enactments. I then undertook to show that this part of the constitution of Michigan was framed in direct contravention of the constitution of the United States. This argument, advanced by me three months ago, the friends of this measure have not attempted to answer. The disputed boundary between Ohio and Michigan has become a subject of anxious solicitude to every friend of his country; the matter in dispute is but of minor importance, when compared with the peace of the country and the happiness of the people. When this question of boundary was before the Senate, two years ago, I proposed to give to Ohio the territory lying east, and to Michigan that lying west, of the Maumee Bay, and to give to the two States concurrent jurisdiction over the bay itself. To this proposition both parties objected, and the matter remained unsettled. The state of feeling between the parties evidently became more dangerous, and, at the last session of Congress, I did not vote against the bill conferring to Ohio all she claimed: this bill passed the Senate, but did not become a law. Of the conduct of both parties respecting the disputed territory, I need not speak; it is fresh in the recollection of every Senator; and the almost unanimous vote upon the bill that passed a few days ago, establishing the northern boundary of Ohio, is sufficient evidence of a fixed determination on the part of the Senate to put an end at once to these dangerous controversies. Let us examine, for a moment, the question now presented by the honorable chairman of the select commit. tee to which the constitution of Michigan was referred. The committee has reported a bill for admitting the Territory of Michigan on certain conditions; the second section of the bill describes the boundaries of the new State, but differing in many particulars from those claimed by the convention of the people, in the constitution which has been submitted to us. The bill proposes to establish the northern boundary of Indiana as the southern boundary of the State of Michigan; and the third section of the bill gives to their Legislature the right to accept these modified boundaries. Here, sir, we have, in a bill for admitting a new State into the Union, a proposition to alter its bounda ries, and leaving the acceptance of the new boundaries to the Legislature of the new State, the people of which have, in their constitution, claimed bounds essentially differing from those proposed in the bill. Now, sir, according to my apprehension, the first question is, can this be done? Can the Congress of the United States clothe the Legislature of any State or Territory with authority to alter or amend any portion of its constitution? Sir, I am not a lawyer; and, in some cases, would not attempt to set up my own judgment against the opinions of those learned in the law. But, in this case, it is both my right and my duty to judge of and adopt such measures as I conceive necessary to protect the interests of those who sent me here; and I do most solemnly deny the authority of Congress or of the convention of Michigan in this way to delegate any such power to the Legislature of Michigan. Has, then, the Legislature of Michigan any such inherent power? None will contend that it has. Is the Senate prepared to recognise the exercise of doubtful powers, whereby the peace of the country may be jeoparded? It surely should not leave so important a matter to doubt and chance. The next Legislature will, I have no doubt, accept the boundaries specified in the bill, for the sole purpose of gaining admission into the Union. But, once admitted, and the succeeding or some future Legislature will possibly think that the first had no right to agree to any alteration in their boundaries, as prescribed in the constitution; and they will reassert their claim to a portion of Ohio and Indiana, as claimed in their constitution now before us. They will probably VOL. XII.-64 [SENATE. apply first to Congress to put them in possession of that which they now claim. Should Congress hesitate or refuse, none can foretell what consequences will follow. A friend has furnished me with a newspaper, the Detroit Free Press, of the 16th instant, in which I find a publication of the proceedings of a public meeting, mentioned by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. CLAYTON] yesterday; and an article signed by honorable John Biddle, President of the Michigan convention, and fourteen other members of that body, in which they deny having delegated to their members of Congress, or to any future Legislature of the new State, any power. to accept of other boundaries than those claimed by the constitution now before us. These are gentlemen of high standing, possessing great influence with their people. No one need pretend to shut his eyes now to the consequences which will follow if we pass the bill for the admission of Michigan into the Union, without referring the question of boundary to a convention of delegates to be hereafter chosen by the people for that purpose. I want an expression of approbation from the sovereign people, not from a knot of interested office-holders or office-seekers, on this important ques tion. If the friends of this bill have heretofore had a hope that the people of Michigan would permit their members of Congress or their Legislature to exercise any discretionary power with regard to the question of boundary, that