With respect to the amendment of the location so as to include Bladensburgh. I am of opinion it may be done with the consent of the legislature of Maryland, and that that consent may be so far counted on, as to render it expedient to declare the location at once.
The location A B C D A having been once made, I consider as obligatory and unalterable, but by consent of parties, except so far as was necessary to render it practicable by a correction of the beginning. That correction might be lawfully made either by stopping at the river, or at the spring of Hunting creek, or by lengthening the course from the court-house so that the second course should strike the mouth of Hunting creek. I am of opinion, therefore, that the beginning at the mouth of Hunting creek, is legally justifiable. But I would advise the location E F G H E to be hazarded so as to include Bladensburgh, because it is a better location, and I think will certainly be confirmed by Maryland. That State will necessarily have to pass another act confirming whatever location shall be made, because her former act authorized the delegates then in office, to convey the lands. But as they were not located, no conveyance has been made, and those persons are now out of office, and dispersed. Suppose the non-concurrence of Maryland should defeat the location E F G H E, it can only be done on this principle, that the first location A B C D A was valid, and unalterable, but by mutual consent. Then their non-concurrence will re-establish the first location A B C D A, and the second location will be good for the part E I D K E without their concurrence, and this will place us where we should be were we now to complete the location E B C K E. Consequently, the experiment of an amendment proposed can lose nothing, and may gain, and probably will gain, the better location.
When I say it can lose nothing, I count as nothing, the triangle A I E, which would be in neither of the locations. Perhaps this might be taken in afterwards, either with or without the consent of Virginia.
XXIII.—Report on the policy of securing particular marks to Manufacturers, by law.
December 9, 1791.
The Secretary of State, to whom was referred by the House of Representatives the petition of Samuel Breck and others, proprietors of a sail-cloth manufactory in Boston, praying that they may have the exclusive privilege of using particular marks for designating the sail-cloth of their manufactory, has had the same under consideration, and thereupon
Reports, That it would, in his opinion, contribute to fidelity in the execution of manufacturers, to secure to every manufactory an exclusive right to some mark on its wares, proper to itself.
That this should be done by general laws, extending equal right to every case to which the authority of the Legislature should be competent.