FEB. 9, 1835.] Choctaw Reserves—Territorial Government of Wisconsin. istration, there was no danger of his being bribed. Indeed, experience had proved that the gentleman was mistaken; for he thought the present printers to this House could not be charged with undue partiality to the present administration. He still believed the House of Representatives to be the proper body to designate their own printer, according to the resolutions of 1819 and 1827. The duties of the officer might be prescribed by Congress, but the House has the right to choose the printer, and any printer in the United States had the right of being a candidate for the office, whether he was the editor of a newspaper or not. Mr. McK., after some further remarks, said he felt disposed to go into the election of a public printer; and he hoped that one friendly to the national administration would be appointed. He also maintained the principle of electing that officer viva voce. The discussion of the resolutions was here arrested by a motion, by Mr. CHILTON ALLAN, to proceed to the consideration of the orders of the day; which carried. CHOCTAW RESERVATIONS. The SPEAKER laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States, which was read and referred to the Committee on Public Lands: WASHINGTON, Feb. 6, 1835. | Mr PLUMMER said that, at the last session of Congress, the Committee on the Public Lands on the part of the Senate were instructed to investigate the conduct of the land officers in Mississippi, and the chairman of that committee was authorized to conduct the investigation during the recess. The result of that investigation has been reported to the Senate, and is contained in Senate Document No. 22. Among other matters inquired into during the investigation, was the conduct of Colonel George W. Martin, the agent who made the locations referred to in the message just read. His character, where his conduct is not known, has suffer- | ed under the charge. Mr. P. had read the testimony, and, so far as he was capable of judging from a thorough examination of the subject, he considered that the agent stood honorably acquitted from any thing like fraudulent or improper conduct in the discharge of his duties. To prevent the charge of fraud against the agent from being raised to the prejudice of the claimants, and that the conduct of the agent may be fully brought before the committee in its aggravated form, he moved that so much of the testimony as related to the official conduct of Colonel Martin be referred to the same committee to which the message of the President had been referred. [H. OF R. dian Affairs, instead of the Committee on the Public Lands. The CHAIR said this could only be done by unanimous consent, or by a reconsideration of the vote referring the subjects to the Committee on the Public Lands. Mr. PLUMMER objected to the motion. Mr. CAGE moved a reconsideration of the vote. Mr. PLUMMER thought the Committee on the Public Lands the most appropriate reference, and should therefore vote against a reconsideration, but had no particular objections to the subject going to the Committee on Indian Affairs, if that should be the desire of the House. The motion to reconsider prevailed, and the documents were referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. On motion of Mr. PLUMMER, the vote taken on referring the testimony taken before the committee of the Senate was reconsidered, and the same referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. TERRITORIAL BILLS. This day being specially set apart for the consideration of bills relating to the Territories, Mr. ALLAN, of Kentucky, moved to commit to a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union the several bills, in relation to the Territories, which had been referred to a Committee of the Whole House; which was agreed to. The House then, on motion of Mr. ALLAN, of Kentucky, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. POPE in the chair,) and took up the several bills in relation to the Territories; after considering sundry of which, they were laid aside, and the committee took up the bill to establish the TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF WISCONSIN. Mr. LYON, of Michigan, moved an amendment to the bill. Mr. HAMER moved, as an amendment to the amend. ment, a provision describing and fixing the northern boundary line of the State of Ohio. Mr. WHITE, of Florida, rose to a point of order. He asked whether it was in order to move such an amendment to a bill organizing a new Territory. If so, the object of setting this day apart for the consideration of territorial business would be defeated, as the whole day would be occupied with a controversy as to the boundary line between Ohio and Michigan. Mr. J. Y. MASON said there was an additional objection. The provisions of one bill, already before the House, could not be moved as an amendment to another. The CHAIR decided that it was not in order to move the amendment. Mr. VINTON asked leave to give his reasons for thinking that the motion was in order. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS said the gentleman could appeal from the decision, but stated some reasons in support of the decision of the Chair. Mr. VINTON appealed from the decision of the Chair, and spoke earnestly in opposition to the decision. The question of order was further discussed by Mr. LANE, and Mr. LYON, of Michigan, who said he was very sorry that the gentleman from Ohio had taken this occasion to introduce a question which would occupy a week, and which was foreign to the subject under consideration. To remove all pretext for the amendment, he would withdraw his motion to amend, to which it was attached. On motion of Mr. LYON, the blanks in the bill were filled so as to fix the salary of the Governor of the Ter H. OF R.] Territorial Government of Wisconsin. ritory at $2,000; of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs at $1,000; of the Judges at $1,500; and of the Secretary at $1,500. Mr. HAMER then offered his amendment as an additional section of the bill. Mr. LYON made the question of order upon the motion, as it introduced, substantially, the provisions of another bill, and had no reference to this bill. The question of order was discussed by Messrs. HAMER, ÉWING, VINTON, J. Y. MASON, ALLEN of Ohio, and MERCER; when The CHAIR decided that the motion was not in order. Mr. REYNOLDS then offered an amendment fixing the boundary line between the Territory of Wisconsin and the State of Illinois at forty-two degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude. Mr. LYON said this motion was objectionable, on the same ground with the former motion. The CHAIR decided that the motion was in order. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS called for the reading of the bill fixing the northern boundary of the States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Mr. VANCE appealed from the decision of the Chair. The discussion on the question of order was further continued by Messrs. VANCE, MASON, FILLMORE, MILLER, MERCER, WHITE of Florida, VINTON, and VANCE; when Mr. VANCE put an end to it by withdrawing his appeal. The debate upon the bill was resumed; and, having been continued by Messrs. McKENNAN and HAMER, Mr. EWING offered an amendment which went to strike out that clause of the bill which declares that the southern boundary of the Territory shall be a line drawn east from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan, and insert the northern boundary line of the State of Indiana. Mr. MAY and Mr. VINTON having briefly addressed the Chair, [FEB. 9, 1835. Michigan to the Mississippi river. This section of our State includes many growing and flourishing towns and villages. The lead district is in it, and the outlet into the lake of the canal connecting the Illinois river with Lake Michigan is also in it. The towns of Chicago and Galena, which are rising commercial towns, and the country in general, would wither and decay during the pendency of a controversy of this character and magnitude, should it be delayed for the action of a court of justice on it. He remarked, the people of Illinois would not, in this controversy, or in any other, indulge in the doctrines of nullification, disunion, or dismemberment; but they would insist on their rights, which have been recognised in the constitution of their State, made in pursuance of an act of Congress. They would cling to the limits of their State with such pertinacity as became a free and independent people in a just and righteous cause. They would not be divorced from this flourishing section of their State, including the outlet of their canal into Lake Michigan, and all connexion with the northern lakes, on any small consideration. The constitution of the State settled this boundary, it is true; but even on subjects of such permanency and immutability there may be disputes. We see it is disputed, or else the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LrON] would at once agree to the amendment, and this debate and the controversy, as it respects himself, would immediately subside. Mr. R. observed that the committee would see the necessity of deciding this controversy at this time, when they had it in their power. They had the constitutional power to define the limits of the new Territory. No one wished the boundary of Illinois to be touched or interfered with; but it was "expedient" and necessary to define the limits of the new Territory, so as to quiet and remove all causes of dissatisfaction and dispute hereafter. To show the necessity of an action on this case, only look at the warm and vexatious controversy between the State of Ohio and Michigan Territory. It is expedient to settle this controversy at this Mr. REYNOLDS remarked that, if the gentleman time, before the new Territory has its existence. It is from the Territory of Michigan [Mr. LYON] would agree doing an act of justice to the new Territory, as well as to the amendment, there would be no further contro- to the State of Illinois, to quiet and remove for ever any versy about it. He believed the gentleman to be a can- and every cause of future disturbance and disquiet. did and frank member; that if he wished not to intrude Then the State of Illinois will enjoy, in peace and quiet, the new Territory on the State of Illinois, or to have the her territory and her jurisdiction to her northern limits, case of boundary open for a controvery, he would close which her constitution has guarantied to her. This conin with the proposition offered by Mr. R., and the case stitution has been made in pursuance of an act of Conof Illinois would be decided, and he would not contend gress, passed in 1818, authorizing the people of the any farther on the question of boundary; but let the Territory of Illinois to form a constitution and State honorable members from Ohio, and the honorable dele-Government, and which State, so formed, was admitted gate, battle out their own disputes. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. LYON] declining to accede to the amendment, Mr. R. proceeded to remark that the nonacceptance of the amendment to fix the southern boundary of the new Territory at latitude forty-two degrees thirty minutes north, was conclusive that the honorable gentleman, and perhaps the people of the new Territory, would have claims on the Territory of Illinois north of the line which runs east and west through the southern bend of Lake Michigan. Such disposition, manifested on the occasion by the gentleman, and the controversy at this time warmly agitated between the State of Ohio and Michigan Territory, would show this committee at once the necessity of a prompt action on the question; and the necessity, also, of defining expressly and positively the southern boundary of the contemplated Territory. It was idle to say that there was no dispute about this question, and it was useless to say that it was not interesting to the people of Illinois. The mere agitation of the question would injure the country. This disputed territory would embrace the fairest