hope must now vanish. We see that the people of Michigan are divided into parties upon this very subject; as one party goes down, another will come up, and deny the power proposed to be given by this bill to the next Legislature, to accept modified boundaries. I warn the Senate that the passage of this bill, in its present shape, will endanger the peace of the country. The people of Indiana have ever been a quiet, peaceable, law-abiding people; resistance to the law has never been heard of in that State, and I have no fears that it ever will be: but, sir, we have no wish to hear the flourish of trumpets or to see banners waving near our borders. It can lead to no good result. Indiana, never will surrender what Michigan claims to any power on earth. Let the people of Michigan retrace their steps and strike from her constitution all claim to any portion of the neighboring States, and I am ready to admit her into the Union. Her present position is not chargeable to me; I proposed bills two years ago, preparing the way to admit both Michigan and Arkansas as other new Her States have been received into our Union. Let those who prevented the passage of these bills, together with the unfortunate and unjust pretensions set up by Michigan to a part of the State of Indiana, account to the country for the difficulty that now surrounds us. admission under these circumstances is impossible. If the constitution of Michigan had been framed with a just regard to the rights of my constituents, 1 should have been anxious to admit her. There are many reasons to incline me to that course. She is a northwest It would ern State, adjoining that from which I come. give us more political power in that quarter. I have many friends in Michigan whom I would like to serve, could I do so without prejudice to the interests of my own State: but as the question is now presented, I must vote against the bill. I hope its friends will amend it so as to make it acceptable to my colleague and myself. Without this they need not expect our votes. I wish it to be remembered that, during the session of 1834, when the bills authorizing the taking of the census of Arkansas and Michigan came up before the Senate, motions were made by members of the political party then composing the majority in this body, to lay the bills on the table, or to adjourn; by which all SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. debate was precluded, and the passage of these laws, prayed for by the people of these Territories, prevented. This I considered a denial of justice to a portion of the West. I wish it also to be distinctly remembered that my mind has undergone no change for the last two years, as to the rights of Michigan. But she should not, in pur suit of those rights, violate the rights of others. She has no right to the ten miles claimed by her constitution from Indiana; and if that claim continues to be urged, I am against her. I will vote for no bill, unless it provides that this question of boundary is to be settled agree. ably to the true northern boundary of Indiana, as established when that State was admitted into the Union. When that boundary is acknowledged and accepted by a convention of delegates, elected by the inhabitants of Michigan for that purpose, then, and not until then, need my vote be expected. I had desired, Mr. President, to pursue this subject farther, and give my views at length; but the state of my health has been such for the last ten days as to prevent me from doing so. I believe I have said enough to make myself understood, and I will trouble the Senate no longer. Mr. BUCHANAN said that he intended to present his views on this question very briefly. He had good reasons for desiring that the bill might be very speedily decided on, and, therefore, in what he had to say, he should take up as little of the time of the Senate as possible. The first objection he should consider was the one suggested, rather than insisted on, by the Senator from Delaware; and that was, that no act had been passed by Congress for the purpose of enabling the people of Michigan to form a State constitution, in obedience to what had been supposed to be the custom in regard to other States that have been admitted into the Union. Now, was there, he would ask, any reason for passing such an act? Was it required by principle, or was it required by former practice? He utterly denied that it was required either by the one or the other, before a new State may be admitted into the Union; and whether it was given previously or subsequently to the application of a State for admission into the Union, was of no earthly importance. He admitted that the passage of such an act previously to the admission of a new State was the best course to adopt; but if a people had formed a republican constitution, and if Congress should think that they had assumed proper boundaries, was there any objection to their admission, whether the preliminary law had been passed, or otherwise? But, in the history of this Government, they had precedents to sanction this bill; and they had one which applied expressly to this very case; it being utterly impossible to draw any distinction between the two, unless in favor of Michigan. He referred to the case of the State of Tennessee, found in the second volume of the laws of the United States. The preamble was short, containing but a few lines, and he would read