prerequisite, on the part of the elder sisters. I will name a law for taking a census, to test the true number of the population; another, regulating the elective franchise; the bounds of the Territory to be embraced within the new State; and, in fine, all needful provisions to the regular accomplishment of such a great and important change.

All or many of these measures have heretofore been found indispensable for the admission of new States, and I can see no reason, founded on expediency or law, for creating a new rule in the present instance. Have any of these measures preceded the formation of the constitution of Michigan, under which a Senate and House of Representatives now claim to act? Not one, that I am aware of. And yet, sir, it is but a short time since they were deemed necessary by the proper authorities of that Territory and her own people, as may be seen on a reference to some of the former journals of this House. But because Congress would not, or, from the pressure of business, could not, comply with the wish then expressed, it would seem that Michigan becomes impatient, and assumes that she has all these rights, without the intervention of any other power! Gentlemen are of course at liberty to adapt their opinions to any emergency, but I, for one, am not prepared to admit this new position. In taking this stand, I hope I need not say that the pending conflict of boundary, in which Ohio is interested, has no connexion with my feelings or opinions on the subject. I act from higher and more important motives-from considerations which, in my judgment, seriously involve the constitution and laws of the land.

I would not, if I could, unnecessarily retard the admission of Michigan into the Union; but I am unwilling, even with the new lustre and strength which she would give to that chain, to prostrate any of our great and long-established landmarks to attain that end.

In opposing the present reference of this petition, I do not necessarily deprive the parties of the right of petition, nor of any of the benefits which it asks. The citizens and legally constituted authorities of Michigan have that right in its most comprehensive sense, and I seek not to restrain or limit it except as the constitution and our usages require. Let them approach as citizens, or in some other known, legal, and admitted capacity or right, and we are bound to hear them. But we cannot, and, for the sake of order and a due administration of our Government, ought not to receive their petitions, when sent in a capacity as yet unknown to our laws, and tending, by indirection, to accomplish that which, if openly avowed, would not be admitted. That Territory has a Delegate on this floor, and we know that she has other citizens and agents here for the express purpose of urging all her pretensions. Why not, then, leave it for these gentlemen to adopt this memorial, and send it to us in their own names, and thereby take from it the objectionable character? This would secure to the Territory the benefit of every legitimate purpose of such a paper. Mr. Speaker, this may seem, at first view, to be a small matter, but I think that more portentous consequences may follow it than some gentlemen seem to be aware of. What arguments or influence may hereafter be drawn from the admission and reference of this memorial, purporting, as it does, to come from a sovereign State unknown to our laws, it is not for me to conjecture. But I know, sir, precedents are dangerous as well as wholesome things. We should be circumspect when entering on a case somewhat, if not wholly, new in its character, and which may produce or afford a precedent fraught with dangerous consequenHarmless and innocent as this matter is thought by some to be, we well know how prone we all are to avail ourselves of precedents which aid us in favorite

ces.

[H. OF R.

measures; and this House may, and probably will, have this case placed on their journal for future reference, when there will be more occasion, but greater difficulty, to escape from it. Why should we run any risk? Nothing will be lost to the petitioners if the memorial be rejected on the ground stated by me. All its benefits are placed within their reach, and it is not imposing any unreasonable duty to require parties to come by petition in some capacity or right known to our laws. I never deem it expedient to attain a good end by wrong means.

The gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] by way of illustrating the propriety of our receiving this memorial, informs us that all the subjects of the English Crown have the right of petition, and has also referred to the constitution of the United States, and of the States ganerally, to prove the great extent of this right in this country. Now, sir, I do not deny this right in any of the instances the gentleman has referred to. The citizens of the United States, and of all our Territories, have the undoubted right of petition, and we are bound to give them a respectful and impartial consideration. The people of England claim and have the right of petitioning their King. This right of petitioning among us, too, is still more sacred; but to whom is it secured? Does it belong to a foreign State or people? No; but to all of our own people, without distinction, whether citizens of States or Territories, and to all the States and Territories of the Union, when preferred in some name or right recognised and bound by our laws. The gentleman from Yew York has also, for the same purpose, referred to the several petitions presented to Congrsss by the Bank of the United States for a renewal of its charter, and says these petitions were received and referred, although many members of the House entertained the opinion that this institution was unconstitutional. I do not think this an apt illustration. The Bank of the United States claimed its existence under an act of Congress, duly passed and approved as the constitution directs, and afterwards solemnly adjudicated on by the Supreme Court of the United States. Twice had such as institution been created by law, and more than twice had our Supreme Court deliberately and solemnly adjudged such law to be constitutional. It is certainly for the peace and interest of our country that these great questions should, after such a lapse of time and passing such ordeals, be considered as settled. But, after such repeated action by Congress and the Supreme Court, the gentleman surely will not contend for the new doctrine that, because he does not so understand the constitution, the petitions of the bank might be treated as from a source unknown to our laws. Sir, when the gentleman from New York shall present to us a petition from the State of Michigan, and be able to direct our attention to an act of Congress authorizing such a State, or even when he shall, without such an act, show us a solemn decision of the Supreme Court, holding such State to have been formed in ac cordance with the constitution and the general laws of the Union, I shall be ready to receive such petition. But, unless the most important and needful of these primitive measures are complied with, I cannot consent to recognise the right of Michigan to petition in the name of a sovereign State. Until Congress pass a law authorizing such a State, I trust that the House will take care lest they vote to establish so alarming a precedent as the one now proposed.

