Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

DEC. 15, 1835.]

Michigan Senators.

[SENATE.

tlemen to be admitted? Not to take part in the delibera- precedents, and that every question should be decided tions of the Senate generally, not for the purpose of according to its own particular circumstances. He voting. Certainly not. Why, then, were they to be asked what difficulty had resulted from an extension of admitted on the floor? If admitted, to what extent are this courtesy in former cases, where seats had been astheir rights to go? Were they to be sworn in the usual signed under similar circumstances? Was any effort form, or not? Were they to sit in the private as well as made to take part in the debate, to answer on the call the public sessions of the Senate? If in the private ses- of the yeas and nays, to stand up and sit down when sions, under what injunctions? In short, he was entirely there was a count? There was no instance of the kind. opposed to any action on this incidental matter, until the If these gentlemen are admitted, a motion to clear the principal question, whether Michigan was to be admit- galleries would induce them to go out, or the slightest ted into the States of the Union, should be disposed of. hint from the Senate would be sufficient to lead them to He would not now offer any opinion on that principal do that which their own gentlemanly feelings would question; he had not yet formed any. But why were suggest, if they took the time to reflect. But it seemed these gentlemen to be admitted on the ground of cour- to be supposed that the civility of asking the gentlemen tesy? It must be because they have some rights, per- to sit down was to commit the Senate to a particular fect or quasi, to come there as Senators of Michigan. line of conduct. He reminded the Senate of the course Putting that out of the question, there was no more adopted on the admission of Missouri, in which case the reason for admitting them than any other gentlemen, Senators were admitted during the deliberations. The when they may apply. He was opposed to the admis- Senate decided against their claims, and they were sent sion of the gentlemen, because it implied a right; and back; but was any single Senator influenced in his vote he was not willing to prejudge the question which the by the fact of their presence? Not one. Did any one Senate would be hereafter called on to decide. It understand the courtesy extended to them as having any would be, to some extent, a commitment of the opinion thing to do with the decision of the question? He was of the Senate, and would have a tendency to mislead here himself on that occasion; and he was told by that the public mind. He was opposed, therefore, to any most accomplished and amiable man who then filled the thing which would seem to settle the principal question. chair, Mr. Gaillard, to take a seat on the floor. He enFor himself, he was ready to enter upon the discussion joyed all the incidental privileges of that seat; he franked of that principal question, as to the admission of Michi-his letters, and the two Houses paid him, from the begingan, as soon as any gentleman might be disposed to ning, the same as the other Senators were paid. Yet move it; and, whenever it should be decided, he was the principal question, so far from being prejudiced by willing that all the consequences should follow, one of this course, was determined against them. He begged which would be the admission of the Senators on the to inform the Senate that, while he felt himself bound floor, and the administering to them of the oath of a to act the part he had taken in bringing forward this Senator. He was not for the inversion of the proceed- motion, he, for one, should remain entirely uncommitings of the Senate, the adoption of the consequences ted on the main question, and not only uncommitted, first, and of the cause afterwards. The first question is, but free from any bias which would affect his course is Michigan to be admitted into the Union, and has she a right to send Senators? When that was decided, every thing would follow in its natural, appropriate, and legitimate order. Entertaining these views, he was compelled to oppose the motion.

Mr. BENTON, in reply, stated that he had not been curious or careful in looking for precedents for his motion, because he did not see why, on a question of mere courtesy, civility, the Senate should not rather be making than following precedents. He did not think, when a mere question of courtesy was referred to their consideration, that they were bound to suspend the action of the body until they could examine a parcel of musty records. If, in the ordinary intercourse of life, a gentleman brought to him a letter of introduction, he would as: him to take a seat. Here are gentlemen, who have brought letters, under the great seal, de facto, of the State of Michigan, from a person who acts as the Governor of that State, and these letters are among the archives of the State. He adverted to the case of the Rhode Island Senator, two years ago, as proving that Senators who came here had a right to hold their seats, in case of dispute, until the dispute was settled. By the report of the Committee of Elections, in that case, confirmed as it was by a large majority of the Senate, it was settled that a Senator had a right to come here as a Senator until it was shown that he had not this right. But no such thing was asked in this case. All that was asked was that gentlemen sent here by a State should be requested to take seats, and that chairs be provided for them, until it should be determined by the Senate what their precise rights were. Could there be shown any case where, in such circumstances, Senators were not asked to sit until there could be an examination of all the analogies and the nice and hair-breadth distinctions which gentlemen might choose to draw? He desired to see the Senate, on this question, unfettered by