it. This brief preamble was a declaration that, "by the acceptance of the deed of cession of the State of North Carolina, Congress were bound to lay out, into one or more States, the territory thereby ceded to the United States. Congress, therefore, upon the presentation of a constitution by Tennessee, declared that State to be one of the United States of America, on an equal footing with the original States, in all re spects whatever, by the name and title of the State of Tennessee." [MARCH 30, 1836. the terms of the original cession, the Territory was to This was the opinion of General Washington himself, distinctly expressed. The people of the Territory themselves made the first efforts for admission into the Union; they acted on their own authority solely, never having asked Congress for the passage of a previous law, and General Washington said they had the right, as they unquestionably had, to be admitted into the Union, if they had a sufficient population. This message, just mentioned, was referred to a committee in both Houses of Congress; and in the House of Representatives a report was immediately made by General Dearborn, the chairman of the committee of that House, in favor of the admission of the State. In the Senate this people met with a different reception. A report was made by Mr. King, chairman of the Senate committee, against their admission; and the committee took the ground that, as Congress had the right to decide whether this Territory should be divided into one or two States, Congress should have been consulted previous to the formation of their constitution. There was another objection taken by the committee, and that was, that as the census had been taken under the authority of the Territory, and not under the authority of Congress, there was not evidence of the existence therein of a sufficient population to entitle the Territory to admission. The Senate agreed to this report, and passed a bill directing a census of the inhabitants of the Southwestern Territory to be taken. That bill went to the lower House, who struck out every provision contained it, and amended it by providing for the immediate admission of the State into the Union. The Senate receded from the position it had taken; the bill was passed on the last day of the session, as amended by the House; and at the subsequent session, the Sengtors and Representatives of the new State took their seats in Congress. Now, he would defy any man what ever to point out the distinction between the two cases, unless it be in favor of Michigan. Here is no question whether one or two States were to be formed, making the case strongly in favor of Michigan. Yet, without the previous assent of Congress, Tennessee formed her constituNow, sir, (said Mr. B.,) what was the case here?tion; knocked at your doors for admission; and, being a welThere was no stipulation in the act of cession from the States of North Carolina and Georgia, confining this Territory to the formation of one State. On the contrary, the acts of both States provided that the ceded Territory should be formed into one or two States. According to come stranger, was cordially admitted. He would, then, ask gentlemen to mete out the same measure of justice and liberality to Michigan that was meted out to Tennes see. Ought they to be offended with the eagerness of the new States for admission into all the rights, privile ges, and benefits of this Union, at a time when some of the old States were threatening to leave it? Ought we not, said he, to hail the coming in of these new States, our own flesh and blood, and, on account of the absence of a little form, not send them dissatisfied from our doors? [SENATE. The ed upon that paper as a most unfortunate one, calculated, as it was, to distract and divide, and to delay and embarrass the measures of those who were laboring in behalf of her admission into the Union. The paper undoubtedly conveyed the meaning, that the Senators and Representative of Michigan had been willing to barter He might view this subject with a partial eye, but he away the territory of the State. Now, if ever he had met was sure that he had as strong a regard both for Ohio with three pertinacious gentlemen in his life, it was and Indiana as for Michigan; and he most solemnly be- these very men, one of whom he was proud to call his lieved that the very best interests of these three great friend. The line, the irreversible line, fixed by the act States required that the question of boundary should be of 1805, and by the ordinance of 1787, was the burden settled in the way that the bill proposed. What had of every song they sung. He should as soon have been the conduct of Michigan in relation to her bounda- thought of obtaining the consent of a man to deprive ry? Did any man believe that the people of that Terri- himself of his life, as to have dreamed of obtaining the tory thought that this eastern and western line, running consent of these three gentlemen to the relinquishment through the southern bend of Lake Michigan, was not of this line. He would do them the justice to say that, an irrevocable line? He himself was of a different opin- if any member of that Senate had ever heard them exion; but they had high authority to sanction the belief press the slightest willingness to accept the boundary of Michigan on this subject; an authority that a few provided in this bill, he had been more