Page:Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, p2.djvu/8

tucky Resolutions, manifested itself earlier. In May there was a rumor that Matthew Lyon, the leader of the Vermont Republicans, who was then serving out a sentence under the Sedition Law, contemplated removal to Kentucky. This announcement led to a characteristic paragraph in a Federalist paper published at Vergennes.^[1]

The passage of the great beast [Lyon] and his whelps to that land of paddyism (Kentucky) would be a curious spectacle for the northern and middle states. To drain this state of one thousand families of his followers might be a clear saving of as many halters to this Commonwealth, as well as much expense to towns in providing for the poor, taking up vagrants, would save the girdling of orchards, and still leave the state as much good order, morality and piety as though no such departure had ever happened! Such an addition to Kentucky must be very interesting, and give new support to future resolutions in their legislature."

When the legislature met, Governor Tichenor submitted the resolutions, observing that, as other states had treated them to "severe comment" or "marked contempt," he had not the slightest hesitation in predicting that the Vermont legislature would express its disapprobation of them in a marked degree. The legislature, in reply, told the governor to be assured that the resolutions would be considered and given the treatment which they merited.^[2] On October 14 the assembly requested the governor and council to join them a week later for the purpose of considering the resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky.^[3] The invitation was accepted, and three meetings in grand committee were held upon the subject.^[4] At the first of these meetings a sub-committee of five were appointed to formulate suitable replies; these were reported at the third meeting and accepted by the grand committee.^[5] Subsequently the Council and the assembly adopted the replies separately: in the Council both were adopted unanimously; in the assembly the reply to Virginia received 104 votes against 52, that to Kentucky 101 to 50.^[6]

The reply to Virginia^[7] was decisive and, considering its brevity, remarkably comprehensive. The reply to Kentucky,^[8] on the other

1. Reprinted by the Albany Centinel, May 17, 1799. H. U.
2. Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, IV. 512–513.
3. Extract from the Journal of the Assembly given in the Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, IV. 228.
4. Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, IV. 231, 233, 240.
5. Extract from the Journal of the Assembly given in the Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, IV. 526.
6. Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, IV. 242, 529.
7. Elliot, IV. 565.
8. Records, IV. 526–529.