portion of Illinois. It would extend south eighty or one hundred miles, and clear across the State cast and west from Lake into the Union with the limits as prescribed in the constition. This course of proceeding showed the sense of Coegress on the ordinance of 1787, made for the government of the people of the Northwestern Territory. Congress, as early as 1802, expressed an opinion on this ordinance in the admission of the State of Ohio into the Union. They considered the ordinance then, and they have so considered it ever since, down to a very recent date, as changeable by their legislation. It is, in fact, nothing more than an ordinary act of Congress, changeable, like other acts, for the public good. The act or deed of cession of the State of Virginia, which was made in the year 1784, by which the country in question was ceded to the United States, prescribed the extent of the States to be formed in it. Congress, in the year 1786, requested the State of Virginia to change and alter her act or deed of cession, so as to empower the United States in Congress assembled to make such division of the territory of the United States lying northerly and westerly of the river Ohio, into distinct republican States, not more than five, nor less than three, as the situation of that country and future circumstances may require. The year following (1787) the Congress of the United States passed what is called the ordinance or act of Congress for the government of the Northwestern Territory. This act was passed before the State of Virginia acted on the recommendation of Congress requesting the power to alter the extent and limits of the new States to be formed in said territory. In the fifth article of the ordinance there is contained this provision, to wit: "Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared, that the northern boundary of these three f States shall be subject so far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part of the said territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southern bend or extreme of Lake Michigan." In the year 1788, Virginia consented to the request made by the United States, and "ratified" the provisions made in said ordinance of 1787. Mr. R. said he referred to these acts of Congress, and the deed of cession of Virginia, to show that there existed no restriction or "compact," between the State of Virginia and the United States, on the subject. Virginia had transferred all her power over the ceded territory to the United States. It will be seen by the request made by the United States to Virginia, and by the consent of Virginia to the recommendation, that both the United States and Virginia understood the sub=ject-matter of the boundary of the new States to be under the control of Congress," as the situation of that country and future circumstances may require." According to the most rigid and illiberal construction of the act of Congress, which calls itself a "compact," Congress had "authority" to form one or two States north of this celebrated line, the extent, size, and shape of which were left in the discretion of Congress. That body had full power to act in the case as it pleased and found it "expedient." There is no obligation imposed on Congress that these new States, or Territories, shall be bounded on the south by this east and west line running through the southern bend of Lake Michigan. They may be formed north of it, and not adjacent to it. The object of the act was to secure the southern States, and not to bind those on the north to the line. But we are not compelled to resort to this rigid construction of the ordinance, which was peculiarly made, not to regulate boundaries of new and future States, but for the government of the people in the Northwestern Territory. It can be demonstrated, according to the principles of our constitution and the laws of the country, that the ordinance is nothing more than a mere act of Congress. Its assuming to itself the high-sounding titles of "ordinance," and "compact," does not make It is not contended that the Congress that passed this act in question possessed any more power or authority under the constitution of the United States than the present or any other Congress possess. Each Congress that existed under the same constitution of our Government must possess the same power, and no more. Could the present Congress make a compact between any people in this Government? It is useless to inform this House what a contract or compact is. There must be competent parties, in the first place. Who were the parties in this "compact" mentioned in the ordinance? Congress were the only party concerned in the whole transaction. It is clearly not a compact, as there were no parties to it. The people in the new Territory were not present, represented in the Congress that enacted this organic law of the Northwestern Territory. In fact, they were not a Territory until the law was enacted constituting them a Territory; and, of course, could not be represented, as a Territory, in the Congress that created them. it so. The Congress of the United States have no power to [H. OF R. make constitutions for any people. They may make organic laws for the Territories of the United States, and no more. These laws are always in the control and power of Congress, to alter and change at pleasure; which they have done on various occasions. They are completely within the constitutional competency of Congress, to change and alter whenever the public good requires it. Congress have so considered the subject since this act or ordinance had existence. They admitted the State of Ohio into the Union with an alteration of the ordinance act. The same has been done with Indiana and Illinois. It has been the uniform course of legislation, when it became necessary, since the ordinance was enacted in 1787; and he hoped it would be continued necessary in the case, now before the committee. It was doing a mere act of justice to the State of Illinois to define the limits of the Territory adjoining her border on