fortunate than years ago would not have been questioned. This peo- himself. He asked any Senator to say whether he had ple, then, acting under this authority, and under the ever heard from them any such intimation. He thought authority of the act of Congress of 1805, claimed the it would be better to amend this bill, so as to refer the territory north of the line running due east from the south-question of boundary back to the people of Michigan, in ern bend of Lake Michigan to Lake Erie. One thing order that they might accept the boundaries described had surprised him, and that was, the tenacity and the by the bill. He understood that an amendment was ability with which his friends from Indiana had taken up prepared, which would meet the views of his friend this matter, under a belief that the slip of ten miles of from Delaware, by making this boundary and the adtheir State was in danger. Now, out of Indiana, there mission of Michigan go hand in hand together; for she were not ten men who had the slightest belief that this certainly never could be admitted until she consented respectable State was in any danger of losing any part of to relinquish the claimed territory to Ohio and Indiana. its territory. He admired the zeal of his friends on this He would refer to another objection, raised by his friend occasion, but he did not believe there was the slightest from Delaware, whom he knew to be a reasonable man, cause for their apprehensions. As to Ohio, the case was and open to conviction; and he thought he could satisdifferent. Congress had not, in the act authorizing her fy him that the objection did not in reality exist. to form a State Government, given to her any part of the gentleman had said that Michigan ought not to be adCountry north of the east and west line. Nor had they, mitted under her present constitution, because by it in admitting her into the Union, recognised her right to every white male inhabitant in the State had the right it. The proviso in her constitution had claimed it, and, of voting, contending that this provision gave the right as a matter of expediency, he thought that Congress had of suffrage to others than citizens of the United States. the power to give it to her. But he would not go into He asked gentlemen to mark the distinction here drawn any remarks on this subject, further than to say that it by the gentleman from Delaware, and to judge whether was his opinion that Ohio ought to have this territory, this objection were well founded. and that it was her interest that the question should be finally and immediately settled. He would, however, undertake to predict, that if they refused to admit Michigan into the Union, after depriving her of this territory, they would do much to make the contest between her and Ohio one of blood instead of words, and thus the feelings and sympathies of the people would be excited in favor of the weak against the strong. The nation might be very unwilling that you should pass the bill taking this territory away from Michigan, and at the same time turning her away from your doors, and refu sing her admission as a State into the Union. He thought that the interests of all required that this entire question should be settled and finally put to rest. On one point he was inclined to agree with his friend from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON.] He was glad to agree with him on any occasion. It was this: he did not think that the ordinance annexed to the constitution of Michigan gave to her Legislature, either in terms or in spirit, the right to alter the boundaries established by it. In that he agreed with him. He said, however, he would not touch the question, whether a sovereign State had or had not, by her Legislature, the right to accept territory from the United States, or to cede a part of her own to another State. He had received a paper from Detroit, which he presumed had been sent to every Senator, and he therefore would not enlarge on its contents. He was personally acquainted with Mr. Biddle, the gentleman whose name was at the head of the paper, and had a great respect for him; but, as regarded the admission of Michigan, he look Michigan confined herself to such residents and inhabitants of her Territory as were there at the signing of her constitution; and to those alone she extended the right of suffrage. Now, we had admitted Ohio and Illinois into this Union; two sister States, of whom we ought certainly to be very proud. He would refer Senators to the provision in the constitution of Ohio on that subject. By it, all white male inhabitants, twenty-one years of age, or upwards, having resided one year in the State, are entitled to vote. Michigan had made the proper distinction; she had very properly confined the elective franchise to inhabi tants within the State at the time of the adoption of her constitution; but Ohio had given the right of suffrage as to all future time to all her white inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years; a case embracing all time to come, and not limited as in the constitution of Michigan. He had understood that, since the adoption of her constitution, Ohio had repealed this provision by law. He did not know whether this was so or not; but here it was, as plain as the English language could make it, that all the white male inhabitants of Ohio, above the age of twenty-one years, were entitled