SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. [JAN. 2, 1837. We al and your whole purpose is answered. The State is un- Michigan, exercised in their primary assemblies, without the authority of any law of the State, and not only without the sanction of any constitutional provision, but in direct contravention of constitution and law, and by mere numerical strength, evidenced by a plurality of votes, have understood her to give the assent of the State to an act of Congress, which is to remain obligatory upon the State in all time to come, and which the regular constituted authorities of the State have no power to control, and which the people themselves, according to the provisions of their own constitution, can never alter, abridge, or amend; and it is the assent thus given that we are now so emphatically called upon to receive as the constitutional and legitimate will of the State. Sir, (said, Mr. M.,) I cannot consent thus to humble any one of the sovereign States of this Union. Let it be constantly borne in mind, that there have been two conventions assembled in Michigan, for the purpose of considering, or assenting to, the act of Congress. The convention which first met was in pursuance of a law of the State specially passed for that purpose; that it was elected and organized according to the provisions of that law; that this convention dissented from the proposition of Congress, or rather did not consent thereto; that subsequent to this decision it was that the people met in their primary assemblies, and the result was that another con-ernment, to obtain a majority of the qualified electors of vention was had. The documents furnished the Senate inform us that in two counties no elections were held, and, of course, those counties were not represented in this latter convention, the president of which, in a communication to the President of the United States, says that "the convention originated through primary meetings of the citizens of the several counties, in ample time to afford notice to the whole State; pursuant Sir, the matter can be brought home to our doors in thereto, elections, kept open for two days, on the 5th Ohio, we have had a controversy partaking of this charand 6th instant, (December,) have been held in all the acter with the Bank of the United States: the Legislacounties except Monroe and Macomb." This (Mr. M. ture of the State denied the power of Congress to ausaid) was a relation of facts and circumstances to him thorize the bank to send a branch into the State without entirely inexplicable; no time is mentioned as to the no- its consent. Suppose the charter had contained a protice given, nor what kind of notice was thought necessa- vision that a branch might be sent into any State by the ry, or how the same was promulgated. This, as it ap- "assent of a convention of delegates, elected by the said pears to us, was mere matter of opinion, and might, in State, for the sole purpose of giving such assent:" Michigan, depend very much on party views and party Suppose, sir, this had been the original charter of the purposes. But the great principle, and, indeed, the ar- bank, and a convention of delegates had been gotten up, gument, does not depend on these minor considerations; and have forced upon the State the power of the bank, the question is, will Congress recognise as valid, consti- contrary to her own constitution and laws, and against tutional, and obligatory, without the color of a law of the express will of the Legislature: I ask every citizen Michigan to sustain it, an act done by the people of that of Ohio, what would have been his opinion and feelings State in their primary assemblies, and acknowledge that on a state of things of this kind? For my own part, as a act as obligatory on the constituted authorities and Legis- citizen of that State, I had rather see Ohio struck at once lature of the State? Are we prepared to subject all from the Union, than that a doctrine of this kind should be State power and State authority to the test of this prin- considered orthodox, and prevail in practice. We might ciple? Our answer not only concerns Michigan, but wander for a while at large, and find a resting place; but ought, and, I trust, will be examined into by every State when once swallowed up by this Government, our powin the Union; and although Michigan at this moment er of action would entirely cease. Then, indeed, may be the scapegoat to bear off this power into the would we have no Government of our own; we would be Western wilderness, yet it may and can be found con- but mere automata in the hands of those who administer venient to apply it to other States. Are we prepared this Government. They would be the judges both as to for this application? Is the great question now about to the time and manner of our acting, and of the validity of be decided? I would most seriously call upon all State- the records of those acts. Would not this be the condirights men to look well to this matter. Do you love and tion of the States if we adopt and maintain this dangervenerate your own constitution and laws, the only guar- ous principle?