when the Senate should decide.

Mr. CLAYTON thought it was desirable that more time should be allowed for consideration; and, if the gentleman from Missouri had no objection, he would move to lay the motion on the table for the present. Without intending to commit himself in any way, there was one distinct view which he desired to present. By the constitution which Michigan had adopted, and under which she claimed the admission of her Senators, she had annexed to her territory a considerable portion of the State of Indiana, as it was laid off and recognised by Congress, when that State was admitted into the Union. The adoption of the claims of Michigan, or any measure looking to that adoption, would incline strongly against the rights of Indiana; and every principle entitling Michigan to this portion of the territory of Indiana would operate to give Wisconsin a large tract out of the State of Illinois. By the same ordinance which, according to her construction of the boundary line, gave to Michigan a part of Indiana, a strip, fifty miles in breadth, of the State of Illinois, would be cut off by

Wisconsin.

Be

He was fearful of any thing which could even touch this question at this moment, although he was willing, as to matter of politeness, to go as far as any Senator. But, while doing this, he was bound to inquire if there was not also some courtesy due to Illinois. One of her Senators was dead, and we had this day adopted a resolution to inform the Executive of the State of that event. fore we take any step to admit Michigan, according to the claims she presents, we ought to allow time for the State of Illinois to be fully represented on this floor. He had not made himself sufficiently master of all the precedents to understand whether, after they had admitted the Senators to the floor, they could have a right to exclude them again. The gentleman from Missouri had stated that, if admitted, they would be liable to be re

SENATE.]

Standing Committees.

moved, and could not be entitled to sit during executive sessions. If such was the understanding of the Senator from Missouri, it ought to be so expressed in the motion. Unless the motion was thus modified, they would be as free to sit in secret session as in public. He would prefer, however, not to be called on to decide the question now. If the gentlemen could be admitted without any interference with the rights of Indiana, of Ohio, of Illinois, or of the Senate, he could have no difficulty in deciding his course. But he wished, under the circumstances, more time for deliberation, and he would move to lay the motion, for the present, on the table.

Mr. BENTON signified his assent.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, expressed a wish to call the attention of the Senator from Missouri to the phraseology of his motion. The language used is, "in the Senate." For this there was no precedent. None but Senators could sit within the bar. He had no objection to admit the gentlemen on the floor, but none within the bar. He hoped, before the motion to lay on the table was made, that the Senator would so modify the motion as to remove this objection, by saying "without the bar of the Senate." When the Senators from Missouri applied, the Fresident of the Senate had a right to assign seats, but the Senate had now taken away this power. The motion was then laid on the table.

Mr. PORTER, pursuant to notice, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to provide for the adjustment of claims to lands therein mentioned; which was read and ordered to a second reading.

The Senate then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16.

[DEC. 16, 17, 1835.