Mr. KENNON said it would be found, by reference to the memorial, that the memorialists did not assume to be a State, but declared their object to be to become a State. He asked for the reading of the prayer of the petition, and it was read. The memorial, Mr. K. continued, did not represent Michigan as a State. Why, then, should it be rejected? Upon bare technicalities

it in his power to pursue that course, with regard to the question before the House, which might be generous to the people of Michigan, and at the same time just to the State which he in part represented. From all the deliberation which he had given to the subject, he felt it his duty to sustain the motion of his colleague, and regretted that it was a case in which his feelings of respect for the people of Michigan, and his sense of justice to his own State, were in collision.

The gentleman from New York [Mr. BEARDSLEY] has been careful to impress the House with the opinion that all the merits of the claims of Michigan, and of the controversy which she seeks with her neighbors, are already known to the House. What, then, is intended by the introduction of this paper? It cannot be for the purpose of shedding new light on the subject in general, for the gentleman says we know all about it. Believing, as he did, that Michigan intends, by the introduction of this paper, to gain a point in her case, and, after its reception, and the consequent reference to the committee, that she will contend that a virtual recognition is given, not only that she is constitutionally and legally a State of the Union, but that she is a State with the limits and boundaries to which she is clearly not entitled-boundaries which Congress cannot sanction. We are thus required to acknowledge that Michigan is a free, sovereign, and independent State. The completest evidence on record of such an admission on our part would be to receive her legislative enactments as such State, and to accredit them according to her wishes. If this were not the point intended, if it were not thus designed to prejudge favorably the question as to the admission of the State into the Union, with her present extraordinary demands, the most unexceptionable means of making herself heard would have been adopted. In all probability, the Territory, not the State, as in other instances, would have petitioned through the proper medium, her Delegate on this floor. If this paper had been thus presented, he would consider the object of its introduction far less questionable, and the effect less injurious.

Mr. K. professed himself as much attached to the interests of Michigan, and to her legitimate demands, when properly presented, as the gentleman from New York, but was surprised that the honorable gentleman had not manifested quite as much regard for the interests of Indiana as for those of the Territory.

Mr. K. considered the introduction of the paper at this time, and in its present shape, as peculiarly unfortunate and inexpedient. He hoped the House would reflect upon the deep anxiety and excitement which would be produced in a portion of the West, if the doctrine is to be openly and deliberately avowed in this House that Michigan is a State-a State entitled to embrace within her limits a large portion of Indiana. For one, he was prepared to say that the State of Indiana would, under all circumstances, adhere to her own constitution-to the soil within her just and constitutional limits. This duty and right on her part, and the want of constitutional power on the part of Congress, or any State, to coerce her from her position, were so clearly self-evident, that he would not enter into the discussion of those points.

Mr. K. said he felt as ardent an attachment to the right of petition as any other member. He would not surrender, in hehalf of his own constituents, its fair and constitutional exercise; and he would not vote to deny the same sacred privilege to any portion of the American people. But, in behalf of his constituents, he claimed the authority to distinguish between the petitions of the people of the Territory of Michigan, and the illegal, unconstitutional demands of the self-styled Senate and House of Representatives of Michigan, particularly, as in the present case, when those demands are not only in contempt of the authority of the Union, in derogation

[H. OF R.

of the independence and vested rights of the State of Indiana, but altogether mischievous and inexpedient. Mr. K. said the rule of comity or courtesy, which was principally relied on by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] did not seem to apply to the question. If that argument justifies the introduction of this paper, and consequently its reference to the committee, and the action of the House upon it, there was no extent to which the House might not go. If, through comity, according to the argument of the honorable gentleman, we must admit these illegal and unconstitutional demands from a self-existent, legislative power, unknown to the House, claiming what Congress has never conceded, in the next place we shall be called upon to admit the member who is waiting at your door; that accomplished, the admission of the State would follow. He denied the constitutional power of Congress to admit a State into the Union, proposing to dismember a State already formed; and he thought it very extraordinary that the House was disposed to entertain such a question.