-a principle which admits a State into the antee you have for all your personal, social, and political Union without law and without record, so far as the rights? Are you willing to subject them all to this tre-State has any action in this case. It is true, as was obmendous power? Congress may have a favorite measure to accomplish, which may come in collision with State power. How easy to overcome this power, by doing what is now claimed to be right in Michigan; pass an act requiring the people of the State to give their assent to it, or permitting them, if you please, to do so; send amongst them your agents and emissaries, to induce calls for primary assemblies, to hold a convention to suit your views; obtain the act of assent by such convention, served by the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that good precedents are soon forgotten, while bad ones live forever. He (Mr. M.) contended that the principle contained in the preamble to the bill was vicious in the extreme. Shall we, then, countenance it? Shall we maintain it? He trusted not. He said he was somewhat surprised, he confessed, to hear the doctrine that had been advanced by the Sena. tor from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BUCHANAN.] That gentle 217 JAN. 2, 1837.] Admission of Michigan. man, if he understood him correctly, not only sustained the proceedings of the last convention in Michigan, but contended that if it had not assented, the people would have gone on, even ad infinitum, to elect conventions, until they had obtained one which would give the assent. A doctrine so latitudinarian as this, he said, he could by no means admit. It was a doctrine that unloosed all the obligation of society, and dissolved government into its original elements. 218 [SENATE. security of all, and in the formation of which all had an What But, sir, suppose all that has been urged against the facts, as they appear in this case, should be deemed insufficient to show that the principle upon which the admission of Michigan is made to rest is founded in mistaken and erroneous views, yet he contended that there was no certain or conclusive evidence to show that the consent of the people of Michigan had ever been given, as required by the act of Congress. Who are the people of Michigan, within the meaning of that act? Surely the qualified voters of that State, and none other; no one will contend for an opposite construction. evidence, then, have we that the convention which gave the assent was elected by the proper persons? None at all; for aught we know, or for aught that appears in any part of the documents furnished the Senate, there is no conclusive evidence that the people of Michigan ever did give their assent to the act of Congress. That the people of that State are desirous of being admitted into the Union he had little doubt; but insisted that certain forms were necessary before that admission could take place. The evidence furnished to prove a compliance with those forms he considered entirely incomplete and unsatisfactory. True, as the Senator from Tennessee has said, we have evidence founded on publications in newspapers, the statements of individuals, and copies of the proceedings of the convention itself; but none of these come to us under oath, or under the forms of official proceedings. The gentleman's opinion is, that eviTo this (he said) he dence thus furnished ought to be considered sufficient to found an act of legislation upon. agreed; but was the present a mere question of general or local policy, to operate in future? He thought not. It was a question of a judicial character. Deciding upon the proper construction of an existing law, and the facts that were to determine the rights of citizens under that law, we assumed here the character of judges rather than legislators; and he thought it indispensably neces sary that at least the shadow of judicial evidence should be preserved; and he contended that in this case even In measures of naked polthat shadow did not appear. icy, the argument of the gentleman might safely be admitted; but he repudiated its application in the present case. If evidence of a higher nature exists, it is somewhat extraordinary that it has not been furnished the Senate. If we are to rely exclusively on the popular vote of the people of the State, we ought to have some evidence of the votes given, and by whom. Does a sin In a controversy of this kind he would not fear to meet the gentleman, even in his own State, in which, as far as he knew, this doctrine had been first promulgated He would call the attention of the Sento the country. ator to a public letter from the pen of a very distinguished citizen of that State; that letter had been made public, and of course was public property, and liable to public examination. The doctrine, he contended, contained in it, was revolutionary in its nature; it went to prove, as he understood it, that the right of revolution was a right inherent in the very nature of our institutions; a doctrine which he could not admit as correct, and one which went to prove that we had no stability whatever in our Government. This doctrine was broached in a State whose citizens had always proved themselves sound republicans; democratic sons of democratic fathers; and he felt highly gratified in finding that in that State this doctrine had fallen still-born from the press: it was at once rebuked by the good, sound, democratic sense of the people, and he thought had gone to the tomb of the Capulets; but he feared