regularity of the state government under which he was chosen. Therefore it would seem that in writing this history of Michigan as a State, we should take the Michigan view, and consider the "state" as created by the constitution of 1835, and the organization thereunder.

The Constitutional Convention had completed its labors and adjourned on June 24 previous, and the Constitution was already, doubtless before the President.

The events now to be recorded intervened between that date and the assembling and organizing of the State Legislature on November 1, 1835, and constitute the prelude to the organized and independent existence of the commonwealth. They will make clear the grounds for the superceding of Acting Governor Mason, the appointment and arrival of Acting Governor Horner of the Territory of Michigan, and the manner in which he vindicated the dignity and honor of the people over whom, for a brief period, he imagined that he presided.

An understanding of this intermediate period in which Michigan was a state, and yet not a state of or in the Union, is necessary to an appreciation of her subsequent career.

Under date of July 3, 1835, John Forsyth, Secretary of State, by order of President Jackson wrote to Governor Mason a lengthy communication, among other things saying:

"He (the President) has therefore instructed me earnestly to recommend to you that no obstruction shall be interposed to the re-marking of Harris' line; that all proceedings already begun under the act of the Legislative Council of Michigan of the 12th of February last, shall be immediately discontinued; that no prosecutions shall be commenced for any subsequent violations of that act until after the next session of Congress; and that all questions about the disputed jurisdiction shall be carefully avoided, and if occurring inevitably their discussion shall be postponed until the same period."

This was decidedly Jacksonian. It proposed to the Governor of Michigan that he nullify and hold for naught the deliberate enactment of the territorial legislature; that he should usurp the functions of the judiciary, and prevent the enforcement of the laws. To this proposition the young governor replied with more spirit, perhaps, than discretion, when it is considered, from the personal standpoint. Among other things, under date of July 11, 1835, he wrote to Secretary of State Forsyth as follows:

"It can scarcely be necessary at present to urge upon your consideration the difficulties and objections which occur to my mind forbidding the proposed compromise. In my letter to Messrs. Rush and Howard, I stated my reasons for then rejecting this proposition. It is before you. My views yet remain unaltered, and, I think, unalterable. I will, however, follow the precedent set by the governor of Ohio, and appeal to the wisdom of the legislature."

This from a youngster of twenty-three was certainly pretty stiff talk to "Old Hickory," who held in his hands the power of Mason's political life or death. In a subsequent letter to the secretary, under date of August 20, he writes:

"The general government may expect a serious collision, as this attempt to exercise jurisdiction will be resisted in Michigan. The consequences attending such a state of things are deeply to be regretted, but they must rest with those who might have prevented their occurrence."

The legislative council was convened. The proposed compromise was submitted to it. The council approved Governor Mason's rejection of the proposition. In a lengthy memorial the council declared "It is our duty to express our determination, and we have no doubt that such is the will of the people of Michigan, to submit to no arrangement by which the integrity of the limits of Michigan, by the act of 1805, is violated." The report was made by J. Duane Doty. The counterstroke,

as might have been expected came quickly in the following:

Department of State, Washington, August 29, 1835. Sir: The President having maturely considered your recent communication to the Legislative Council of Michigan, in connection with other proceedings upon your part, is brought with regret to the conclusion that your zeal for what you consider the rights of Michigan has overcome that spirit of moderation and forbearance which in the present irritated state of feeling prevailing in Ohio and Michigan is necessary to the preservation of the peace. He finds himself constrained, therefore, by his sense of duty to supercede you as Secretary of the Territory of Michigan, and has appointed Mr. Charles Shaler of Pennsylvania to be your successor.'

Stevens T. Mason,

Detroit, Michigan.

JOHN FORSYTH.

This was followed by a second, as follows:

Department of State, Washington, September 8, 1835.

Sir: The accompanying letter from this department was intended to have been delivered by Mr. Shaler, who had been appointed to succeed you; but he having declined accepting, the President has appointed Mr. John S. Horner of Virginia to be Secretary of the Territory and he will take charge of this communication.

I have the honor to be, etc.,
JOHN FORSYTH.

Stevens T. Mason,
Detroit, Michigan Territory.

John S. Horner was, like Governor Mason, a young Virginian,-though considerably older than the latter. He was at once called to Washington, and the President in a personal interview explained to him his policy and his expectations of the new appointee, and to him was delivered the letter of instructions intended for Mr. Shaler, under date of August 29. In this letter occurs the following passage:

"He (the President) has believed from the beginning of the discussion that without further legislation on the part of congress, the country in dispute is to be considered as forming, legally, a