Mr. BLACK; the ballot being-Black 25, Linn 17, scatter-
ing 1.
The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on
Indian Affairs, resulted in the election of Mr. WHITE;
the ballot being-White 36, scattering 2.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Claims, resulted in the election of Mr. NAUDAIN; the ballot being-Naudain 21, Shepley 15, scattering 5.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, resulted in the election of Mr. CLAYTON; the ballot being-Clayton 22, Buchanan 16, scattering 3.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, resulted in the election of Mr. GRUNDY; the ballot being-Grundy 25, scattering 11.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Roads and Canals, resulted in the election of Mr. HENDRICKS; the ballot being--Hendricks 39, Robinson 1.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Pensions, resulted in the election of Mr. TOMLINSON; the ballot being-Tomlinson 23, Brown 17, scattering 1. The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, resulted in the election of Mr. TvLER; the ballot being-Tyler 23, King of Georgia 15, scattering 1.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, resulted in the election of Mr. MoORE; the ballot being--Moore 21, Hubbard 14, scattering 6.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, resulted in the election of Mr. MCKEAN; the ballot being--McKean 22, Ruggles 14, scattering 4.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on

Mr. CALHOUN and Mr. PRESTON, from South Carolina, Engrossed Bills, resulted in the election of Mr. SHEPLEY; appeared and took their seats.

STANDING COMMITTEES.

The CHAIR announced the business first in order, being the election of the standing committees.

The Senate proceeded to ballot for a chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, when Mr. CLAY was elected; the ballots being-Clay 23, King of Alabama 15, scattering 4.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Finance, resulted in the election of Mr. WEBSTER; the ballot being-Webster 25, Wright 17, scattering 1.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Commerce, resulted in the election of Mr. DAVIS;the ballot being--Davis 22, Hill 17, scattering 4.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, resulted in the election of Mr. KNIGHT; the ballot being-Knight 22, Wall 18, scattering 3.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, resulted in the election of Mr. BROWN; the ballot being-Brown 25, Tipton 14, scattering 4.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, resulted in the election of Mr. BENTON; the ballot being-Benton 29, Black 6, scattering 6.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on the Militia, resulted in the election of Mr. ROBINSON; the ballot being--Robinson 36, scattering 5.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs, resulted in the election of Mr. SOUTHARD; the ballot being-Southard 25, Tallmadge 17, scattering 1.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Public Lands, resulted in the election of Mr. EWING; the ballot being-Ewing 24, Morris 15, scattering 3.

The next ballot, for chairman of the Committee on Private Land Claims, resulted in the election of

the ballot being-Shepley 22, McKean 13, scattering 6. The Senate proceeded to ballot for the remaining members of the several committees, when the following were elected:

Foreign Relations.-Messrs. King of Georgia, Tallmadge, Mangum, and Porter.

Finance.--Messrs. Cuthbert, Wright, Mangum, and

[blocks in formation]

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 17.

After transacting the usual morning business,

The Senate proceeded to ballot for the remainder of the standing committees, and the following is a list of them, as far as the elections of this day, in a perfect form:

On Agriculture.-Mr. Brown, chairman; Messrs. Kent, King of Alabama, Morris, Wright.

On Military Affairs.-Mr. Benton, chairman; Messrs. Wall, Preston, Goldsborough, Tipton.

On the Militia.-Mr. Robinson, chairman; Messrs. Hendricks, McKean, Swift, Wall.

On Naval Affairs.-Mr. Southard, chairman; Messrs. Tallmadge, Black, Robbins, Cuthbert.

On the Public Lands.-Mr. Ewing, chairman; Messrs. Moore, Prentiss, Crittenden, McKean.

On Private Land Claims.-Mr. Black, chairman; Messrs. Linn, Ruggles, Porter, King of Georgia.

On Indian Affairs.-Mr. White, chairman; Messrs. Tipton, Goldsborough, Swift, Brown.

DEC. 21, 1835.]

Smithsonian Institution-Northern Boundary of Ohio.

On Claims.-Mr. Naudain, chairman; Messrs. Tipton, Shepley, Swift, Brown.

On the Judiciary.—Mr. Clayton, chairman; Messrs. Buchanan, Leigh, Preston, Crittenden.

On the Post Office and Post Roads.-Mr. Grundy, chairman; Messrs. Robinson, Ewing, Knight, Davis.

On Roads and Canals.-Mr. Hendricks, chairman; Messrs. McKean, Robinson, Kent, Robbins.