it was but the precursor of more extensive operations of a system which, while it flattered the pride and vanity of the people, was stealing from them every vestige of liberty, and undermining the foundation of all their social institutions. The case of Maryland had been mentioned; the plea in that case was, if he understood it correctly, that the Legislature of the State having, as some thought, neglected to adopt such measures as the wants of the people required, that the people, or rather a majority of the people, had the right, by a convention, elected without the authority of any law, to put down the whole frame of Government, and establish a new Government, with new powers and new agents, in its stead; that, in fact, the majority of the people of a State had the right to form a Government to suit their own convenience, without any regard to the rights of the minority, as secured under the existing Government. This he considered the first act in the grand drama, by which he feared that public institutions, made for the safety of all, were to be abolished for the special benefit of a part; it was the mere precursor of more energetic and exten-gle gentleman here know, by any evidence furnished, whether the persons who voted on the 5th and 6th days sive operations. Suppose a few of the large States of December, for members to a convention, were qualievidence any should be disposed to think that the Senatorial representation in Congress was unequal; that it was absurd, fied electors or not? No; not one of us has on that point. How, then, are we to judge of the validand derogatory to the rights of the people, that New York should have no more power in this body than Del-ity of the vote, or the rights of the convention? None aware; and should wish to change the present order of things. True it is that the constitution of the United States has provided that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate; but what of that? This, according to the argument we have heard, is but a subordinate right, always subject to the constitutional power of the people; let conventions be holden, elected by the people in their primary assemblies, according to mere numbers, and less than half a dozen of the most populous States would swallow up the twenty smaller ones, who now, by giving their assent to this doctrine, do homage to the larger States for their liberties, and appear willing to rely on them, and not on It the constitution, as the security for their rights. would be well that we should always remember that our fathers did not expend their blood and treasure to establish a Government resting alone upon popular breath, but one founded on written constitutions and laws for the of the proceedings were authorized by a State law, and SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. Michigan, and with it the very principles of our Government? Was it this class of men, or any portion of them, that have undertaken to give the assent of Michigan to her boundaries, as prescribed by Congress? Have we, I repeat again, any evidence to prove that this is not the class of persons who elected the second convention? We have no such evidence. There is another view of this subject, not unworthy our notice. The election appears to have been held two days in each county, and he should be glad to be informed who it was that selected the days, and the number of days in which the election was holden. Who it was that gave the notice of the place and manner of conducting the elections. Was it proclaimed by one individual, or was it made known by an assemblage of citizens in one county to the citizens of another county? Did the county of A send a special messenger to the county of B, and so throughout the State; or did the people act simultaneously, by instinct or impulse? Was the voting by ballot in one county, and viva voce in another, and in a third by the holding up of hands or counting of heads? All these facts, he contended, were entirely unknown to the Senate, and yet we were called to declare, by the solemn enactment of a law, that the people of Michigan, in proper form, had given their assent to the condition imposed on them by the act of Congress. He contended that the Senate was about to establish the truth of a fact about which they had heard but little, except from public rumor, paragraphs in party newspapers, or from the statements and assertions of individuals not under the obligations of an oath. This, he thought, would be a most dangerous decision, pronounced at a very inauspicious time. The condition of the country is at this time peculiar, if not alarming. He said he felt it his duty to express his opinions honestly, as be entertained them; and he regretted much that duty seemed to require him to comment on the existing state of things. Almost every newspaper on which he laid his hands contained the history of crimes almost without number, and strongly impressed upon his mind the idea that men be. gan to think it right to take the administration of justice into their own hands, and dispense what they believed it to be, entirely without any of the forms of law. He had read of punishments of the highest nature being inflicted by the order of assemblies of the people, in some of the States, who had conducted their proceedings with all the formality and gravity, no