the north, so that there would be no dispute hereafter. The proposed amendment did not interfere with the boundary of Illinois, but defined the southern boundary of our neighbor, and he hoped it would be adopted. Mr. DICKSON raised a question of order upon the amendment, as being inconsistent with the bill, and argued it for some time; when The CHAIR decided that the amendment was in order. Mr. LYON opposed the amendment, as trenching on the rights of Michigan Territory. Mr. REYNOLDS replied, and enforced the view he had before expressed. Mr. HARDIN warmly advocated the amendment. Mr. GAMBLE, of Georgia, and Mr. BOON, of Indiana, opposed it, as being needless, and only opening a question which was settled. Mr. EWING, Mr. CRANE, and Mr. MAY, successively advocated the amendment, insisting that the legis lation of Congress had established the northern boundary of Illinois, and that the present bill ought to acknowledge and respect its decision, as not to be disturbed or called in question; but the bill, as reported, would still leave that question open to dispute. Mr. J. Q. ADAMS rose and said, he did not rise to make an argument; but, before the question on this amendment was taken, he would call the attention of the House to the relative position of the two parties interested in this subject. On the one side (said Mr. A.) there are twenty-nine members of this House personally and deeply interested; every one of them having the power of speech, as they have fully shown, and every one having a vote on this question. On the other side there is one Territory, with a single delegate, (to whose zeal, energy, and fidelity, on all occasions when the rights and interests of that Territory are affected, I can bear cordial testimony;) and another Territory that is to come, without voice or vote at all. I wish that this House, before a decision is pronounced, would take this relative position of the parties into their most serious consideration; and I make the request with the more emphasis, because there is a question deeper than that of twenty-nine members against a single delegate involved in the issue of this matter; and that is, the faith of the nation. the one side, then, there are twenty-nine members of the House, and on the other a single delegate and the faith of the nation. On Sir, the origin of this question goes back to the ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio; that ordinance which is the foundation of all these States; of these three States which have their twenty-nine members in this House, and of these two Territories which may, and I hope will, have more than twenty-nine members to represent them upon this same floor. At this time I cannot go into H. OF R.] Territorial Government of Wisconsin. the subject in all its details; the debate has been protracted; the House is impatient for the question, and all I wish, before it shall be definitively taken, is that the House may understand all that is involved in it. I refer, therefore, solely to that which contains the essence of this question; that is to say, the fifth article of the fundamental articles, which were established by the Congress which framed the ordinance for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, and which is in the following words: "It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said Territory, and for ever remain unalterable, unless by common consent." Here, continued Mr. A., is the constitution of the Northwestern Territory; a compact made between the original thirteen States of this Union and the people and the States which were to be formed in consequence of this ordinance. Well, sir, one of these articles is as follows. It is rather long, but I am afraid I shall be obliged to read it, in order to put every member of this House in possession of the real question which is to be decided, and to show that in that question the faith of this nation is involved: [FEB. 9, 1835. that this shall not be the line, and to establish a different one. And why? Because it suits their convenience, and the convenience of their States, that the line should be altered. As regards the State of Ohio, she tells you that an alteration has been made in the constitution, and that Congress had assented to it once; but she asks you again to signify your assent, because she does not think that it has been done with sufficient certainty, and she is desirous of having additional security by eliciting an other expression of your concurrence. This was the ori ginal question which was reported on by the committee of this House, and the question was raised simply between Ohio, with her nineteen members, and this unfortunate Territory of Michigan, with her solitary delegate, and the future State with no delegate at all. But when the bill was to be carried through another place, then the idea was conjured up that it would affect the States of Indiana and Illinois. For what reason was this idea suggested? I know of none, unless it was to get votes in the other branch of the Legislature. It did get votes, and the bill from the Senate came with two additional sections added to it at its last stage in the Senate, and purporting to fix the boundaries of the States of Indiana and of Illinois, as well as the northern boundary of the State of Ohio. In that state the bill was referred to "ARTICLE 5. There shall be formed in the said Ter- a select committee of this House, and it was the pleasure ritory not less than three nor more than five States; and of the Speaker, in the exercise of his regular authority, the boundary of the'States, as soon as Virginia shall alter to place me upon that committee, an assignment altoher act of cession, and consent to the same, shall be- gether unexpected to me, but which made it my duty, come fixed and established as follows, to wit: The west- however painful might be its execution, to examine the ern State in the said Territory shall be bounded by the question minutely, critically, in all its bearings, and not Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash