structed in the propriety of good government, and the necessity of maintaining law and order? If he mistook not, some of the same gentlemen now kindly proffering this instruction took upon themselves the character of political missionaries in the memorable panic session; and, leaving their seats in this chamber, were heard in the cities of Philadelphia and Baltimore, encouraging popular assemblies to open resistance to the constituted authorities of the country, by the most impassioned appeals to their feelings. It was on those occasions that the Chief Magistrate of the nation was denounced as a "usurper" and "lawless tyrant." It was on those occasions that it was declared that there were no "Sabbaths in revolutions," and the constituted authorities held up more as objects fit for public vengeance, than deserving respect and obedience. He congratulated gentlemen on their recovery of notions more favorable to regular government and good order, and trusted that the change would not prove of momentary duration, but permanent. He, however, must protest, for one, against instructions from that quarter, either as to the one or the other. Mr. B., in conclusion, begged pardon of the Senate for having digressed, in the course of his remarks, into the discussion of questions not strictly relevant to the subject before them. The introduction of these topics by gentlemen on the other side of the question, and the important bearing they had sought to give them, would, be trusted, furnish his apology, and acquit him and his friends of having on this occasion gratuitously introduced them. Mr. NILES said that he hoped the Senate would not be alarmed at his rising, as he had no intention of going into a general discussion of the subject before the Senate, which, he had reason to suppose, was tired of the debate, and anxious for the question. It was not his purpose to detain the Senate by any regular argument, even upon what appeared to him to be the real question before them, and much less to discuss the numerous topics which had been drawn into the debate. Of the politics of Pennsylvania, or Maryland, he had no wish to speak; his only object was to submit a few remarks on one point, somewhat connected with the subject before the Senate, and which involved a fundamental principle in our institutions. Mr. N. said he had witnessed the course this debate had taken with some surprise; great principles had been drawn into discussion, not necessarily belonging to the subject, and sentiments expressed, and doctrines maintained, which he had heard with no small degree of astonishment and regret; he could hardly realize that he was in the American Senate, and at this enlightened period when the principles of free Governments were supposed to be well understood and well settled. In view of what he had witnessed in this debate, he felt it his duty to allude to a fact which, whether agreeable to hear or not, he believed ought not to be entirely overlooked. Sir, said Mr. N., for some years past the American Senate, the most important branch of this Government, a co-ordinate branch of the Legislature, and possessing a portion of the executive and judicial authority, has not enjoyed the confidence of the people of the United States; and he feared, greatly feared, that what had taken place on the bill before us was not calcu lated to increase or strengthen the public confidence. Are we to be told that the people have decided inconsiderately, rashly, and unjustly? This will not do. Unless he was entirely mistaken, the principles which had been asserted, and the doctrines that had been so strenuously maintained, would be received with some astonishment by the people of this country. The question: before the Senate he regarded a very simple one; it was really a question of fact; merely, whether the condition of the act of Congress of last session, providing for the admission of Michigan into the [SENATE. Union, had been complied with. In considering this question, gentlemen had gone into the first principles of government, and made what he regarded a bold attack on popular power, on the fundamental principle of popular sovereignty, which lies at the foundation of all our institutions. These doctrines were rather antiquated; they belonged to the school of the restoration in England, and the political writings of Sir Robert Filmore; they were the present doctrines of the conservatives in all the Governments in Europe, of the advocates of arbitrary power, and of existing abuses, however flagrant. But in this country it was not necessary to trace them so far; it was not necessary to go back beyond the memorable period of '98; they were the doctrines of that day, of the period in our political history which has been appropriately called the "reign of terror." Is it supposed that the principles and spirit of '98 and '99 can be revived? Is it supposed that, instead of having advanced, we have retrograded in political intelligence, and in a just understanding of the principles of free government? What were the doctrines of that day--the doctrines to which the alien and sedition laws, and other kindred meas ures, owed their origin? He would refer the gentlemen to them, and the speeches by which they were attempted to be maintained. The speeches we have heard are of the same character, maintaining the same principles and breathing the same spirit; but it will be no disparagement to any one who has taken part in this debate to say, that the heresies of that day have not been defended with more spirit or