doubt, that the convention of Michigan had conducted theirs. He had read, with some surprise as well as regret, advertisements in newspapers in different cities, offering for sale fine duelling pistols, and pistols for the belt and the pocket, bowie-knives, and like instruments, well calculated for the taking of human life, offered as convenient articles, necessary for the convenience or comfort of man. He had no recollection of seeing, until very lately, advertisements of this kind; and the question very naturally pressed itself upon his mind, what does all this mean? Does it not prove to us that men are endeavoring to place themselves entirely above the power of the law, and do that which they think to be right in their own eyes? He thought that it was high time for the whole constituted authorities of the country to use all proper means to circumscribe the entire action of the people within the strict limits of the law, before the restraint of law was lost sight of altogether. Recognise (said Mr M.) that the people of Michigan may, in this informal manner, dispense with the constitution and laws of their own State, and you at the same time recognise the doctrine that numerical strength alone shall have precedence in point of obligation to the most solemn legal enactments. It seemed to bim there was at that moment a powerful responsibility resting on Congress, and that they ought to proceed with the most serious deliberation. He had heard for a year [JAN. 2, 1837. or two past much said about the abuse of executive power; but, said he, we are about to change the question, and to establish here dangerous assumptions of legisla tive power. By the act of the 15th of June, the fact of Michigan having assented to the conditions of that act is to be ascertained by the President of the United States alone; he is made the sole judge when the assent is given, and is to make the same known by proclamation. Has he found the fact to exist? or has he issued his prociamation? No; he has done neither. He informs us that one convention, elected and convened in pursuance of a law of the State, had not given its assent. He also informs us that another convention bad met, and did assent; and he further says, that if the proceedings of this latter convention had come to him in the recess of Congress, he would have issued his proclamation in conformity with the provision of the act of Congress, if he was satisfied that this convention, in all respects, had accorded with the will of the people of Michigan. The President was not satisfied that such facts existed, upon which his proclamation ought to issue, and he referred the whole proceedings to Congress; and this very reference ought to prove to us that the fact did not exist, and that Michigan had not complied with the conditions required of her; and he referred it, in order that the restrictions might be removed; but, instead of removing the restrictions, we are about to find the fact of assent. He was anxious that this question should come to an issue, and that Michigan should come into the Union, but was not willing to sacrifice any principle to attain even this desirable end. He thought it would be better for the people of Michigan themselves, and more satisfactory, if they were kept a little longer out of the Union, rather than have a principle adopted which both of her conventions had declared to be unconstitutional. He trusted, however, that the difficulties might be remedied in the way suggested by the chairman of the committee; for he understood the gentleman to say that he viewed the preamble as of little consequence, and would vote for the bill if it was stricken out; yet he would feel himself bound to retain it, although he considered it perfectly harmless and nugatory. Now, if this was the case, he hoped the gentleman, in courtesy, would at once agree to let it be stricken out by the Senate, without his vote, as he believed it to be entirely unimportant, while other gentlemen believed it involved a dangerous principle, and would compel them to vote against the bill if it was retained; and he fully believed, that if the gentleman would thus give his assent, and the obnoxious preamble was stricken out, there would not be a dissenting voice to the admission of the new State into the Union. He could see no prejudice that would result, in pursuing this course, to the boundaries of either Ohio or Indiana; their boundaries were already settled, and could not be disturbed, whether the preamble was retained or not. A great deal (said Mr. M.) has been said here about Michigan having extended her jurisdiction over part of the territory belonging to Ohio and Indiana; but if he understood the constitution of Michigan, no definite boundary was established by that instrument. It was in the preamble to the constitution it was to be found, and in that alone. It was there provided that the people inhabiting the Territory, as established by the act of Congress of 1805, formed for themselves a State Government; this he considered as creating no difficulty as it respected the question of boundary, either with Ohio or Indiana. He therefore most sincerely hoped the honorable chairman would give his assent to thus striking out the preamble, for with it he thought it impossible to vote for the bill. The honorable chairman, he