rivers; a direct line as a mere question of convenience as to what should be drawn from the Wabash and Port St. Vincent's due north the boundary line of Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois-to suit to the territorial line between the United States and Can- whose convenience I would do every thing but sacrifice ada; and by the said territorial line to the Lake of the justice-every thing but compromise the rights, the interWoods and Mississippi. The middle State shall be ests, and the honor, of other parts of this Union. Sir, I bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash, from Port did examine it; and I now ask the members of this House St. Vincent's to the Ohio; by the Ohio, by a direct line, to look fairly into the question, and they will find the drawn due north from the mouth of the Great Miami, to real question to be that which I have stated. It is true the said territorial line, and by the said territorial line. that the boundary of Indiana and Illinois has been formThe eastern State shall be bounded by the last-mentioned by Congress, without knowing, as I believe, what ed direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said ter- they were doing, or what principles were involved; and ritorial line. Provided, however, and it is further under- if this question does not come to the arbitrament of the stood and declared, That the boundaries of these three sword, as has been intimated by the member from IlliStates shall be subject so far to be altered, that, if Con- nois, who says that the people of Illinois will not suffer gress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have their boundary line to be touched-all I ask, and all authority to form one or two States in that part of the that the people of the two Territories ask, is, that you said Territory which lies north of an east and west line will not touch the line at all--that Congress will no drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake more commit itself. There is no necessity for it. If Michigan." they have committed an error in establishing a new boundary, drawn from a Territory which has no one to represent its interests, let them be satisfied with the evil they have done, and not repeat it now, when they know what is involved in the question. Mr. A. continued. These are the terms of the com. pact-a compact as binding as any that was ever ratified by God in heaven. The further provision is for the admission of these States into the Union at the proper time. I pass that over, because it has no reference to the question now at issue before the House. I pass over, also, the laws the present; and the question whether Congress has, by its subsequent acts, violated this provision. I appeal to it now, in order to say that it cannot be annulled; that it is firm as the world, immutable as eternal justice; and I call upon every member of this House to defend it with his voice and his vote, and to sustain the plighted faith of this nation-of the thirteen original States by which which have been enacted by Congress from that time to the compact was made. In the year 1805, the Territory of Michigan was formed by law, and the southern line of the Territory is identical with these words of the provision: "an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend of extreme of Lake Michigan." And what do these twenty-nine mem The question, as between the Territory of Ouisconsin (if such is to be established) and the States of Indiana and Illinois, is a question of possibility, which may come up at a future time. The true question now is between Michigan and Ohio; and Ohio asks you to destroy this compact, which has been declared to be unalterable, in order to have your decision that she is entitled to another boundary. was to call the at I will say no more; my sole object tention of that portion of the House which is not interested personally in the decision to the true nature of sion. *Mr. MAY, the member alluded to by Mr. A., was understood by the reporter to make use of this expres that He subsequently, however, stated to the House and ed simply to observe, and believed he did so observe, bers ask Congress to do? They call upon you to repeal this provision; to declare that it is not binding; to say see its territory taken away, or words to that effect. B the question which they have to determine. I will state, furthermore, that there is a document (No. 354, 4th vol. of the proceedings of the last session of Congress) in which may be found the whole subject before the House, together with the arguments, ably made, by the gentleman from Ohio on the one side, and the delegate of Michigan Territory on the other. There will also be found the remonstrance of the Governor of Michigan, claiming this right, and showing the title of that Territory in a manner so convincing, that, if members will read it, and the other documents to which I have referred, intently, and with a single view to the question which they have to decide, as to the rights of the respective parties, and whether the public faith is or is not inviolably pledged, I believe all further debate will be unnecessary. Mr. HAMER rose and said that he would move that the committee rise, in accordance with the suggestions of several gentlemen around him, were it not for some remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS.] He thought it his duty to reply to them before the committee rose, lest they should make an impression which they did not deserve. He said it was a little remarkable that such arguments should come from such a quarter. We are told that there are three States involved in this controversy on one side, having twenty-nine members on this floor, and on the other side a Territory, or two Territories, having but one voice, and no vote. The same argument leaks out again, in the course of his observations. Ohio is large and powerful, and Michigan small and feeble! What had this to do with the merits of the question before us? Did we decide controversies here with reference to the