it. Even the chairman of the Judiciary Committee could not do it. He called upon the Senators elect (and whose admission here is to follow the passage of the bill) to say that every thing at this self-styled convention was well and duly conducted; and they do say so, and give the private letters of certain individuals to that effect. And they give, further-and that I understand to be the evidence principally relied on—an article from a Detroit newspaper, stating that such an election was had, such convention held, 3,000 more votes were given for the delegates to this last convention than for those who constituted the first convention. This, sir, is the evidence to support an organic law of a new State about to enter the Union! Yes, of an organic law, the very highest act a community of men can perform. Letters, referring to other letters! and a scrap of a newspaper!

I am not satisfied that the Government of my country, or of any portion of it, should stand on such a foundation. I am not willing that an organic law of a sovereign State should be thus made and thus authenticated. But supposing that all the counties of Michigan did agree to the proposal, and did send delegates to this last convention, and we had the returns of the elections; yet who, I ask, presided at the polls? Who determined what votes should be received? How many votes was each man who favored the object permitted to give? Who voted? Was it the qualified electors, or was it all the men, women, and children, of Michigan and its vicinity?

The honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. DANA] says we are not in the habit of going into town meetings to see whether the votes are regularly polled for members of Congress; and he asks why we should be so particular in this case. The gentleman seems to have no conception of the difficulty in which his party have involved themselves. It is true, we don't go into the doings of town meetings; and why? Because those meetings are held by regular authority; the officers who preside are appointed by the State, and their certificate is official and legal evidence of that which they certify. That certificate is submitted to a superior officer, appointed also according to that high officer of the State is known to the nation, and his certificate is evidence to us of all that it covers, thus constituting a regular chain of legal evidence and official authentication. But here there is no official, no legal evidence whatever-nothing but the certificates and statements of unauthorized and generally interested individuals.

law;

In this case, therefore, if we aim at truth, we must go into detail; we must poll the votes; we must see for our. selves whether the people were called together, and how called, and whether they obeyed the call; because we have no regularly appointed chain of officers to ascertain these facts and certify them to us.

[SENATE.

eracy by an act resting on this loose assertion, without evidence.

It is said, however, that the law of Congress pointed out no particular mode in which the people of Michigan were to meet, in order to express their assent or dissent to the proposition contained in the law; that this was an omission on the part of Congress, and no fault in the people of Michigan. Agreed: I know it was a defect in the law. I saw it, too, at the time. I understood and suggested it, but to no purpose. But how was that bill pass ed? It was forced through the Senate by a majority of one vote; it was driven through late at night; and those who were opposed to it had not time allowed them to state and to support their objections, or even to counsel with the majority as to the mode of obviating them; and for the reason, if I rightly remember, that one of the Senators on the other side wished to make a short excursion of business or pleasure into the country.

I, for one, looked upon the third section of the act for the admission of Michigan as a perfectly nugatory provision. It seems to be supposed that the Senators from Ohio sought the insertion of this third section because they did not agree that the assent of the Legislature of Michigan and her Senators and Representative here to the conditions in the bill would be binding on the State. We did, it is true, hold that their assent would be invalid. We did, it is true, say that their assent would be nugatory; but we did not, therefore, ask for the third section authorizing a convention, and we held that the assent of such convention, if given, would be void also. And why? Because Congress had recognised the constitution of Michigan as that of a sovereign State; we had recognised her Senators as elected under it, and then proposed, by an act of Congress, to authorize the amendment of that constitution in another mode than that pointed out by the constitution itself. And if she were a State, as that law avers, I held, and I hold now, that we could no more touch her constitution by an act of Congress, than that of any other sovereign State. I indeed did not admit that she was a State; but gentlemen on the other side did aver it; that law assumed it, and an essential part of its provisions rested on the assumption. Gentlemen having taken their position, and sustained it by a vote of the Senate, had no right to change that position; and on the ground chosen by themselves we met them, and now meet them. The act, then, as it is now construed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, authorized the people of a State to meet in convention and amend their constitution; and, in the plenitude of our power and of our democracy, we pass by the Legislature of the State, and appeal directly to the people; we ask the people to act without organization, without law; and when they, or such part of them as will obey our call, have so acted, we pronounce the act valid, and the constitution of the State changed. You have the same right, sir, to set aside the regularly constituted authorities of Ohio, to pass by her constitution and her Legislature, and appeal to the people to change their organic law; and when the

caucus which you have so called shall have met and changed it, you have the same right to recognise and hold it binding upon the State. The doctrine is monstrous, and of most mischievous tendency.