said, had told us that this was not a party or political question. He agreed with him that it was not, He felt that he ought to approach JAN. 2, 1857.] Admission of Michigan. it as a judge; and, so far as he was advised of the important principle involved in the case, he would endeavor to decide upon it according to the dictates of his best judgment. He trusted that no Senator would give his vote on this question under the influence of party or political feelings. However, (said Mr. M.,) we may be attached to party for the purpose of favoring political views as to future policy; yet, when we come to a question of the magnitude of the one before us, we must decide it upon higher grounds, and suffer ourselves to be influenced by the sound principles of justice only. If Michigan was not a State, when would her existence as a State commence? If she was a State at the time the act of the 15th of June last was passed, she could only speak or rather make known her will as such State, and therefore the assent of this latter convention was not her act. If, said he, we recognise her as a State, we must date her existence from the time she adopted her constitution; and if her Senators and Representative, who have been elected to Congress, are entitled to seats, then indeed was she a State to all intents and purposes from that time; and the convention which afterwards met with out authority was in derogation of all her State rights. No gentleman, he presumed, would deny this; and yet we are about to set up the acts of certain unauthorized individuals as above the constituted authorities of the State. There was one circumstance which he deemed somewhat material, which he wished to notice. The number of delegates which composed the first convention was forty-nine, and he took it for granted that the law of Michigan prescribed this number. But the convention which gave its assent to the act of Congress was composed of seventy-two members. How happened this? Was this a movement by which certain gentlemen in the State were to be put up, and others put down? Who apportioned to one county twelve delegates, the sixth part of the whole number, while an adjoining county sent but two? Where was the power in Michigan to make this discrimination, except the legislative power? Sir, (said Mr. M.,) admit the truth of this preamble, and then the legitimate lengths to which it may be carried, and we dissolve the very elements of Government, and reduce its power to physical or numerical force. It is through anarchy that we arrive at despotism. Submit this to any State, even to Michigan herself, freed from duresse, and no one would agree to it. He was sure it never would be assented to in his own State; her people had no authority to change her political condition, even by the consent or advice of Congress, but only through their own Legislature, and in the manner and form in which they had bound themselves to each other in their own constitution. It has been said that the first step from correct principles was taken with more difficulty than others which followed. As in morals, so in politics: if we once let go our hold on the constitution, for any purpose whatever, we may soon find it convenient to dispense with it on most if not every occasion. These (Mr. M. said) were his views on this important question, delivered, to be sure, in desultory and unconnected manner; and he thanked the Senate for their patient attention. [SENATE. condition therein prescribed, and the preamble merely Mr. STRANGE said he should detain the Senate but a moment or two; for, in his judgment, there was not If he rightly understood the reason why Congress had space for much pertinent argumentation on the subject imposed this condition upon Michigan, it was that there under consideration. He did not perceive the alarming might be no future difficulty between her and the States consequences from the adoption of the preamble, which of Ohio and Indiana, relative to boundary. Congress presented themselves to the minds of other gentlemen; could never decide the judicial question, as to what efnor, indeed, did he much care, except so far as it might fect any or all the circumstances should have upon the be gratifying to others to retain it, whether the pream- rights of the several parties. As a matter of prudence, ble accompanied the bill or not. The retention of it she might ask conditions which might, in her judgment, struck him as being an exceedingly simple matter, in- tend to peace, but it remained to the judicial tribunals volving no assertion either dangerous or untrue. Con- of the country only to decide ultimately upon their reg gress, at the last session, passed a law constituting Mich-ularity and effect. A rigid technical course was, thereigan one of the States of this Union upon a particular fore, unbefitting Congress; and nothing remained for SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. her at present but to ascertain, upon broad and liberal principles, whether the condition required of Michigan had been performed. Some reference had been made to the State of Maryland in the course of the argument, which, by the by, he did not think at all parallel to the case of Michigan; but, as it had been mentioned, he would say that if the people of Maryland, or any other State, thought proper at any time, by a