to vote at her elections. Well, what had Illinois done in this matter? He would read an extract from her constitution, by which it would appear that only six months' previous residence was required to acquire the right of suffrage. The constitution of Illinois was therefore still broader and more liberal than that of Ohio. There, in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the State six months previous to the elec SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. tion, shall enjoy the rights of an elector. Now, sir, it had been made a matter of preference by settlers to go to Illinois, instead of the other new States, where they must become citizens before they could vote; and he appealed to the Senators from Illinois whether this was not now the case, and whether any man could not now vote in that State after a six months' residence. [Mr. ROBINSON said that such was the fact.] Now, here were two constitutions of States, the Senator from one of which was most strenuously opposed to the admission of Michigan, who had not extended the right of suffrage as far as was done by either of them. Did Michigan do right in thus fixing the elective franchise? He contended that she did act right; and if she had not acted so, she would not have acted in obedience to the spirit, if not the very letter, of the ordinance of 1787. Michigan took the right ground, while the States of Ohio and Illinois went too far in making perpetual in their constitution what was contained in the ordinance. When Congress admitted Ohio and Indiana on this principle, he thought it very ungracious in any of their Senators or Representatives to declare that Michigan should not be admitted, because she has extended the right of suffrage to the few persons within her limits at the adop. tion of her constitution. He felt inclined to go a good deal farther into this subject; but as he was exceedingly anxious that the decision should be made soon, he would not extend his remarks any farther. It appeared to him that an amendment might very well be made to this bill, requiring that the assent of the people of Michigan shall be given to the change of boundary. He did hope that by this bill all objections would be removed; and that this State, so ready to rush into our arms, would not be repulsed, because of the absence of some formalities, which, perhaps, were very proper, but certainly not indispensable. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, urged that the precedents referred to by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. BUCHANAN] were admitted under troublesome circumstances, but ought not to be followed. He entered extensively into the merits of the question itself, and urged the numerous difficulties which would follow a premature admission. Mr. E. offered, in conclusion, an amendment to the bill, changing it, in effect, to the ordinary form of a bill authorizing the Territory of Michigan to form a State Government, subject afterwards to the revision and adoption of Congress; the act of admission to be passed after the ordinary preliminaries should be settled. Mr. NILES said he hoped the amendment of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. EwING] would not be adopted. He trusted the Senate would consider well the consequences of such a course, before they gave their sanction to it. What is the proposition which is to be offered to the people of Michigan, if this amendment should prevail? It is giving them permission and authority to form a constitution in the way and manner Congress may prescribe, as the preparatory steps for admission into the Union. Sir, they do not ask for this; they have not come here for this purpose; they do not now supplicate Congress for favors; they come here to demand their rights, to demand admission into the Union as a matter of right; they stand upon their rights; upon the rights secured to them by the ordinance of 1787. Gentlemen seemed to forget that they have rights; they seem to throw the ordinance out of the case, to treat the question as though the people of Michigan had no other right to admission than what the constitution secures to them. If such was the case, I think they are entitled to admission; but they stand upon the ordinance, which expressly secures to the people of Michigan, when their population shall amount to sixty thousand, the right to form a constitution, and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original [MARCH 30, 1836. States; and they have now nearly three times that population. What occasion is there, then, for an act of Congress? Does not the ordinance confer on them all the authority an act of Congress could? Sir, they do not now ask that you should point out to them the straight and narrow path in which they are to find their way into the Union. They do not ask for authority to form a constitution; they have done this heretofore; for three years they have been memorializing Congress, and you have turned a deaf year to their petitions; they have been repelled, and the door of the Senate has been shut against them. Having for three years been treated with neglect, having been driven from Congress, you have forced them to the course which they have pursued, to stand upon their rights, secured to them by a solemn ordinance, which is irrevocable. They have taken the preliminary steps; they have organized a State Government, and formed a