age, wealth, or power, of the parties? Or did we look to the justice of the claim set up on one side, and denied on the other? Sir, (said Mr. H.,) let me meet this argument at once, and disclose its utter want of foundation, so far as Ohio is concerned. Gentlemen have only to look into this subject, to perceive, that of nine new States admitted into the Union west of the Allegany mountains, seven are larger than Ohio, and one less. Indiana is the only State of less dimensions than ours. If we have a population of a million, (eleven hundred thousand souls,) is that any reason why justice should not be done to us? If we are making canals, railroads, and turnpikes, through our country, in every direction, is that a reason why we should not be heard? If we are turning our little State into a garden, does that justify any one in disregarding our complaints? We work for what we have in Ohio, and are therefore justly entitled to it. We do not, as they do in some parts of the world, set one man to labor and two to watch him. If this course results in unexampled prosperity, it is no fault of ours. And if we have twentynine members on this floor from the three States named, we have precisely what the constitution of our country allows us to have. The gentleman referred to the old argument derived from the ordinance of 1787. He told us that it was as unalterable as the laws of nature-that was the idea, though not the words of the gentleman. Now, sir, I pledge myself, when this subject comes fairly before us for discussion, and I join the honorable member in the wish that it may so come, to show that this ordinance, so far as the boundary in question is involved, is just as susceptible of alteration as any other law of Congress passed for the last thirty or forty years. The States who ceded the Northwestern Territory to the United States all did so without condition or reserve, except Virginia. She imposed conditions. But what had they to do with these lines? Nothing. She never pretended to claim the soil or jurisdiction where these disputed boundaries are. Connecticut and Massachusetts [H. OF R. laid claim to the country; but, as my friend from Kentucky [Mr. HARDIN] remarked, Virginia could make no stipulations to prevent Congress from running north of the line named in the ordinance, into a country which she never claimed. This doctrine of the sacred and unalterable nature of the line fixed by the ordinance reminds me of an anecdote. I have been told that the celebrated " compromise bill" referred to in the discussion to-day, and which was the work of a few leading politicians, is considered so sacred and inviolable as to require an amendment of the constitution to enable us to dispose of the surplus moneys which it will bring into the treasury, and that such an amendment has been actually proposed. Now, sir, can Congress pass a law that cannot be repealed? Can one Congress by a law bind their successors and the country through all time to come? Yet such is the doctrine advanced in opposition to our claim. The ordinance is an act of Congress. It is no compact, as to the country north of the line named, whatever it may be as to the rest. A compact requires two parties to its execution. Here there was but one, the Congress of the United States. Virginia had no claim; the other States gave up theirs without reserve, and there was no assent or dissent of the people residing in the Territory. He could but admire what he might be permitted to call the ingenuity of the gentleman from Massachusetts. He had remarked that Congress had no power to change the line prescribed in the ordinance, and that it was wholly unimportant what their subsequent legislation had been upon the subject. Yet he carefully passes over the laws which conflict with this line, and brings out those only which accord with it. Thus, sir, he passes by the laws of 1816 and 1818, admitting Indiana and Illinois into the Union, and fixing their boundaries north of this line; but presents the law of 1805, erecting Michigan into a Territory, to show that Congress had regarded the line as fixed, by their adoption of it upon that occasion. Why not bring out all, on both sides? That is the way to investigate the subject fairly and correctly. Let us hear all, and then determine. It has been intimated that the boundaries of Illinois and Indiana are settled, and that they are attached to the claim of Obio to gain strength; and that the subject is pressed now, to take the advantage of the condition of Michigan, and induce her to yield to our pretensions. We have been trying for thirty years to get this question settled. For ten or fifteen years the Legislature of Ohio has been memorializing Congress upon the subject, and can get nothing done. How unjust is the intimation, then, with regard to our motives in making the application at this time! As to the States of Indiana and Illinois having any more certainty or security for their boundary than Ohio, I can see no ground for the suggestion. The gentleman from Massachusetts, and the gentleman from Michigan, have both declared that Congress had no power to go north of the ordinance line. The acts of Congress, fixing the northern limits of the States, are therefore void, and Michigan and Wisconsin will disregard them. They have the same claim as to all three of the States; and if you admit one into the Union, and erect the other into a Territory, claiming this line as their southern boundary, how are we to escape a long controversy in courts or elsewhere? It will be impossible. These are not questions for a court. They are legislative-they are political questions. Congress is the proper tribunal to settle all questions that involve the distribution of political power among Territories, and the distribution of the public domain. We do not threaten to nullify; but we do say, boldly, that we consider this question closed. Our boundaries are fixed and permanent, as described in our constitutions. We are not here, asking you to give us any thing. We only request a relinquishment of your |