But the honorable Senator from Tennessee says, that though we may be without evidence which is strictly iegal, yet we do possess such evidence as is made every day the basis of legislation; nay, that we often proceed on much looser evidence; and he seems to think that we may well dispense with that exact legal evidence on this occasion. And yet he says that the recital in the preamble of the bill, containing an assertion of facts of which we have no legal proof, will create a legal estoppel It has been said by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. against Michigan, which will forever bar her from here- GRUNDY] that this is no party question. It is very true after contesting the question of boundary with Ohio. it ought not to be made one; so far as I have any feeling Indeed! and what sort of an estoppel is this to bind a in the matter, it can only be thus far a party question. Sovereign and independent community? The letters of If the parties in this republic have resolved themselves A, B, and C, and a paragraph in a Detroit newspaper! into a constitutional and caucus party, I am of the party Will the honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee that goes for constitutions and constitutional government, of the Senate of the United States place himself upon against caucus and a government by caucus. And as this ground in a matter of such moment? He cannot, I this preamble goes directly to put down constitutional am sure, have duly considered the matter; he could not government, and put up in its place and legalize a govdeliberately wish to bind one of the States of this confed-ernment by caucus, I am opposed to it, and I belong to

previous act of the Legislature necessary, it would then have been opposed as a revolutionary measure. It would have been demonstrated by Senators that the Legisla ture of Michigan was an unauthorized assembly, posses. sing no legitimate powers; that it was a body which we had never recognised; and, therefore, we could refer nothing to its decision. In making these assertions, I speak from the record.

[SENATE

as a State, and Congress have no right to call a conven. tion in a State.]

Mr. BUCHANAN resumed. I did not misunderstand the Senator. He contended that the act of Congress calling such a convention was unconstitutional; and to establish his proposition he said that Congress, under the federal constitution, could only call a convention upon the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States.

the Government of the United States, to make a bargain with the people of Michigan. It presupposes a perfect equality, in this respect, between the parties. They had the same right to refuse that we had to offer. They may voluntarily consent to your terms, as they have done in this case, and then it becomes a contract which cannot afterwards be violated; but if they had dissented, the negotiation would have been at an end. This is what the Senator denominates a convention called by Congress within the limits of the State of Michigan. Surely no further argument on this point of the case can be neces

sary.

It appears from the journals that, on the 26th of January last, the Vice President communicated to the Does the Senator mean seriously to contend that the Senate "the memorial of the Senate and House of mere proposition made by Congress to the people of Representatives of the State of Michigan," on the sub- Michigan, for the purpose of obtaining their assent to a ject of their right to be admitted into the Union. On the change of boundary, is a convention called under the aumotion of Mr. Hendricks, this memorial was referred, thority of Congress within a State? Such an argument accompanied by a declaration" that the Senate regard would be a perversion of terms. If you make proposi the same in no other light than as the voluntary act of tions to any foreign Power, and suggest that their willing private individuals." Mr. Ruggles moved to strike out ness to accept them may be ascertained by a convention this declaration, and, on the yeas and nays, his motion of delegates elected by the people, how can this be conwas rejected by a vote of 30 to 12. Thus the Senate strued into a convention called by your own sovereign then solemnly determined that the Legislature of Michi-authority? No, sir; this was a mere offer, on the part of gan vas a mere assembly of private individuals; and yet now we are told by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that, because this very Legislature did not pass an act to authorize the holding of the convention, all its proceedings are void and revolutionary. How will be reconcile this inconsistency? Truly, the people of Michigan are in a deplorable condition. They cannot avoid the whirlpool of Scylla without being ingulfed in Charybdis. At the last session, their Legislature was a mere lawless assembly; but now they are so omnipotent that the sovereign people of the State cannot elect delegates to a convention without their previous authority. Let us proceed one step further with our evidence from the record. The bill for the admission of Michigan into the Union, when first reported by the committee, provided that the assent to the boundaries of the State, required by the third section, should be given by their Senators and Representative in Congress, and by the Legislature of the State. I speak from memory, but I feel confident I am correct. It would have been a vain attempt to support this provision in the face of the vote of the Senate to which I have referred. What, sir, refer to a body whom we had solemnly declared was composed merely of private individuals the question of assent to a condition for the purpose of binding the sovereign people of Michigan! This would have been as absurd as it was inconsistent. We should then have been told that there was no mode of escaping this difficulty but by at once dispensing with every intermediate agency, and referring the question directly to the original source of power, the people of Michigan in their primary capacity. This was done, and that, too, by a unanimous vote of the Senate. On the 1st of April last, Mr. Wright moved to strike out the provision to which I have referred, and to insert in its stead that the assent required should be given by a convention of delegates elected by the people of the said State for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required." Every Senator then in his place voted for this amendment, and by his vote decided that it was proper to submit the question to delegates elected by the people in their primary capacity. It was thus unanimously incorporated into the law.