ability now than they were then. Then their advocates were able, experienced, talented, distinguished, and illustrious men; one of them bearing an intimate relation to the Senator from Delaware. They put forth their whole strength, and staked their all, politically-the ascendency of their party and their individual prospects-on the support of the same doctrines we have heard mentioned on these occasions. But they failed, and the cause of democracy triumphed. And what were those doctrinces? They were, that the people could not be trusted; that they were their own worst enemies; that all the disorders, real or imaginary, that prevailed, were attributable to a wild spirit of democracy--to popular phrensy. An honest but fearless expression of opinion, concerning men and measures, was denounced as a spirit of insubordination, disorganization, and rank jacobinism. A distinguished leader of that party, now no more, belonging to a neighboring State to his own, a gifted son of genius, a brilliant star in the constellation of that day, whose impassioned, fervid, and glowing eloquence has never been surpassed in the halls of Congress, declared what were the evils and the remedy. I allude, (said Mr. N.,) to Fisher Ames. He declared that the disease which threatened general and universal ruin to our institutions and our future prospects was rooted deep; that it had found its way into the very hearts of the people. This disease was democracy; it was the will and sovereignty of the people. It was not that the skin was blistered, but their very bones were carious." Yes, the people were corrupt, even to their bones. In his fertile and vivid imagination, he conjured up and predicted greater evils for his country, which were to flow from this wild spirit of democracy, than have been portrayed on the present occasion. His country was to be visited with all the horrors of the French revolution; anarchy, confusion and bloodshed, were to desolate the land; and, in the federal visions of that day, the ghosts of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, were seen flitting through our atmosphere. The disease of that period was democracy; the people were said to be rising up to overthrow the Government, and destroy those noble institutions which they themselves had established. And it was the aim of those in authority to put down that wild spirit of democracy by the SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. strong arm of power, and to maintain their authority, not through the public will, and as an emanation from it, but in opposition to it--in defiance of it. It was for this purpose that the alien and sedition laws were passed. And why is it (said Mr. N.) that these laws, and particularly the latter, have become a stench in the nostrils of the people; that for nearly forty years they have borne the stamp of universal reprobation upon their face--the deep and indelible stamp of infamy, which will go down to the latest posterity, or as long as there is a single spark of liberty in the hearts of the American people? Is the execration in which those laws are held to be charged to their being unconstitutional? Far from it. A large portion of the legislation of Congress has been charged with being in violation of the constitution; and the alien and sedition acts were declared to be constitutional, not only by Congress, but by the Executive and Judiciary. No; the infamy which has attached to those obnoxious acts did not proceed from their being unconstitutional, whether they are so or not. The people do not form opinions so unreasonably or unjustly. We must look for the cause of opprobrium to a different source-the true character and design of those laws. They were regarded as a premeditated and high-handed attack upon popular power; a deadly blow at the sovereignty of the people; a bold and daring attempt to overthrow the public will, to put down the popular opinion, and to rule the country regardless of it. They were considered as an attempt to change the very element of the Government, which is founded on public opinion, and convert it into a Government of force. But that great scheme failed; and are its exploded, reprobated doctrines now to be revived? Are we now to be told that there is no political power remaining in the people? that, having established and put in operation Governments, they have parted with all political power whatever; that they cannot revise or new-model this form of government they have themselves established, unless in pursuance of a provision in the constitution, or in accordance with a law of the Legislature? This is maintaining that sovereignty resides in the constituted authorities, and not in the people at large; it is raising the creature above his creator, the agent above the principal. It is exalting the Legislature above, and making it independent of, the constituent body. But The constitutions of most of the States contain some provision for altering or amending them; some through the agency of a convention, and some otherwise. such constitutional provision is not inconsistent with and cannot take away the right and power of the people, acting in their primarily original capacity, to change their system of government. This is a right which they have not delegated, and which, of course, must abide with the people at large. Conventions of the people may be called, and often are, in pursuance of a law of the Legislature; yet this is a mere matter of convenience. But does the law confer on them their power? That is the question. If