilson to order for conduct inconsistent “with the utmost decency and decorum” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XX, 481). Whether President Elias Boudinot’s ruling or a majority of the delegates sustained Jones’s objection remains unknown, but Wilson’s concluding remarks were evidently less controversial.

6. Many years later JM interlineated all the words following “vote” and preceding “see.” The vote was on the question whether the passage, which the Bland-Rutledge motion sought to cancel, should be retained. All delegates except the four from Virginia and two of the three from South Carolina voted “ay” (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 256–57).

7. The handwriting suggests that JM squeezed this paragraph, long after 1783, into the narrow blank space originally separating his notes for 18 April from those for 21 April. Of the twenty-nine delegates present in Congress, all voted for the amended report on restoring credit except Phillips White, who alone represented New Hampshire, Stephen Higginson of Massachusetts, David Howell and John Collins of Rhode Island, and Alexander Hamilton of New York (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 257–61). For the opposing explanations of their votes by Hamilton, on the one hand, and by the Rhode Island delegates, on the other hand, see Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VII, 147–48; Syrett and Cooke, Papers of Hamilton description begins Harold C. Syrett and Jacob E. Cooke, eds., The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (15 vols. to date; New York, 1961——). description ends , III, 354–56; JM Notes, 1 Apr. 1783, n. 9. See also Delegates to Harrison, 22 Apr., and n. 4; Address to the States, 25 Apr. 1783, and ed. n.

The state-by-state requisitions, which JM had included in his notes on the session of 4 April (q.v.), were considerably revised before Congress adopted them two weeks later as part of the plan for restoring public credit (JCC description begins Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXIV, 259).