constitution, which they have laid before Congress, and now ask to be admitted into the Union as a matter of right. Will you now refuse them admission, and tell them that all they have done is wrong, and that they must retrace their steps, and come here through the straight and narrow path which Congress may prescribe to them, but which you refused to do when they ap plied to you for the purpose? Do you think they will do this? Do you think they will abandon the ground which they have assumed-which they have been forced to assume? From the information I have received from the gentlemen representing their interests here, not on this floor, but in this city, I am persuaded they will not do it; should this amendment prevail, they will spurn your law. In what situation, then, will the people of Michigan be placed, and what may be the consequences of such an act of Congress? It may be well for gentlemen to consider these questions. And why is a course so harsh and fraught with so much danger to be pursued? Why cannot Michigan be admitted now, and in the way she has applied for admission? Numerous objections have been urged; I will not say that they are frivolous, or that there might not be sufficient force in them to occasion doubts, if the questions were raised now for the first time. But such is not the fact; every one of these objections has been overruled in the admission of other States. The ques tion which is now presented to the Senate, and which we are called on to decide, is, whether Congress will adopt new principles in the admission of States into the Union? This is the true question, and I wish it to be distinctly understood. And what reasons have been urged for this? I have heard none. When Congress has for a long series of years acted on certain princi ples, are they to be abandoned, and new principles adopted, without cause? Have any evils been experi enced from the principles on which Congress has acted in the admission of States; or has public opinion condemned those principles? If such had been the case, it might then have been necessarry to re-examine those principles, and, perhaps, to abandon them and introduce a new course of action. Were there any evils from the admission of Tennessee, any in the cases of Ohio, Illinois, and Louisiana? Why, then, shall not Michigan be admitted on the same principles as those States? Sir, it would be better and more respectful to the people of the State to reject their application, than to adopt the proposed amendment, which they can view in no other light than an attempt to coerce and force them to retrace their steps, to undo what they have done, and fall back into a Territory. But suppose they refuse to do this at your bidding. They consider themselves of age, and do not choose longer to remain under guardianship; they claim the rights of freedom, and ask Congress to MARCH 30, 1836.] Admission of Michigan. [SENATE. Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Ohio seems to condemn the proceedings of the people of Michigan, and speaks of them as a mere popular movement, a sort of revolutionary measure. But the Senator is mistaken; their proceedings have been regular and legal. From first to last, all their measures relative to admission into the Union have been authorized by the Legislative Council of the Territory. I think they have acted with propriety; that they have been patient and forbearing under the delay, neglect, and what they consider injustice, which they have experienced. acknowledge their rights. They demand justice at your their constitution in such a way and form as they may hands. The only question properly before the Sen- choose. But there is another answer. The boundary ate is the admission of the State, and that question I is no part of the constitution; to change it is only to hope we shall meet directly, and decide it one way or enlarge or contract the jurisdiction of the State. But the other. If we reject them, it will then remaim for the constitution is in an inchoate state; the gentlemen the people of Michigan to decide what they will do in regard it as a nullity, and mere waste paper. It has been the new situation in which you will have placed them. formed as a preliminary step to admission into the Union, To refuse to admit, to deny them justice, and then and is submitted to Congress for its ratification. If Conto undertake to prescribe the course of action for gress proposes a change in the boundaries of the State, them, would be adding insult to injustice. If they are and make the assent of the people the condition of their refused admission, it will be for the people of the admission, can they not give such assent in the way we State to decide what course to pursue. If they con- may prescribe? Can they not do an act which is to give clude to retrace their steps, and petition Congress for force and validity to their constitution? This act is to an act similar to what the amendment proposes, it will precede the operation of the constitution; the provisions then be in time for us to pass such a law. But let us in the instrument regarding amendments can have no not attempt to force them into that course, but leave application to an act to be done before the constitution them untrammelled and free to act as in their judg-goes into operation by the admission of the State. Those ments the exigency of circumstances may require. He provisions can only be