it does, then a Legislature can grant to another body greater power than it possesses itself; even the power to change or destroy those very forms under which it exists; a power to destroy the Legis'ature itself. This is preposterous, and shows the absurdity of the principle contended for. If a convention does not derive its power from the Legislature, from whence can it derive it, except from the people? What is a convention? Is it not a body representing the people in their primary, elementary capacity, and wholly independent of the Legislature and constituted authorities? If this is not a true idea of a convention of the people, he should like to be informed what a convention is. The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. PRESTON] asks, who and what are the people? He was surprised at such an inquiry from any quarter, and still more that it should come from [JAN. 4, 1837. one who has had so much to do with conventions, and attempts to call forth the latent energies of State rights and popular power. He did not understand the Senator's answer to his own question, further than his declaration that he himself [Mr. P.] was one of the people. The inquiry, however, was, he thought, easily answered. The people, in one sense, are the whole population of a State; but in a political sense, the people were that portion of the population which possessed the political power in a State: it did not mean women nor children, but the whole body of citizens with whom the political power of a State resided. Are He believed this to be the true theory of our Govern ment; and he deemed it of the utmost importance that first principles should not be perverted. Is there any danger from this theory, which recognises the sovereign power as abiding in the people at large? On this point our judgment was not left without a guide, or forced to rest on arguments only. The State Governments had been in operation sixty years, and the Federal Union nearly half a century, which had shed a flood of light on the principles and tendencies of free institutions. we to shut our eyes against their influence, and still grope our way in the dark? Is the question settled, or is it yet in controversy, whether the people are safe depositories of power? On this question he would appeal to the experience of the last fifty years. Is the danger on the side of the people, or on the side of their political agents? Is power more dangerous with the many, or in the hands of the few? He would appeal to the history of the country the last half century to settle these questions. Are we to heed every false cry of alarm? One says, Lo! here is danger! Another says, Lo! there is danger! But what says experience? He who gives a wrong direction to the public mind, in regard to the source from whence danger is to be apprehended, does a real injury to the cause of freedom. From whence have come the evils which have existed, and the dangers that have threatened us? Have they sprung from the people, or from the abuse of the power and confidence intrusted to their agents, the constituted authorities, which we have just been told were the only safe depositories of power? Sir, said Mr. N., there have been periods of danger to our institutions, if not to the liberties of the country-periods of doubt, darkness, and gloom; when clouds springing up in the East, which spread until their length and breadth darkened our whole horizon, and charged with gathering and fearful thunderbolts, which threatened to burst upon our country with desolating fury. We have heard much in this debate of conventions of the people, of the Baltimore convention, of caucuses, and of the danger of these popular movements; but we have heard nothing of conventions not originating with the people; we have heard nothing of the Hartford convention. Sir, whatever may have been the guilt or the danger of that convention, and he believed there was much of both, it did not spring from the people, but from the Legislatures, the constituted authorities, those only safe depositories of power, of four or five States of this Union, where the people are distinguished for their sober, moral, and religious character. Shall we be told that the people approved and encouraged these proceedings? This, he knew, had been said; but the whole truth should be told. So far as the people did participate, they were stimulated and goaded on by their leaders, who composed the constituted authorities. passions were inflamed, their fears aroused, their cu pidity stimulated, their prejudices appealed to, and every art and artifice resorted to, aided by a formidable array of talents, wealth, and official station, to deceive, mislead, and burry along the people into their violent and factious measures. The people were not to blame; the guilt, be it more or less, must rest on the heads of Their those who deceived and betrayed them. Sir, it was the people, a minority of the people, who, more than any other cause, arrested these rash and dangerous measures, moderated their violence, and checked their excesses. During that dark and gloomy period of the late war, that bold and honest minority (despised, insulted, and abused as it was) breasted the storm of faction at home, rallied around your Government here, and strengthened the arm of power, when weakened by wide-spread disaffection and frightful dissensions. He was proud to say that he was one of that minority. Sir, (said Mr. N.,) at a more recent period there have been clouds in another quarter, which have lowered over