Ohio History Journal

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

58 Ohio Arch

58       Ohio Arch. and His. Society Publications.




Wallace v. Parker, 6, Pet. 680; Pollard v. Hagan; Parmoli

v. First Municipality, 3, How., 212, 589; Jones v. Van Zandt,

5, How., 215; Strader v. Graham, 10, How., 82; Pennsylvania

v. Wheeling Bridge Company, 18, How., 421; Bates v. Brown,

5, Wall., 710; Messenger v. Mason, 10, Wall., 507; Clinton v.

Engelbrecht, 13, Wall., 434; Langdean v. Hanes, 21, Wall., 521

Packett Company v. Keokuk, 95, U. S., 80; Spooner v. Mc-

Connell, 1, McLean, 336; Palmer v. Cuyahoga Co., 3, McLean,

226; Hogg v. Zanesville, etc., Co., 5, 0., 410; Perry v. Tor-

rence, 8, 0., 522; Hutchinson v. Thompson, 9, 0., 52; Cochran

v. Loring, 17, 0., 409.





To all who shall see these presents, we, Thomas Jefferson,

Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, the underwritten

delegates for the commonwealth of Virginia in the Congress of

the United States of America, send greeting:

WHEREAS, The General Assembly of the commonwealth

of Virginia, at their session begun on the 20th day of October,

1783, passed an act, entitled "An act to authorize the delegates

of this State in Congress to convey to the United States in Con-

gress assembled all the right of this commonwealth to the territory

northwest of the River Ohio, in these words following, to-wit"

(here follows the act of cession:); and,

WHEREAS, The said General Assembly, by their resolution

of June 6, 1783, had constituted and appointed us, the said Thomas

Jefferson, Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, dele-

gates to represent the said commonwealth in Congress, for one

year from the first Monday in November then next following,

which resolution remains in full force:

Now, therefore, know ye, that we, the said Thomas Jefferson,

Samuel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, by virtue of the

power and authority committed to us by the act of the said General