Difference between revisions of ".MTgzNQ.MjM2OTY"
(Created page with "IX") |
m (Protected ".MTgzNQ.MjM2OTY" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))) |
||
(3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
IX | IX | ||
+ | |||
+ | to perceive how such a state of things could have a favourable effect upon the results of the controversy, or contribute in any manner to the honour or advantage of the State. Under existing circumstances, therefore, and while the question is pending before Congress, it is believed to be necessary as well as expedient, that we should rely upon the Government of the Union for the enforcement of our rights; and when we appeal to that government to protect our territory against invasion, we ask not a favour which may be granted or withheld, but claim a right which the Constitution authorizes the State to demand. | ||
+ | At the last session of the Legislature an act was passed to incorporate the town of Madawaska, including territory Southward of the river St. John and the disputed territory northward of that river. By another law the inhabitants were authorized to elect a representative - | ||
+ | As the apportionment of representatives is required by the Constitution to be made at Stated periods of at most ten and at least five years distant from each other, and as it was confidently believed that this territory must eventually come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Maine, there was obvious necessity of providing for the future representation of that part of the State. It was also generally considered that these acts were intended as a continued assertion of the right of the State to Jurisdiction over the territory known to be within the limits of Maine, though there was no necessity that they should be forcibly carried into effect, until, with the concurrence of the General Government, circumstances should render it proper and expedient. Besides, if a forcible exertion of the authority of the State at Madawaska had been the intention of the Legislature appropriations would |
Latest revision as of 17:30, 17 June 2021
IX
to perceive how such a state of things could have a favourable effect upon the results of the controversy, or contribute in any manner to the honour or advantage of the State. Under existing circumstances, therefore, and while the question is pending before Congress, it is believed to be necessary as well as expedient, that we should rely upon the Government of the Union for the enforcement of our rights; and when we appeal to that government to protect our territory against invasion, we ask not a favour which may be granted or withheld, but claim a right which the Constitution authorizes the State to demand. At the last session of the Legislature an act was passed to incorporate the town of Madawaska, including territory Southward of the river St. John and the disputed territory northward of that river. By another law the inhabitants were authorized to elect a representative - As the apportionment of representatives is required by the Constitution to be made at Stated periods of at most ten and at least five years distant from each other, and as it was confidently believed that this territory must eventually come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Maine, there was obvious necessity of providing for the future representation of that part of the State. It was also generally considered that these acts were intended as a continued assertion of the right of the State to Jurisdiction over the territory known to be within the limits of Maine, though there was no necessity that they should be forcibly carried into effect, until, with the concurrence of the General Government, circumstances should render it proper and expedient. Besides, if a forcible exertion of the authority of the State at Madawaska had been the intention of the Legislature appropriations would