us, portending evil to the republic. There have been disorders and conventions at the South; conventions originating from the State authorities, those safe depositories of power. He might speak of the character and danger of those proceedings, but he forbore. The bare allusion to them answered his purpose. He could speak with more freedom of transactions in his own section of the Union. The doctrine which he was combating was at war with the great principles of the glorious American Revolution; and, if true, these States ought still to be colonies, and all of us subjects of Great Britain. He knew that was regarded as a revolutionary movement, but it was a revolution founded on the great principle of the right of the people to "throw off the forms to which they had been accustomed, and to provide new guards for their security"-the right to change or abolish their Government, and institute one more in conformity to their present wants. What is to be feared from the people? What motives have they to abuse the sovereign power? The danger to our institutions and liberties is not from the people, but from their agents, the constituted authorities, where alone it is said the sovereign power can safely be reposed. The danger is here, in these halls, and in the halls of the State Legislatures. In regard to the particular question before the Senate, he had but a word to say. If there has been any thing wrong or dangerous on the part of the people of Michigan, the wrong originated here, and the blame is justly chargeable upon Congress. What they have done has been in pursuance of our own law. The act of last session, providing for the admission of Michigan into the Union, prescribes a condition, which was, that the boundaries we had given to the State should be assented to by the people of Michigan, through a convention of delegates to be chosen for that purpose. It is true the word "State" is used, but that was only descriptive, for Michigan was not then a State, in the ordinary sense of the term, although she was a State for certain purposes. The assent was to come from the people, and through a convention of delegates, to be chosen by them for that purpose. The act required to be done was altogether a popular act; it was to be an act of the people in their primary, original, elementary capacity, without any reference to any action on the part of the existing authorities of Michigan. Had the assent been given by the first convention called by the Legislature, he concurred with the Senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN,] in the opinion that it would have been valid, and a compliance with your law. The interference of the Legislature did not change the character of the convention; it was a convention of the people, and its assent would have been the assent of the people. But the interference of the Legislature was a mere matter of convenience or form; it did not alter the substance of the proceeding, for the convention could derive none of its powers from the Legislature; they came from the people, as the fountain and source of all political power. Your law had referred the question to them; and whether they held a convention according to a rule prescribed by the VOL. XIII.-19 [SENATE. Legislature, or in some other mode, is of no importance. In either case, the question, and he thought the only question, is, have the people of Michigan given their assent? This is a mere question of fact. Was the convention of Ann Arbor a convention of the people of Michigan, and authorized to express their assent to the boundary? Of this he could see no reason to doubt; we have at least prima facie evidence that it was; there is, indeed, much stronger evidence of the fact. The circumstance that there is no opposition, no remonstrance, from any portion of the population of Michigan, was, to his mind, the strongest evidence that the second convention did emanate from, and truly represent, the people of Michigan, and had rightfully and properly given their assent to the boundary, as required by the act of Congress. He would apologize for having detained the Senate much longer than he intended, and thanked them for their attention. Mr. CRITTENDEN said that this was the only bill he had seen in that Senate, during his term of service, which had a preamble attached to it. It was his opinion that it was wholly unnecessary. However, it was deemed necessary by some gentlemen, for the sake of some argument or elucidation, to insert the preamble; but why, or wherefore, he did not apprehend. Did this preamble, he asked, vary and alter the construction of the law? Was it not the same with or without it? Had he been present when the bill was reported, he would have opposed the adoption of the preamble, because it did not tell the truth, and the whole truth. It bore upon its face what the lawyers called a suppressio veri. Now, if the Senate were right in supposing that the convention of December last was a legitimate and constitutional assembly, and that its proceedings were valid and bind. ing, did the striking out or retaining of the preamble affect the deliberations of the convention, one way or the other? He thought not. Michigan had precluded herself from no right by it, and a right would be binding upon her, whether the preamble should be retained or Was not that very clear? Then, why retain it? Gentlemen had much better lay it aside, and, by making no allusion to it, they would avoid all the questions upon which they had been so long debating. If there was to be a preamble