periods which are not visible in the resolutions in "Independence Hall"; because on the back of the resolutions in the Library of Congress is endorsed the following: while on those (one page) in "Independence Hall" is simply: June 71776. June 7th 1776 referred for confideration because the words "respecting Independanc of the U: S—" just given are in Thomson's handwriting, though the pen and ink used were evidently different; because, on the report of the committee of the whole, above mentioned, is endorsed, as we shall see, "N: 5"; because the half-page in the Library of Congress has been folded and the marks of the ink, resultant from this folding, are plainly visible; because the resolutions in the Library of Congress are where the resolutions ought to be; because Charles S. Keyser of Philadelphia writes us, under date of November 17, 1900, respecting those in "Independence Hall": "They have been in Museum for about 25 years and were deposited by the late Col. Etting [See note 15, chapter XI], the historian of the Hall"; and because one edge of the resolutions in "Independence Hall" shows that it has been cut by scissors. Moreover, Mrs. I. B. Chew of Philadelphia very kindly fur CHAPTER IV 1 This and all former quotations from the Journal, as well as all following quotations except where specially stated otherwise, are from the original or rough Journal and not from the transcript or corrected Journal, both of which (formerly in the Department of State) are now in the Library of Congress. There is, however, but little variance between the two. 2 Here, in the corrected Journal, are the words "respecting independency". The rough Journal, as shown, does not disclose at all the character of the resolutions offered; see, however, p. 118. 3 The original resolutions (See facing p. 108; see also Force's American Archives, ser. 4, vol. 6, p. 1700) (formerly in the Department of State) are now in the Library of Congress. They are in the handwriting of R. H. Lee. # The resolutions (framed and in a case) in "Independence Hall" (which are claimed, we understand, to be the original) are not. (They have been photographed and some of these photographic copies also are in "Independence Hall".) We state this thus unreservedly (though, as we have said, the resolutions in "Independence Hall" are framed and in a case and we, therefore, have had no opportunity to examine them except therein) for the following reasons: because the resolutions in the Library of Congress are written on a half-page of paper which is of the same texture and quality, and bears the lower half of the same water-mark, as the full page of paper (See note 2, chapter VII) upon which is found what we think is the original of the report of the committee of the whole of July 1st; because the paper, indeed, is the same as that of the various drafts by Jefferson of the Declaration existing and spoken of later; because the resolutions in the Library of Congress have three periods which are not visible in the resolutions in "Independence Hall"; because on the back of the resolutions in the Library of Congress is endorsed the following: June 7-1776. No 4- June 7th 1776. referred for confideration respecting Independanc [The edges are pasted onto strong paper and are also worn; so that we cannot say whether there was here a y or an e.] while on those (one page) in "Independence Hall" is simply: June 7-1776. June 7th 1776 referred for confideration because the words "respecting Independanc of the U: S-" just given are in Thomson's handwriting, though the pen and ink used were evidently different; because, on the report of the committee of the whole, above mentioned, is endorsed, as we shall see, "N: 5"; because the half-page in the Library of Congress has been folded and the marks of the ink, resultant from this folding, are plainly visible; because the resolutions in the Library of Congress are where the resolutions ought to be; because Charles S. Keyser of Philadelphia writes us, under date of November 17, 1900, respecting those in "Independence Hall": "They have been in Museum for about 25 years and were deposited by the late Col. Etting [See note 15, chapter XI], the historian of the Hall"; and because one edge of the resolutions in "Independence Hall" shows that it has been cut by scissors. Moreover, Mrs. I. B. Chew of Philadelphia very kindly fur nished us with one of the photographic copies of the resolutions in "Independence Hall", concerning which she writes us, under date of February 12, 1901: "I had the photographs taken and gave them to Independence Hall . . . Mrs. CC Harrison kindly loaned me her broadside of the Declaration that it might be photographed . . . It has never been photographed before- & the resolutions by Richard Henry Lee were photographed at the same time-I had it done at the Museum of Independence Hall in my presence, as I would not allow either of the papers to go out of my sight - whilst they were in my charge"; and this photographic copy we compared carefully with the resolutions in the Library of Congress. This comparison showed that the resolutions in "Independence Hall" are so like those in the Library of Congress that these must be a facsimile of those in "Independence Hall" or those in Independence Hall" a facsimile of the resolutions in the Library of Congress. Such being the fact, there can be but one conclusion (because of the reasons already given, among which, as seen, is the fact that the resolutions in the Library of Congress bear certain words, etc., which do not appear on the resolutions in "Independence Hall" and which were evidently not thought to be material — and, therefore, not included—when, as we think, a facsimile of the resolutions, now, in the Library of Congress was made, and because the resolutions in "Independence Hall" are exactly the same as the facsimile found in Force's American Archives, supra), viz., that the resolutions in "Independence Hall" are a facsimile, and perhaps one of those originally in one of the sets of Force's American Archives. ## On the reverse side of the piece of paper upon which they (the original resolutions in the Library of Congress) are written is the following (See facing p. 116) (See entry in Journal, p. 118): [S] Resolved that it is the opinion of this Com that the first Resolution be postponed to this day three weeks and that in the mean time a committee be appointed to prepare a Declaration to the effect of the said first refolution +least any time sha be lost in case the Congrefs agree to this resolution The part "Resolved. . . Resolution" is evidently in the handwriting of Harrison. The following down to and including "said first refolution" is in the handwriting of Thomson. There is another paper (formerly in the Department of State) in the Library of Congress, upon which is endorsed the following: "[S] In arranging the Revolutionary papers, this paper in the hand writing of Daniel Brent was found among the Reports of Committees . . . William A Weaver, December, 27. 1833." Upon "this paper in the hand writing of Daniel Brent", which is a résumé of the proceedings in Congress on the subject of independence, appears (what is evidently a correct statement): "[S] The words ["+ least any time. . . this resolution"] . . . formed an amendment which is endorsed upon the back of the original Resolutions, in the Hand writing of Robert R. Livingston, a Delegate from New York." He and Cushing "had Leave of Absence", December 23, 1775; and the Diary of Richard Smith shows that he was appointed upon a committee on March 11, 1776. He writes to Washington, from Philadelphia, March 13th: "[S] I was in Virg (from whence I am but just returned) when your favor of the 26th Dec! came here # |