On Pensions.-Mr. Tomlinson, chairman; Messrs. Tallmadge, Linn, Prentiss, McKean.

On the District of Columbia.-Mr. Tyler, chairman; Messrs. Kent, Naudain, Southard, King of Alabama. On Revolutionary Claims.-Mr. Moore, chairman; Messrs. White, Hubbard, Leigh, Shepley.

On the Contingent Expenses of the Senate.-Mr. McKean, chairman; Messrs. Tomlinson, Brown.

On Engrossed Bills.-Mr. Shepley, chairman; Messrs. Hill, Morris.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, with leave, introduced a bill for the better organization of the district court of Alabama, which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The Senate concurred in a resolution of the House of Representatives concerning the election of chaplains; and

The Senate adjourned to Monday.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 21.

JOHN M. NILES, a Senator from Connecticut, appointed to fill the place of the late NATHAN SMITH, ap. peared and took his seat.

Mr. TOMLINSON presented the credentials of JOHN M. NILES, appointed by the Executive of Connecticut to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of the honorable NATHAN SMITH.

Mr. NILES was then sworn.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION.

A message was received from the President of the United States, by Mr. DONELSON, his secretary, as follows, to wit:

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United

States:

[SENATE.

to such an extent, or had been productive of such calamitous results, as it appeared to have raged, for so many hours, in the most crowded part of that great commercial capital. A strong expectation prevailed out of doors that Congress would do something for the relief of the sufferers. In cases of much less extensive mischief, relief had, in some form, been given by Congress. He could not take it on himself to say what relief was expected in this instance; but, as he had already said, there were already signs of strangely excited expectation that something would be done by Congress in the way of extending relief. In some former cases, he believed, there had been an extension of the time for the payment of duty bonds, and other modes might be combined with that. He was not at this moment prepared to recommend, or even to propose, any specific measure. The city of New York was represented in the other branch by gentlemen who were in the habit of constant intercourse with their constituents, and they would be best enabled to devise some mode of relief. For one, he was disposed to do all which the constitutional power of Congress would permit him to do. It might be considered as the best course, at present, to wait for some action on the part of the other House, before any report was made from the committee. But, in the mean time, they could have the subject under their consideration. He hoped the resolution would be adopted to-day, and that the public expectation would be thus far gratified.

The resolution was adopted.

NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF OHIO.

Mr. EWING, pursuant to notice, rose to ask leave to introduce a bill to define and settle the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio.

Leave being granted, Mr. EwING introduced the bill; which was read, and ordered to a second reading.

On introducing this bill, Mr. EWING addressed the Chair in the following speech:

Mr. President: I feel it due to the importance of the measure which I propose, and to public expectation and public opinion in my State, that I present, at this early stage of the proceeding, a brief summary, at least, of the question to which this bill will give rise. I feel it the more important to do so, as public opinion abroad, throughout the Union, has been assailed, and in some measure pre-occupied, with papers issuing from various

I transmit to Congress a report from the Secretary of State, accompanying copies of certain papers relating to a bequest to the United States, by Mr. James Smithson, of London, for the purpose of founding, at Wash-quarters inimical to the proposed measure; papers in ington, an establishment, under the name of the "Smithsonian Institution," for the diffusion of knowledge among men. The Executive having no authority to take any steps for accepting the trust and obtaining the funds, the papers are communicated with a view to such measures as Congress may deem necessary.

ANDREW JACKSON.

WASHINGTON, December 17, 1835.

The message and documents were ordered to lie on the table.

SUFFERERS BY FIRE AT NEW YORK. Mr. WEBSTER offered the following resolution, and moved its consideration at this time; which was agreed to:

Resolved, That the Committee on Finance be instructed to inquire what measures should be adopted by Congress in consequence of the destruction of merchandise and other property by the late fire in New York.