at all, it was proper, as the Senator from Ohio [Mr. MORRIS] had said, that it should contain a true and complete history of the whole proceeding. He (Mr. C.) would vote for the preamble, provided all the facts were introduced; or, if the question should be made, he would vote for striking it out. He thought that all parties might consistently do that. He expressed his anxiety for the speedy admission of Michigan into the Union, and said that he was then prepared to vote for the bill, and trusted that gentlemen would concur with him in opinion, that there was no necessity for the insertion of a preamble. not. Mr. FULTON said: Mr. President, it is not without reluctance that I ask the indulgence of the Senate at this late hour. After the full and able discussion to which I have been an attentive listener, and from which I have derived so much instruction, I feel incapable of shedding any new light upon the subject. But before the vote is taken upon the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Ohio to the preamble to the bill upon your table, I feel it to be my duty to state the grounds upon which I am compelled to vote for the bill, with the preamble proposed by the honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I owe my thanks, sir, to the honorable Senator from Kentucky, for bringing us back to the subject under discussion; and as I shall confine myself strictly to the points involved in the consideration of the bill upon the table, I desire not to occupy much of the time of the Senate, when its patience must be so nearly exhausted, SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. [JAN. 4, 1837. Congress all the force it is possible to give it. Under existing circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that the people of Michigan at first refused to yield their consent. Excited as they were, and unwilling to give up a portion of territory they were anxious to hold, their consent to the change was difficult to obtain. After cool and mature deliberation, they did at last give their consent to the establishment of the boundary as it had tioned that the people of Michigan consider themselves bound by the act of the last convention which fixed their boundaries? Do we hear a murmur from any quarter? Have any portion of the people, however small, protested against the proceedings of that convention? Is there a single citizen of Michigan who asks us to disregard the boundaries it has established? Not one, sir, as far as I am informed. Now, sir, believing, as I do, that Michigan was a sover. eign State from the moment that Congress acknowledged her as such, and that she has been induced for the sake of peace, and also to obtain her weight in the councils of the nation, to consent to the establishment of the limits by which an unfortunate dispute is forever put to rest between her and three of her sister States, I am anxious that every thing shall be done on our part to secure the maintenance of the boundaries so established, and to quiet forever this distracting question. I wish to hold Michigan on the terms she has consented to, and to bind her to the observance of her limits, as established by the convention held at Ann Arbor. I am, therefore, extremely anxious that in the present action of Congress upon this subject we should show to the State of Michigan, (for, sir, I consider her in all respects an independent State, and capable of performing every act of soverof,) that we intend to hold her to the boundary she has now established. Michigan has fixed her boundarics as an independent State, and it therefore becomes our duty so to act in passing the bill to entitle her representatives to take their seats in Congress, as to prove to her that we consider her bound to adhere to the boundaries she has established. With these views, I shall support the preamble attached to the bill presented by the honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee. in presenting the grounds which shall determine my vote upon the question. My reason, sir, for preferring the original preamble to the bill is, because I consider that in this matter the United States stand in the attitude of a mediator between the sovereign State of Michigan on the one hand, and the States of Ohio, Indiana, and 11linois, on the other. I believe, sir, that the intervention of Congress at the last session, whether rightful or otherwise, has been the means of bringing to a happy termi-been proposed to them. And, sir, can it now be ques nation a most alarming and difficult dispute on the subject of boundary between sovereign States, and which it is now our duty to maintain, by all the means in our power. If, sir, the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Ohio shall prevail, it will, to say the least of it, produce a doubt as to the binding force of the act of the State of Michigan, in which she has given her consent to the settlement of the boundary, as proposed to her by Congress. Believing, sir, that the sovereign power is in the people of Michigan, I hold them to be capable of making an entire new constitution; and to be able to do so without following the plan pointed out in her present constitution for amending that instrument. If the people of any State in this Union have adopted a constitution, by which they afterwards find they are griev ously oppressed, it is their right, it is their duty, to annul it, in a peaceable manner if possible, and to adopt such a form of government as they may approve of. No people are free, no Government is