Mr. K. desired the House to observe that the paper to which the question refers alleges a fact which has no existence. It purports to come from a State embracing certain limits. Those limits embrace a portion of the people of Indiana; and the inference is intended to fullow, that those people were represented in the General Assembly of Michigan, and had an agency in sending this obnoxious paper, which he took occasion to deny. Mr. SPANGLER regretted that his indisposition prevented him from doing that full justice to the subject he should otherwise have felt it his duty to have done. He had listened attentively to the remarks of the honorable member from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] and would neither yield to him, nor to any other gentleman, in bis support of the abstract doctrine of the sacred right of petition. He had no idea that the people were to come to this House with their hats under their arms; for, in this country, sovereignty resides entirely in the people, and public agents are but the servants of the people. Mr. S. said there were three classes of petitioners, all of whom are unquestionably entitled to memorialize this House; and he would have no objection to receive this paper, if it came within the description of either class. The first class consisted of private American citizens, praying for individual relief, whose applications we are in the daily habit of receiving. The second consisted of private or public corporations, such as banks, insurance and railroad companies, and incorporated towns or cities. The third consisted of the States of this Union, in their separate and independent capacity of States. This memorial did not come before us either from individuals or corporations, nor even from Michigan as a Territory of the Government; but it came from her in the assumed and unauthorized character of a State. He could not recognise her, and he did not know her, in that capacity. He had often read the names of all the States, but had never seen hers included in the catalogue. When or where did she become a State? Allusion had been made to the case of Tennessee. He saw no analogy between the cases. Ten. nessee never acted as a State, or approached this House in that character, until she had been formally admitted into the Union. But Michigan, without any federal authority, has formed a State constitution, and organized a State Government, and now addresses us in a sovereign capacity. He could not recognise her right to do Mr. S. made some further remarks, to show that there was no analogy between the case of Tennessee and that of Michigan. He did not regard the vote upon this question as of any importance, in relation to the question of disputed territory. It had nothing to do with that question; and he had no apprehension that any gentleman could feel himself committed on that question

So.

by any vote he might give upon this. That matter stood upon its own merits, and would be decided accordingly.

Mr. HOLSEY had, he said, bestowed some reflection on this subject, and, entertaining a desire to preserve the good faith of the Government in its constitutional compacts, he had risen to oppose the motion of the gentleman from Indiana. The rights of Michigan were based upon the ordinance of 1787, which would be found to contain the offensive word "State," which was made the ground of the motion to reject. That ordinance declares that there "shall be formed in the said Territory not less than three nor more than five States;" and the boundaries of these States are then described. It gives Congress the authority to form one or two States in that part of said Territory lying north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend of Lake Michigan; and it provides that, "whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such States shall be admitted" into the Union. This was the language of the ordinance, which, if any faith was to be kept by the Government, was decisive in favor of the rights of Michigan. There was another aspect in which this subject might be viewed. By the terms of the compact, the States were to be admitted when they contained sixty thousand free inhabitants. Was it a fact that Michigan had the required number of inhabitants? If she had, she was entitled to be admitted into the Union. The petitioners, he thought, could come into this House with strong claims of right, based on a solemn compact, which, as had been said in this House, was unalterable by any law, human or divine. The petitioners were at least entitled to be heard with respect, and he hoped the whole matter would be committed to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. MCCARTY, for the purpose of giving an opportunity to members to present memorials, petitions, &c., moved a postponement of the question until to-morrow

week.

The motion was lost: Ayes 67, noes 72.

Mr. BEARDSLEY begged leave to say a word or two in explanation. In reply to the question put from one of the gentlemen from Indiana, [Mr. KINNARD,] how it happened that this petition had not been presented by the Delegate from Michigan, instead of being presented by himself, the reason was, as Mr. B. had been told since the question was put, that the Delegate was not in the city at the time, and hence it was handed to Mr. B. for presentation. This was the only reason, as far as he knew, for the paper being handed to him.