How does the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HOUN] now attempt to evade the force of this argument? He cannot contend that the act of Congress refers to any action of the State Legislature as being necessary to the call of this convention. If he did, the act itself would stare him full in the face.

Congress might have proposed 'to Michigan that the question should be decided at the polls, by a vote of the people. It was better, however, to submit it to a convention of delegates, because they could deliberate. This was emphatically to be the act of the people in their sovereign capacity. It was a question whether they should be received as a member into our great family of nations upon the terms which we had proposed. It was to be the establishment of new political relations of the most important character, affecting them and their children for many generations. It was a question over which, under their own constitution, their servants, the members of the Legislature, had no control. To what other tribunal could we so properly have referred this question, as to that of a convention of delegates elected by the people?

There can, then, be no objection to the act of Congress, unless it be that the people are not competent, in the very nature of things, to give the assent required, without the intervention of the Legislature. But this would be to condemn the conduct of our ancestors. It would be at war with the most glorious events of our own history. Besides, the very conduct of the people of Michigan, upon this occasion, disproves the position. There was no tumultuous and lawless rising up of the peo. ple against a settled form of government, as one might suppose, judging from the arguments upon this floor.

They conducted the election with regularity and order, according to the established laws and usages of the State. Hear what General Williams, the president of the conCAL-vention, says upon the subject, in his communication to the President of the United States: "The convention," says he, "originated through primary meetings of the citizens of the several counties, in ample time to afford notice to the whole State. Pursuant thereto, the elections, kept open for two days, on the 5th and 6th instant, (December,) have been held in all the counties except Monroe and Macomb. These elections were fair and open, and conducted in all respects as our other elections, and the returns made to the county boards, and canvassed as prescribed by the laws of the

[Mr. CALHOUN here explained. He said he would not bere argue the question whether Congress meant to make a previous act of the State Legislature necessary; but if it did not, the act of Congress would itself be unconstitutional, because we had recognised Michigan

late Territory of Michigan in similar cases. The result has been a decided expression of the voice of a majority of the people, approbatory of the resolution enclosed." Is there any doubt of this "decided expression of the voice of the majority of the people?" Can any Senator upon this floor question it? Has there been a single memorial, or even a single private letter produced, calling it in question? Nay, more: has a single voice been raised in Michigan against entering the Union on the terms proposed? Not one, to our knowledge.

[JAN. 3, 1837.

the subsequent proceedings of the convention. Although it was not necessary to give them validity, yet it would not destroy them. It could neither make the case better nor worse. I am confident it might be demonstrated that the people of Michigan, under the act of Congress, had the power to make a second trial, upon a failure of the first; but as this point has not been contested by the Senator, I shall not enter upon its discussion.

Cessary for me to make some observations in reply.
First, then, I would ask, what possible connexion can
be imagined between the conduct of the Senatorial elec.
tors of Maryland, who refused to execute a trust for
which they were elected, and that of the people of
Michigan, who chose delegates to a convention upon the
express invitation of an act of Congress? The Mary-
land electors refused to perform their duty under the
State constitution; but the people of Michigan did give
their assent to the condition which we had prescribed to
them, and upon which alone they cou'd enter the Union.
There is as great a difference between the two cases as
"between a hawk and a handsaw." Standing here as
a Senator, I have no right to pronounce judgment upon
the conduct of these clectors. They are responsible to
the people of the State of Maryland, not to me.

I now come, Mr. President, to speak upon subjects The inconcerning which I should gladly be silent. If it were necessary to place the claims of Michigan ternal concerns of the States should never be introduced upon other grounds, it might be done with great force. upon this floor when it can be avoided; but the Senators Suppose we were to admit that their proceedings had from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] and Ohio [Mr. Monbeen irregular, ought that to exclude her from the Un-RIS] have thought differently, and have rendered it nc. ion? On this subject we ought to act like statesmen acquainted with the history of our own country. We ought not to apply the rigid rules of abstract political science too rigorously to such cases. It has been our practice heretofore to treat our infant Territories with paternal care, to nurse them with kindness, and, when they had attained the age of manhood, to admit them into the family without requiring from them a rigid adherence to forms. The great questions to be decided are, do they contain a sufficient population? have they adopted a republican constitution? and are they willing to enter the Union upon the terms which we propose? If so, all the preliminary proceedings have been considered but mere forms, which we have waived in repeated instances. They are but the scaffolding of the building, which is of no further use after the edifice is complete. We have pursued this course in regard to Tennessee, to Arkansas, and even to Michigan. No Senator will pretend that their Territorial Legislatures had any right whatever to pass laws enabling the people to elect delegates to a convention for the purpose of forming a State constitution. It was an act of usurpation on their part. And yet we have in all these instances waived this objection, and approved the constitution thus formed. We have admitted Tennessee and Arkansas into the Union, notwithstanding this objection; and I trust we shall pursue a similar course towards Michigan, especially as there can be no doubt but that her people have assented to our terms of admission.