democratic, when the great body of such people are forced to submit to be oppressed. But, sir, even admitting that such a change of Government as I have mentioned be considered revolutionary, yet is it not susceptible of being sanctioned and adopted by the sovereign power of the State, and all the validity given to it, as if it were lawful in its origin? But, sir, I consider that the settlement of this bound-eignty which the other States of this Union are capable ary question has not changed the constitution of Michi. gan. It is true that the territory within which that constitution is to operate, as also the people to be governed by it, are somewhat changed; but the form of the Government itself is not altered in any respect whatever. I believe, sir, that it is in the power of a State to settle a question of boundary by commissioners, or in any other manner which she may authorize; and that, in the present instance, the people of Michigan have acted upon the question in their sovereign capacity, and have solemnly determined, by their delegates in convention, to surrender a disputed portion of her territory upon their southern border to the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; and have acquired a tract of country upon their northern border, over which the constitution of Michigan is now operating in full force; and that the country and the people included within the limits established by the last convention now constitute the State of Michigan. I am at a loss to perceive the object aimed at, in wishing to give importance to the proceedings of the convention which refused to act upon the boundary question. Its being convened by the majority of the representatives of the people cannot make it a more valid convention than the one convened by the authority of the people themselves. And, certainly, the last act of the people is the one which we ought to regard as most obligatory upon them at this time. I am aware, sir, of the difficulties which existed. This boundary question had well nigh involved the contending parties in civil war. The Federal Government had interposed, and had endeavored, by all the means in her power, to prevent bloodshed. She, perhaps, even claimed more power than she possessed, if she attempted to fix the boundaries of either a State or Territory, if such boundary had been previously established. She, however, was performing the part of a peacemaker, and in that sacred character we should regard her acts with the utmost liberality. I am, therefore, prepared to give to the act of the last session of The question of boundary was one which properly belonged to the States and the Territory of Michigan, (if her boundaries had been permanently fixed,) who were interested in the question. But as the northern boundary of Michigan had not been established, Congress had the right to define her boundaries at any time before her independence was acknowledged. After that acknowledgment this right would have ceased but for the condition prescribed in the act of the last session of Congress; and, sir, the wisdom of that act is now fully proved by the happy consequences which are about to result from it. I entertain some views, Mr. President, in relation to the admission of States into the Union, which perhaps are dif ferent from those of others. The territory of the United States comprehends all that portion of country included within the limits of the United States, and all the inhabitants within those boundaries are American citizens, and citizens of the Union. Whenever a portion of this territory, with the people inhabiting it, are organized into a territorial form of government, a dependent State is created by the Government of the United States. These citizens lose none of their rights as American citizens, excepting that they consent, by submitting to be citizens of a dependent State, to a temporary denial of certain privileges which they would have a right to exercise if they were citizens of an independent State. They are formed into a separate community; their limits are, or ought to be, defined, and the right of jurisdiction within those limits is surrendered to them; they are vested with legislative power, and, by degrees, are invested with all the powers of self-government. A compact is thus entered into between the parent Government and the dependency, by which the rights and privileges of the citizens of the latter become so completely vested, that any act on the part of the parent Government, changing the limits or abridging those rights, powers, and privileges, secured to them by the compact, or organic law, would be such an act of injustice as would justify resistance on the part of the dependency. This embryo State, sir, the moment the parent Government releases her from the obligations imposed by the organic law, and authorizes her to form for herself her fundamental law, and establish her own form of government, becomes an independent State; and being within the limits of the United States, and her citizens being American citizens, she becomes also a member of the confederacy. The United States have only to see that her form of government is republican, and the State, in making her constitution, forms it as a member of the confederacy, under the obligations imposed by the constitution of the United States. To admit a foreign State, Congress could not act upon the subject unless she presented herself with a republican form of government; but of what avail is it for Congress to examine the constitution of a State composed