Mr. WEBSTER then offered a few observations on the circumstances and extent of the fire. There had been no example in this country of a fire of such magnitude. There was no place where the ravages of this destructive element had continued for such a period and

which a one-sided view of the case has been presented; and in some instances erroneous statements of public documents have, in the over-zeal of individuals to establish their favorite position, been sent abroad as a part of the political history, and of the law and truth of the case. I wish, in behalf of Ohio, that the facts as they exist may go forth to the public in such small compass, that they may be seen, examined, and understood. And I wish, by reference to documents here, and all the documents that I think bear upon the question, to lighten the labor of gentlemen who wish to examine it and form. their judgment. This being my object, I shall attempt little argument, and indulge in no digression.

This bill, so far as it relates to Ohio, is the same in all its provisions with that which I have twice offered in the Senate, which has twice passed this body, and which has been twice lost among the unfinished business of the House. A few words are necessary, however, to explain the full purport of its provisions. The act of Congress of the 30th April, 1802, "authorizing the inhabitants of the eastern division of the Northwestern Territory to form a constitution and State Government," directs that the contemplated State shall be bounded "on the north by an east and west line drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan," "running east

[blocks in formation]

until it shall intersect Lake Erie, or the territorial line; thence, with the same, through Lake Erie, to the Pennsylvania line." Under this law the convention met, and formed the constitution of Ohio; but fearing that the mouth and estuary of an important river, which had its course within the State, would be excluded by the prescribed boundary, the convention accepted it, with a proviso which is found in the sixth section of the seventh article of the constitution, and is in the following words:

"Provided always, and it is hereby fully understood and declared by this convention, that, if the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan should extend so far south that a line drawn due east from it should not intersect Lake Erie, or if it should intersect the said lake east of the mouth of the Miami of the Lake, then, and in that case, with the assent of the Congress of the United States, the northern boundary of the State shall be established by, and extend to, a line running from the southerly extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami bay," "thence, northeast, to the territorial line, and by the said territorial line to the Pennsylvania line."

[DEC. 21, 1835.

constitution. And there would seem to be the most obvious propriety and policy in according it, having a due regard to the great leading features of our country in its civil divisions, if, indeed, Congress have the power to do so without the infringement of a compact, or the violation of national faith.

This measure has long been a subject of discussion. Those who oppose it contend that Congress, by the terms of the deed of cession from Virginia, by the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, and by their own subsequent acts, have been deprived of the power of extending the boundary of either of the southern States of the Northwestern Territory, Ohio inclusive, north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan. And the first and most important inquiry is, whether Congress does now possess that power. To me, indeed, it seems a question of easy solution. At the close of the revolutionary war, Virginia and Connecticut claimed each a portion of the Northwestern Territory. Connecticut ceded her jurisdiction without any directions as to its future civil divisions, but Virginia required that the lands so ceded should be divided into States," containing a suitable extent of territory, not less than one hundred nor more than one hundred and fifty miles square, or as near thereto as circum. stances will permit," &c.; which provision was made in accordance with a resolution of Congress of the 10th of October, 1780.

to location and boundary. Congress soon became sensible of this, and, by their resolution of July 7, 1786, asked Virginia to revise her deed of cession. The preamble to that resolution shows what were the views and wishes of that Congress in the formation of new members of the federal Union, and what, I believe, has been (at least what ought to have been) the purpose of each succeeding Congress which has been called to act on this subject. It is as follows:

