1. On the settlement of the accounts between Virginia and the U.S. concerning the cession of the Northwest Territory, see PJM description begins William T. Hutchinson et al., eds., The Papers of James Madison (10 vols. to date; Chicago, 1962——). description ends , VIII, 343 n. 1; IX, 328, 329 n. 5. The initiative for legislative “interposition” in this matter had come from the state commissioner William Heth, who favored far greater compensation to Virginia for defending and maintaining the ceded territory than did the parsimonious John Pierce, the Continental commissioner. Although recognizing that many of the vouchers needed to support Virginia’s claims were lost, destroyed, or in an otherwise chaotic state, Heth believed the commonwealth in equity should be reimbursed about £200,000. He was willing to accept anything above £150,000, however. The third commissioner, David Henley, whom Heth regarded “as a real honest man,” would support a claim of “£120,000 perhaps, while the principles rigidly maintained by Mr. Pierce would have reduced it to £50,000.” In this situation Heth decided that the legislature should be informed of the proceedings of the commissioners (Heth to Edmund Randolph, 21 Mar. 1788, CVSP description begins William P. Palmer et al., eds., Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts (11 vols.; Richmond, 1875–93). description ends , IV, 414–15). The House responded on 17 Dec. 1787 by appointing a committee, with Mason as chairman, to request a statement of the proceedings and make a report (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 1777–1790 are brought together in three volumes, with each journal published in Richmond in either 1827 or 1828 and often called the “Thomas W. White reprint.” description ends , Oct. 1787, p. 105). For the report and resolutions submitted by Mason to the House on 7 Jan. 1788, see Rutland, Papers of George Mason, III, 1031–37. The report noted that Heth and Henley had agreed to the Mason committee’s request to inspect the proceedings of the commissioners, but that Pierce had refused to “communicate any official information” before the completion of the final report. After examining the proceedings, “as laid before them by Mess’rs Heth and Henley,” the committee concluded that “Virginia, unless the General Assembly shall interpose, will be denied a credit for a great part of the money she has actually and bona fide paid in acquiring and maintaining the [North-west] territory.” The House then adopted resolutions suspending further proceedings of the commissioners until the assembly’s protest had been laid before Congress and instructing the state’s delegates in Congress to urge that body “to take measures for doing justice to this state.” Heth carried the report, resolutions, and other papers on the subject to the Virginia delegates, who submitted them to Congress on 3 Mar. (JCSV description begins H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia (4 vols. to date; Richmond, 1931——). description ends , IV, 209; JM to Randolph, 3 Mar. 1788; JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXXIV, 77 n. 1). On 5 May the committee considering Virginia’s protest reported that the business was properly in the hands of the commissioners and should be settled by them without interference from Congress or Virginia (JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXXIV, 134–35). This report reflected an earlier private understanding between Heth and the committee that Virginia’s Northwest claim should be negotiated by the commissioners, “for it would be a damn’d disagreeable piece of work to bring before Congress.” From conversations with committee members Heth concluded that Pierce could be persuaded “to rescind his former opinions so far as to meet me on such terms as I should think myself Justifiable in closing with, or … resign his appointment” (Heth to Edmund Randolph, 9 Mar. 1788, CVSP description begins William P. Palmer et al., eds., Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts (11 vols.; Richmond, 1875–93). description ends , IV, 406). He accordingly requested and received authority from the Council of State to resume negotiations with the other commissioners (Heth to Edmund Randolph, 21 Mar. 1788, ibid., IV, 414–16; JCSV description begins H. R. McIlwaine et al., eds., Journals of the Council of the State of Virginia (4 vols. to date; Richmond, 1931——). description ends , IV, 226; Virginia Delegates to Heth, 20 Apr. 1788, Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VIII, 723). On 15 May the commissioners awarded Virginia the generous sum of $500,000 in specie. The liberality of the award was perhaps owing in part to the absence of the indisposed Pierce during the final negotiations (James, George Rogers Clark Papers, 1781–1784, pp. 465–66). Congress, however, rejected Secretary Thomson’s recommendation that the award be transmitted to the Board of Treasury office (JCC description begins Worthington C. Ford et al., eds., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (34 vols.; Washington, 1904–37). description ends , XXXIV, 180–81). This action reflected the opposition of Northern delegates, who grumbled that Virginia’s claim for compensation was too high a price for the cession of the Northwest Territory, but it apparently did not affect the validity of the award (Nicholas Gilman to John Sullivan, 22 Mar. 1788; Paine Wingate to Samuel Lane, 12 Apr. and 2 June 1788, Burnett, Letters description begins Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (8 vols.; Washington, 1921–36). description ends , VIII, 709, 716, 745–46). When the final settlement of accounts between the states and the U.S. took place in 1793, Virginia’s special Northwest claim, including interest, amounted to $740,000 (CVSP description begins William P. Palmer et al., eds., Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts (11 vols.; Richmond, 1875–93). description ends , VII, 55).