of American citizens, who owe allegiance to the Federal Government, and who are bound, in forming their constitution, to make it in strict conformity to the requirements of the federal constitution? A State, in making or altering her constitution, does so at her peril; and our only security against a violation of the constitution in this particular by any of the States of this confederacy is, that the United States are bound to see that the constitutions of all the States are republican. I consider, Mr. President, that the delay which has taken place, in the acknowledgment by Congress of the rights of Michigan, is an act of great injustice to her. I consider, sir, that we have nothing to do but to acknowledge her rights, and that every moment this is delayed we are threatening the integrity of the Union. It we reject her now, or longer refuse to her Senators and Representative their right to their seats in the two branches of Congress, we will be guilty of an act calcu lated to bring about a dismemberment of this happy Union. We have surrendered to her the right of domain, and the sovereignty of the soil within her limits; and if we continue to persist in an attempt to bind her by laws which she has no part in making, she will be justified in setting herself up as an independent foreign Power; and in claiming the right of property to all the public lands within her limits, and in throwing open her ports to all the world. This, sir, is the dilemma in which we will place ourselves, by refusing to acknowledge the rights of Michigan. Let us, then, hasten the final action upon this subject, and pass, without further delay, the bill upon your table. The question was then put on Mr. MORRIS's amendment to the preamble of the bill, and decided in the neg ative, by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 18, nays 23. YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Sevier, Southard, Swift, White-18. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Parker, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, Wright-23. So the amendment to the preamble was rejected. Mr. SOUTHARD moved to strike out the preamble; which motion was rejected: Yeas 16, nays 25-as follows: [SENATE. YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Kent, Knight, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Southard, Swift, White-16. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Parker, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, Wright-25. Mr. CALHOUN moved to strike out the preamble, and insert, in lieu thereof, a section repealing the conditions imposed on Michigan by the act of the last session, as to her assent to the boundary prescribed in that act. On submitting this motion, Mr. CALHOUN moved that the Senate adjourn, in order to allow him an opportunity of addressing the Senate in its support the next day." This motion was lost: Yeas 13, nays 24-as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Bayard, Black, Calboun, Davis, Kent, King of Georgia, Knight, Moore, Parker, Prentiss, Robbins, Southard, Swift-13. NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-24. The question was then taken on Mr. CALHOUN'S amendment, and it was lost: Yeas 12, nays 25-as follows: YEAS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Davis, Kent, Knight, Moore, Morris, Prentiss, Robbins, Southard, Swift, White--12. NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Parker, Rives, Robinson, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, Wright--25. Mr. WHITE, of Tennessee, said that when this bill had been before the Senate at the last session, he had voted against it; but at that time a bill was pending before the other House to settle the northern boundary of the State of Ohio; and as the same line which constituted the northern boundary of Ohio would be the southern boundary of Michigan, he was one of those who thought that Michigan ought not to be admitted as a State till that boundary was settled. While Michigan remained a Territory, Congress had power to settle the dispute, and assign her limits, but let her once be admitted as a State, and Congress would lose that power. As it could not be known with certainty whether the bill then pending in the House of Representatives would become a law or not, and as he was obliged to vote in the meanwhile, he could not reconcile it to his views of propriety to receive Michigan while the boundary question remained open. The bill settling the boundary, however, did pass, eventually, into a law, and was approved on the 23d June. He approved of that bill, because he believed that Congress had power to fix the boundary, and that it was wise to do it. That question having been settled, the case now presented itself under a different aspect. He had been opposed to the preamble of the present bill, because, to say the least, he considered it doubtful He had whether the facts there recited were really so. been in favor of the first amendment of the preamble. That having been rejected, he had then voted to strike the preamble out of the bill, but had failed in that also. Having then recorded his vote against the reasons put forth by the majority in the preamble in support of the bill, he was now called upon to vote on the question of its final passage, and unless he saw further reason to change his opinion, he should vote in the affirmative. He should receive Michigan, however, not for the rea sons contained in the preamble, for that was no part of the law, nor did he agree to those reasons; but on |