Now, sir, the position of Lake Michigan is proved to be as was apprehended by the framers of the constitution of Ohio. The southerly extreme of Lake Michigan is so far south that a line drawn from it due east cuts off the mouth of the Miami of the Lake, and intersects Lake Erie many miles east of that river; and this bill copies substantially the above-recited proviso of the The country was at that time unexplored, and great constitution of Ohio, and will, if it become a law, give difficulties might have arisen from the fixing of any unthe express assent of Congress to the boundary desig-bending rules for the formation of new States, in respect nated therein. The objection to the boundary named in the act of Congress is best understood by reference to a map of the country, which Senators will find upon their tables. It will be seen that the Miami of the Lake, a large and navigable river, (the largest, I believe, which flows northward into that chain of lakes,) has almost its whole course in Ohio, and its whole and entire navigable course in Ohio and Indiana, except the last eight miles, with its mouth and bay, or estuary, which is cut off by this east and west line, and thrown into another jurisdiction-that of the Territory of Michigan. I can acquit, at once, the framers of the ordinance of 1787, and the Congress which passed the law of April 30, 1802, of the apparent neglect of the just interests of the great civil division of our country which comprises the community which those acts called into being. They had fixed, according to their belief of the geographical relations of the country, boundaries to that State which were wholly unexceptionable. The line, as they had fixed it, did, as they believed, instead of cutting off from Ohio the mouth of the Miami of the Lake, extend northward beyond the river Raisin, to the head of the lake, or rather above it, near the mouth of the Detroit river. I refer to an ancient map of the country, the same which was of the highest authority at the time of the passage of the ordinance and the act of 1802, to show what was their purpose, and what were their opinions as to this boundary. It is a singular case of an error affecting a division of land or a tract of country. It is not a mistake in the position of an object which forms part of a boundary, but the position of a very remote object, lying in an unexplored region, from which a line was to be produced in the given direction, until it should touch the Territory in question, and form the boundary.

But the difficulty will be remedied by adopting the bill which I now offer. It will give to Ohio, not all that was supposed and intended by the Congress which framed the act of 1802, but it will give her all that is important to her internal improvements and commercial interests, and all that was asked for by the framers of her

"Whereas it appears, from the knowledge already obtained of the tract of country lying northwest of the river Ohio, that the laying it out and forming it into new States, of the extent mentioned in the resolution of Congress of October 10, 1780, and in one of the conditions contained in the cession of Virginia, will be productive of many and great inconveniences; that, by such a division of the country, some of the new States will be deprived of the advantage of navigation; some will be improperly intersected by lakes, rivers, and mountains; and some will contain too great a proportion of barren and unimprovable land, and, of consequence, will not, for many years, if ever, have a sufficient number of inhabitants to form a respectable Government, and entitle them to a seat and voice in the federal council: And whereas, in fixing the limits and dimensions of the new States, due attention ought to be paid to natural boundaries, and a variety of circumstances which will be pointed out by a more perfect knowledge of the country, so as to provide for the future growth and prosperity of each State, as well as for the accommodation and security of the first adventurers: In order, therefore, that the ends of government be attained, and that the States which are formed may become a speedy and sure accession of strength to the confederacy,

"Resolved, That it be, and is hereby, recommended to the Legislature of Virginia to take into consideration their act of cession, and revise the same, so far as to empower the United States in Congress assembled to make such a division of the territory of the United States lying northerly and westerly of the river Ohio, into distinct republican States, not more than five nor

[blocks in formation]

less than three, as the situation of that country and fu ture circumstances may require; which States shall hereafter become members of the federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence, as the original States, in conformity with the resolution of Congress of the 10th of October, 1780."

By this resolution Congress asked for authority to change nothing relative to the contemplated States in the Northwestern Territory, except the extent and boundaries; and they asked for discretion for the purpose of adjusting their boundaries to suit the natural features of the country. And this discretion (which was accorded by Virginia) is, if I can read and understand the laws and ordinances aright, continued over the whole northern portion of that country down to the present day.

The extent of the powers thus retained by Congress depends upon the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio. I join in all that has ever been said in praise of this invaluable charter. It has been called irrevocable--so it is, as long as the faith of the nation is regarded. It has been called a sacred instrument-I hold it so. Next to the constitution itself (of which, indeed, this ordinance is by adoption a part) I hold it the most sacred among the muniments of our national liberty. But it does not, therefore, follow that every manner of pretension must be sanctioned which any one thinks fit to advance in its

name.