Mr. B. wished to make a remark upon an objection urged by the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. PINCKNEY.] That gentleman said that Michigan, which was only a Territory, had, in this paper, assumed to be a State. Hence he drew the inference that it would be unconstitutional to receive this petition, or give it any sort of countenance, and hence he would vote it out of doors. Now, sir, said Mr. B., we have before heard of instances of attempts to nullify, in order to get out of the Union; but this seems to be an effort to nullify, in order to get into the Union! Michigan, as I understand the gentleman, is now attempting to violate the laws of the United States-in other words, to nullify them-in order to become a member of the Union. Mr. B. said that he did not so understand the memorial; for it urged that Congress should acquiesce, and receive Michigan as a sister State. But the argument of the gentleman himself was, that this movement by Michigan was in derogation of the laws of the Union. This, upon the argument of the gentleman, was the first instance of an effort by a Territory to break into the Union, although they all knew that efforts had been heretofore made to break out of it!

Mr. B. made some further remarks, to show that the

[JAN. 11, 1836.

case of Tennessee was analogous to the present one, except in reference to the boundary question; and said the mere receiving and referring the memorial under consideration in no way committed the House, or any member who so voted.

Mr. HARDIN did not want to see any State come into this Union by a violation of the territorial law. Now, if Congress recognised Michigan as a State, what then? Why, the power of Congress over this subject ceased; it became a dead letter, and the national Legis lature would be prevented from settling the question of boundary existing between Michigan and Ohio. If the people of Michigan memorialized that House-nay, if the Territorial Government of Michigan were to do sothen he would freely concede that their memorial should be received. But, on the contrary, if the House of Representatives were memorialized by Michigan, calling itself a State Government, he would say to the memorialists, "I know you not; I cannot recognise your title, nor can I recognise your claim." Mr. H., after some remarks in relation to the boundary question, expressed his hope that the question would be postponed until the committee who have in charge all the documents relative to the claim of Michigan to be admitted into the Union report on the subject.

Mr. STORER, of Ohio, said that when the petition before the House was presented, he distinctly understood that it came from the Legislative Council of the Territory of Michigan; and, if that was the case, he had no objection to its reference. But, sir, some misgivings as to the fact induced my colleague to ask that the memorial should be read, when it was discovered, for the first time, that the State of Michigan, as a member of the confederacy, and in her sovereign capacity, appealed to this House, not to ask admission into the Union, but to argue the question of the northern boundary of Ohio.

Sir, I should have been satisfied with the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. LANE;] and with his modification, I should vote that the petition be received; but as I am admonished that the motion to reject will not be withdrawn, I shall vote to sustain the original motion. I, sir, will not yield to any gentleman on this floor in my respect for the right of petition, when the claim is made in a constitutional manner, and no point of State sovereignty is involved; but I shall always feel it to be my duty to resist every attempt, no matter in what manner or under what circumstances it may be made, to assert a right which does not exist, and is not sanctioned by the letter or the spirit of the constitution. The distinction between the right assumed by the State of Michigan, and that secured to the citizen, has already been so ably and clearly stated by the gentlemen who have preceded me, that I shall not further discuss it. I shall confine my remarks to what has fallen from the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BEARDSLEY,] and the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. HOLSEY.]

I was surprised, sir, to hear the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, to whom had been referred the whole subject involved in this memorial, express his opinion so decidedly as to the propriety of admitting Michigan into the Union, without the previous action of Congress.

[Here Mr. BEARDSLEY rose to explain, and stated his remarks were intended to apply to the abstract right of Michigan to claim admission as a State, disconnected from the boundary question.]

Sir, I did not misunderstand the honorable gentle. man. His opinion is clear that the State of Michigan ought to compose a part of this Union; and he has referred to the proceedings in Congress in 1796, on the application of Tennessee to be admitted as a State.

With great deference to the superior experience and research of that gentleman, I must, sir, insist that the case of Tennessee is not analogous. I have attentively examined the journals of the Senate, and find that the claim of Tennessee was resisted with great pertinacity. One of the ablest reports, from one of the most able committees of that body, furnishes, to my apprehension, an irresistible argument against the assumption of Michigan. This report was discussed at great length, and the principle it involved, though modified, was not denied on the final vote. And, sir, even that modifica tion was passed by a majority of one only, in conse quence of the absence of Mr. King, who had been appointed minister to England. Now, sir, I ask the honorable chairman, if such a doubtful precedent, on so momentous a subject as is involved is this day's discussion, should be regarded as worthy of solemn consideraation. I appeal to him as a legal man, if the decision of the court of errors of his own State, which has truly been said to be sometimes a literal court of error, where the point has been determined by a bare majority, are ever relied on as safe and satisfactory. I think, sir, I can anticipate his answer. But, unfortunately for the value of the precedent, let me tell the gentleman, it has never been adhered to in any subsequent legislation, where Territories have applied for admission.