The case of Missouri was a very strong one. Congress agreed to admit her into the Union upon the condition that her Legislature should substantially change a provision in her constitution touching a very delicate subject. Under her constitution the Legislature had no power to make this change; nor could it have been effected without a lorg and troublesome process. But Congress cut the gordian knot at once, and agreed to accept the engagement of the Legislature as the voice of the people. We have never had any occasion to regret this disregard of forms.

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. EWING] has contended that the second Michigan convention had no power to assent, because the first convention which was held had refused.

[Here Mr. EWING dissented.] Mr. B. I understood the Senator to state that, as the first convention had dissented, the power was spent, and a second could not be held.

[Mr. EwING said he had not touched this point.] Mr. B. said, I should be glad if the Senator would restate his position.

[Mr. EwING said he had asked whether, if the first convention had assented to the condition proposed by the act of Congress, there would have been any objection to this assent, because it had been called by virtue of an act of the Legislature?]

Mr. B. said, certainly not. It never could have been contended that this act of the Legislature had vitiated unanimous yote, the measure which the Senator now

The other Maryland question, to which the Senator adverted, is one of a very different character. It involves the decision of the important principle whether, under a settled form of constitutional government, the people have a right to change that form in any other manner than the mode prescribed by the constitution. If I were to admit that they did not possess this power, still the Senator is as much of a revolutionist as myself. He admits that if the Legislature of Michigan had passed a law authorizing this convention, and fixing the time and place of its meeting, then its proceedings would have been regular and valid. But who gave the Legis. lature of Michigan this authority? Is it contained in the constitution of the State? That is not pretended. Whence, then, shall we derive it? How does the Senator escape from this difficulty Upon his own principles, it would have been a legislative usurpation; and yet, he says, if the Legislature had acted first, the convention would have been held under competent au thority.

Now, for my own part, I should not have objected to their action. It might have been convenient, it might have been proper, for them to have recommended a particular day for holding the election of delegates and for the meeting of the convention. But it is manifest that, as a source of power to the convention, legislative action would have been absurd. The constitution of Michigan fixes the boundaries of the State. For this purpose, it refers to the act of Congress of the 11th of January, 1805, establishing the Territory. How could these boundaries be changed? If in no other manner than that prescribed in the constitution of Michigan, it would have been a tedious and troublesome process, and would have delayed, for at least two years, the admission of the State into the Union. First, such an amendment must have been sanctioned by a majority of the Senate and House of Repre sentatives. Then it must have been published for three months. Afterwards it must have received the appro bation of two thirds of both Houses of a Legislature subsequently elected. And, after all these prerequisites, it must have been submitted to a vote of the people, for their ratification. It was to avoid these very difficulties that the Senate, at their last session, adopted, by a

JAN. 3, 1837.]

Admission of Michigan.