The question of the power of Congress over this disputed territory grows out of the fifth article of the ordinance. I need not trouble the Senate by reading that article; a simple analysis of its provisions, so far as they touch the present question, will suffice.

1st. It ordains that Congress shall form not less than three, nor more than five, States within that Territory. 2d. It defines the boundaries of three of those States, according to the present boundaries of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, on all sides except the north; and it extends them all northward to the boundary line of the United States.

3d. And it provides that "the boundaries of these three States shall be subject to be so far altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part of the Territory which lies north of an cast and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan."

It appears to me clear, by the mere reading of the latter part of this section, of which I give the words, that all the obligation imposed upon Congress was to form three States in said Territory, the northern boundary of any of which should not be pressed farther south than the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan; that the east and west boundaries of each of the three States should be fixed within the limits prescribed; and that the northern part of the Territory should be formed into States, or attached to the southern States, or part of it be formed into one or two States, and part of it attached to the State lying immediately south of it. One or two States may be formed by Congress in that part of the Territory which lies north of the east and west line above named; but it is not said that they shall be formed of that territory, or of all that territory. It were hard to reason on the subject; the ordinance itself is as clear to the point which I would sustain as any language I can use in support of it; and it is only by passing over, or interpolating, or modifying its provisions, either in statement or in argument, that a doubt has been raised as to its interpretation.

I will refer, by way of specimen, (and it is not the only one in which public documents have been thus treated in this contest,) to an article entitled "The case VOL. XII.-2

[SENATE.

of Michigan," which appeared in the Intelligencer of the 5th instant. The writer is unknown to me, but the editors say it is "from a highly intelligent and respect. able source." The sentence in that "exposition," in which a clause in the ordinance of 1787 is misstated, is as follows:

"By the ordinance of 1787, whenever any of the States or Territories in the Northwestern Territory 'shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State Govern

ment.""

I call the attention of the Senate to the word Territories, in that part of the paragraph which is introductory to the quotation from the ordinance, and which fixes the sense of that quotation. That word is an interpolation in language, and it changes the whole sense of the paragraph. It is not to be found in the text quoted, nor in the context, nor any word or words which convey an equivalent meaning to it, in the connexion in which it is here introduced. And, unfortunately, this single word, thus thrown in, is the one on which the whole argument in behalf of Michigan and her rights to this territory must hinge: take that away, read the ordinance truly, as it is written, adding nothing and suppressing nothing, it does not leave them ground whereon to rest the soles of their feet. It is the fifth article of that ordinance (1st vol. Laws of the United States, page 480) that has been thus misused. That article declares that there shall be formed, in the Northwestern Territory, three States; it defines their boundary on all sides except the north, as the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois are now bounded; and it extends them all northward to the northern boundary of the United States, which is there called the territorial line. It then provides that "the boundaries of these three States shall be subject to be so far altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part of the Territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan." Then follows the misquoted clause, which is in these words: "And whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a constitution and State Government."

I am bound, in courtesy, to believe that the misrep resentation of this clause of the ordinance, by the writer who thus volunteers to instruct the community on this subject, was a mistake. But if any one can find in the clause of the ordinance referred to by that writer, and which I have just read, a vested right in this Territory (which is not formed by the ordinance or by act of Congress into a State) to come into the Union when its inbabitants shall be sixty thousand, or to hold fast, permanently, against the will of Congress, to the boundaries fixed for it as a Territory, for the express purpose of temporary government, he must have perceptions and reasoning faculties of a different order from those which are possessed by the rest of mankind. Indeed, when the ordinance is set out truly, as it is, no one will, I think, be able to draw any such inference from it.

Congress had the right, by virtue of their general powers, without any express compact authorizing it, to erect territorial Governments, such as they might see fit, as to number, extent, and boundary, and to change and modify them at pleasure. So at least it has been held, and such has been the practice of the Government,

« AnteriorContinuar »