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, and Alabama, whose rights depended upon the same principle as that which is contained in the ordinance of 1787, disregarded the example of Tennessee, and applied to Congress for its previous action, in the passage of a law to authorize a convention, preparatory to their final admission. It may be said that, so far as Ohio, Illinois, and Mississippi, were concerned, they were admitted before the Territories out of which they were taken numbered a population of sixty thousand; and so far there is some plausibility in the idea that the precedent is analogous; but, sir, in the case of Indiana the same question was directly involved as that which must be discussed whenever a bill is reported for the admission of Michigan. I have examined the files in the office of the Clerk of this House, and have found the original memorial of the Legislative Council of Indiana; and I find, sir, that more than sixty thousand people were residents of that Territory when Congress was invoked to admit her as a State. I find, also, that no pretence is set up of an ab. stract right for admission into the Union, on the ground that her population was sufficient to authorize it. In that memorial I also find, sir, that the petitioners applied for the action of Congress, conceiving, as they very properly expressed themselves, that no mode was designated in the ordinance of 1787, by which their preparatory course should be governed. This petition was referred at once; a bill was reported, authorizing a convention; the convention met, formed a constitution, and at the next session of Congress the State was admitted. And such, sir, was the course of Alabama. So much, then, for the precedent of Tennessee; which, if it was available, had been many years in force when the States I have just referred to were admitted; and yet we find it was not then relied upon or referred to. Sir, Indiana was then, as she always has been, the modest yet firm and decided advocate of her own rights and the respect that is due to the confederacy.

Sir, the right of Michigan to become a State has been discussed at large on the question to reject; and I have been compelled to follow the gentleman from New York, though I had determined not to trouble the House until he had entered into the debate, and opened the whole field.

Before I sit down, sir, I will reply to the gentleman from Georgia. He, sir, has referred to the ordinance of 1787, and emphatically insists that the right of Michigan

[H. OF R.

to be admitted into the Union is a matter of solemn compact. He points to the provisions of the section requiring Congress to organize not less than three nor more than five States in the Northwestern Territory. Sir, I beg leave to except to his construction of that instrument. If he will examine its provisions carefully, he will find that three States were definitely marked out in the ordinance, the northern boundary of which was the territorial line between the United States and Canada. These States are organized; and it depends upon the discretion of Congress whether more States shall be organized within that Territory. The right is reserved, in the act erecting the Territory of Michigan, to annex all the country north of the boundary line of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to those States, if hereafter it should be deemed expedient; and the jurisdiction of the General Government has been exercised in reference to that power.

The duty of organizing those States was unqualified; it, sir, was perfect; and it has been performed. There is now no legal obligation, on the part of Congress, to admit a new State in the Northwest; though I am satisfied, sir, it is our duty, and the public interest requires, that Michigan should be admitted whenever the proper steps have been taken. It is in vain, then, sir, to assume the right, as granted by this ordinance.

Sir, I feel that the debate has taken a wide range, and the general question has been prematurely discussed. I am satisfied that I have been compelled to be discur sive: it is a necessary consequence of the great latitude allowed in debate.

It may be, sir, that I have discovered too much feeling in the earnest manner in which I have presented my remarks. The only apology I offer is the nature of the controversy in which the State I represent is engaged. Sir, we may be opposed by the North and the East, and a new State may be viewed with a more favorable eye than the elder members of the confederacy; but, sir, if we are left even in a hopeless minority, I trust we shall not be deterred, while we have the power and the occasion, from expressing our sentiments, and speaking out in no measured phrase on the great, the momentous in⚫ terests that are involved in the present question.

[Mr. BEARDSLEY explained, and said that the gentleman [Mr. STORER] must have misunderstood him. He had expressly stated that, upon the boundary ques tions, and every thing connected with those questions, he gave no opinion; indeed, he had come to no result upon these questions. He hoped and expected that the gentleman would in this respect neither misapprehend nor misrepresent him, and he confidently believed he should not in this respect be mistaken.

The honorable gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. HARDIN] had thought proper to rebuke him for having expressed the opinion he had done; yet that honorable member had gone much further, and announced his own opinion upon the boundary question in all its aspects and bearings. This he had not done; he had only said that, independent of the boundary questions, the case of Tennessee was a precedent for the present application of Michigan. He, however, made no complaint that his colleague on the committee had made up a full opinion upon all matters; that was a matter for him alone to decide.]

Mr. STORER resumed. He did not mean to say that the gentleman had expressed an opinion on the boundary question. But he (Mr. S.) did say, that upon the isolated question, whether Michigan ought to be admitted-not taking into consideration the boundary controversy-there was no doubt. Mr. S. next adverted to the reception of Tennessee and Mississippi into the Union, and remarked that he could not admit that the course taken by Tennessee for admission into the Union