applicable to amendments after would not examine the objections which had been urged; the State is admitted, and the constitution is in full force. they had been explained in a manner he thought satis- But even in that case a change in the boundary of a factory and conclusive by the Senators from New York State does not change its constitution, and has repeatedly and Pennsylvania, [Mr. WRIGHT and Mr. BUCHANAN,] but been done by the ordinary Legislature. would notice briefly some new obstacles attempted to be raised by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. EWING.] That Senator thinks there is a difficulty in this case which did not exist in the admission of Tennessee; he says that, by the ordinance, it was left for Congress to decide whether there should be one or two States in the northern division of the Northwestern Territory, and that Michigan has decided this question by forming a State out of part of the Territory. So far the gentle man is correct; it does belong to Congress to decide whether there shall be one or two States, and Michigan, so far as depends on her, has decided that there shall be two States. She probably supposed that the act of Congress of 1805, defining her limits and creating a Territorial Government, had, in some measure, settled this question; as that act might be supposed to have reference to the ultimate creation of a State from the Territory, and its admission into the Union. But Michigan kas not taken and could not take this question away from Congress; it is now presented, and must be deci. ded in the question of admission. By deciding to admit Michigan, we of course determine that the Territory shall compose two States, or at least that it shall not all be comprised in one State. If the Senator or any other gentleman thinks that the whole Territory ought to be comprised in one State, that would be a sufficient reason for voting against this bill. But the same difficulty existed in the case of Tennessee. By the cession, the Territory southwest of Ohio was to be formed into one or two States, according to the pleasure of Congress. But before Congress had acted on the question, the people of the Territory decided that it should constitute one State only, and formed a constitution extending over the whole of it, which Congress ratified and approved, and thereby decided that there should be but one State. The cases are precisely parallel. But the Senator says that it would be, in substance, the same thing to refer the question of the change in the boundaries to the people, to be assented to by them in convention, as to refer back the whole matter. The difference would be very great: in the one case you approve their constitution, and admit the State into the Union, on condition of a change in its boundaries, and submit that question simply to the people, for their assent. It is also said that the constitution cannot be changed, as regards the boundary, without complying with the forms contained in it. A very satisfactory answer has been given to this objection by the Senator from Missouri: that there is no act which the people, by virtue of their inherent, indefeasible, right of power, of sovereignty, cannot do. They can change or abolish I think their course is clearly justifiable; but if there is any thing wrong or unusual in it, it is to be attributable to the neglect of Congress. For three years they have been rapping at your door, and asking for the cousent of Congress to form a constitution, and for admission into the Union; but their petitions have not been heeded, and have been treated with neglect. Not being able to be admitted in the way they sought, they have been forced to take their own course, and stand upon their rights-rights secured to them by the constitution and a solemn irrepealable ordinance. They have taken the census of the Territory; they have formed a constitution, elected their officers, and the whole machinery of a State Government is ready to be put in operation; they are only awaiting your action. Having assumed this attitude, they now demand admission as a matter of right; they demand it as an act of justice at your hands. Are they now to be repelled, or to be told that they must retrace their steps, and come into the Union in the way they at first sought to do, but could not obtain the sanction of Congress? Sir, I fear the consequences of such a decision; I tremble at an act of such injustice. There is a point beyond which a free people cannot be driven. Why are the people of Michigan to be vexed and harassed in this way? They feel that they are treated harshly; that great injustice is done them. They have been opposed and resisted in every course they have pursued to obtain admission into the Union; and you have now divided their territory, and taken from them a part of it to which they attach great value. In these measures of opposition to Michigan the Senator from Ohio has acted a prominent part; he has succeeded in opposing their former applications, and in keeping them out of the Union; he has carried through a bill to divide their territory, of the justice or injustice of which I will not speak; but the people of Michigan regard it as an act of great injustice. Will the gentleman still persist in his opposition? Does he wish to drive that people to desperation; to force them into acts of violence? Does be think that by breaking up what has been done, by |