[SENATE,

unanimous vote the measure which the Senator now calls revolutionary, referred the decision of the question directly to the sovereign people of Michigan in their primary capacity. Then was the appropriate moment for the Senator to have objected to this course; that was the occasion on which to convince us that this was an unconstitutional and lawless proceeding. He suffered the precious moment to escape, and it is now too late to tell the people of Michigan that they shall be punished by an exclusion from the Union, because they thought proper to take us at our word. That would have been the time to have inserted an amendment in the bill requiring a previous act of the Legislature, prescribing the mode of electing the delegates. But the Senator was then silent upon this subject. There had then been no proceedings in Maryland, such as he now calls revolutionary. A word upon that subject. We are told in that sacred and venerated instrument which first proclaimed the rights of man to the world, that "all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." But suppose the case of a State whose constitution, originally good, had, from the lapse of time, and from the changes in the population of different portions of its territory, be come unequal and unjust. Suppose this inequality and injustice to have gone to such an extent that the vital principle of representative republics was destroyed, and that the vote of a citizen in one county of the State was equivalent to that of six citizens in another county. Sup-ositions would be rank nullification; and although I pose that an equal disproportion existed between taxation and representation, and that, under the organic forms of the constitution, a minority could forever control the majority. Why, sir, even under such circumstances I should bear with patience whilst hope remained. would solicit, I would urge the minority, I would appeal to their sense of justice, to call a convention, under the forms of the constitution, for the purpose of redressing the grievances; but if, at last, I found they had determined to turn a deaf ear to all my entreaties, Ishould then invoke the peaceable aid of the people, in their sovereign capacity, to remedy these evils. They are the source of all power; they are the rightful authors of all constitutions. They are not forever to be shackled by their own servants, and compelled to submit to evils such as I have described, by the refusal of their own Legislature to pass a law for holding a convention. Whoever denies this position, condemns the principles of the declaration of independence and of the American Revolution, There is not one of the old thirteen States whose Government was not called into existence upon these very principles. It is now too late in the day, in our favored land, to contend that the people cannot change their forms of government at pleasure. The glorious experiment which we are trying in this country would prove a total failure, if we should now decide that the people, in no situation, and under no circumstances, can hold a convention without the previous consent of their own Legislature. It is not my province to say whether the proper time for this peaceful action of the sovereign people, in their primary capacity, has yet arrived, or will ever arrive, in Maryland. That question may safely be left to them; but I feel no terrors, my fancy conjures up no spectres from such doctrines as I have advanced.

in Pennsylvania, and we are justly jealous of foreign in terference. This is not the proper forum in which either to argue or decide the Pennsylvania bank question; and I call upon the whole Senate to bear me witness, that nothing but necessity compels me to speak here of the subject. The letter of Mr. Dallas has been denounced by the Senator from Ohio as incendiary, as revolutionary, and as calculated to excite the people to rise up in rebellion against the laws. Would I not then be recreant to my own character if I should not raise my voice in defence of a distinguished citizen of my own State against such an unfounded assault?

The letter of Mr. Dallas has been much and greatly misrepresented. Garbled extracts from it have been published throughout the whole country, without the context; and innumerable false commentaries have attributed to him sentiments and opinions wholly at war with its general tenor. In speaking upon this subject, I am fully sensible how liable I am myself to misrepresentation; but I shall endeavor so plainly and clearly to present my views, that at least they cannot be misunderstood by any person present.

In the first place, then, Mr. Dallas never did assert that the convention about to be held in Pennsylvania will possess any power to violate the constitution of the United States. He never did maintain the proposition that this convention would be the final judge, and could decide, in the last resort, that its own decrees were no violation of that sacred instrument. Why, sir, such prop

I

I am exceedingly sorry that another topic has been introduced into this debate by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. MORRIS,] which, if possible, has still less connexion with the question before us than the recent conduct of the senatorial electors of Maryland. The Senate will at once perceive that I refer to the letter of Mr. Dallas on the subject of the repeal of the bank charter. I regret that this letter has become the subject of debate here. We are abundantly able to settle all our local differences VOL. XIII.-16

have never had the pleasure of being on intimate terms with Mr. Dallas, I can venture to assert that he, in com. mon with the people of Pennsylvania, is opposed to this political heresy. For my own part, I can say, that however much I may admire the apostles of this new faith, their doctrines have never found favor in my eyes. No, sir; Mr. Dallas has expressly referred to the Supreme Court of the United States as the tribunal which must finally decide whether the convention possesses the power to repeal the bank charter.

From what we have heard on this floor, it is manifest that public opinion is greatly in error as to the principles of the anti-bank party in Pennsylvania. I profess to be a member of that party; and I now propose briefly to state their principles. If I should err in presenting theirs, I shall at least place my own beyond contradiction.

The constitution of the United States declares that "no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." This is a most wise and salutary provision; may it be perpetual! It secures the private rights of every citizen, and renders private contracts inviolable. It imparts a sacred character to our titles to real estate, and it places the seal of absolute security upon the rights of private property.

Still the question remains, is a privilege granted by a State Legislature to a corporation, for banking purposes, a contract, within the spirit and intention of the constitution of the United States? In other words, is the authority which the Legislature of Pennsylvania has given to the Bank of the United States to create and circulate a paper currency of thirty-five millions of dollars, irrev. ocable by any human power short of an amendment to the federal constitution? My own convictions are clear that such an act of legislation is not a contract, under the constitution. It is true that this instrument speaks of "contracts" in general terms; but there is no rule of construction better settled than that of restraining the universality of general words, so as to confine their application to such cases as were exclusively within the intention of those by whom they were used. It would be useless to enumerate instances under this rule. Its existence will not be denied by any.

If, then, it can be made manifest that the framers of