convention, however originated or organized, to change her constitution, Congress would have no right to interfere, unless she departed from a republican form of government. It was an affair entirely domestic; and the authority of Congress to intermeddle in the matter, under any circumstances, could only be by force of the fourth section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States, by which a republican form of government is guarantied by the United States to the States, respectively. The evil of such a course, if any, would be confined to the citizens of the State itself; and neither the General Government, nor that of any other State, would have a right to interfere, as long as the republican form of government was preserved. But the case of Michigan fell far short of this, and, in his judgment, involved no question which could alarm the most apprehensive. It was a case which could only occur on the formation and admission of new States, and could be drawn into precedent under no other circumstances. The simple question, he repeated, was, has Michigan complied with the conditions required of her? The preamble affirmed that she had, and, believing it to be true, he should vote for retaining it. Mr. DANA said: I have listened with attention to the arguments of the gentlemen opposed to the admission of Michigan into the Union, and have perceived no sound reason for rejecting her application. She has, as is admitted by those gentlemen, complied with all the conditions required of her. She has the requisite population; she has formed a republican constitution; and Congress, by its act of last session, has approved of that constitution. And does not an imperious duty rest on us to receive that State into the Union? She asks it, and I am satisfied that we are bound to grant her request. And why not do it now, sir? We are told by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that we cannot do it without a violation of the constitution; and by the honorable member from Ohio, [Mr. MORRIS,] that it cannot be done without dissolving the elements of our Union? But how stands the case? Let us advert to the principles and facts on which this question rests. Sir, a long and severe contest had existed between Michigan and Ohio in relation to their boundary line, each claiming the same territory, and each ready to defend it with their lives. Michigan claimed an admission into the Union; but Congress could not admit her, standing as she did in a hostile attitude towards one of the States of the Union, until the exciting question of boundary was settled. And the wisdom of this measure is apparent to every one. To have admitted her with her quarrel into the Union would have been dangerous and ruinous. Congress, therefore, in the first place, proceeded to settle the boundary line between these contending parties, upon principles conceived to be right, and then to limit and prescribe the boundaries, and point out the territory over which Michigan should have jurisdiction; and then, in the same act of June, it approved of her constitution, and provided for her admission into the Union by the proclamation of the President, if a majority of delegates, chosen by the people for that sole purpose, should give their assent to the terms of admission prescribed by said act. And to me it appears that the only question for us to consider is, have a majority of a convention, thus chosen, given their assent to the terms of admission? If they have, we are bound, sir, to admit them. [JAN. 2, 1837. It is understood, sir, that a convention of the people of Michigan was held in September last, who did not give their assent to the terms of admission prescribed by this act; and of course the President did not admit that State into the Union by proclamation. It is further understood, that a second convention was held on the 15th December last, who did give their assent to the terms prescribed by the act, as before mentioned; but the evidence of this assent was not communicated to the President until after the present session of Congress. He did not admit the State by proclamation, but said he should have done so had he received evidence of the fact of the assent of the convention during the recess. As he did not, he has submitted the subject to the present Congress. These, sir, are the facts. And, now, what are the principles by which we are to be governed in the case? If, sir, I understand any thing of statutes, or their construction, the act of Congress of last June, defining the limits and regulating the jurisdiction of Michigan, accepting her constitution, and providing for her admission into the Union as an independent State, stands, as it ever has stood, an act of Congress. That section of it, however, which authorized the President to admit this State by proclamation, not having been acted upon by him, is inoperative, a dead letter. The power delegated by Congress to him, now reverts to them, and we can admit upon the same terms on which we authorized the President to admit this State, or we can admit upon such other terms as Congress shall deem wise and expedient. But, sir, we are told by grave and learned Senators that Congress having authorized the President to perform this service on a certain contingency, that he, and he alone, can receive this State into the Union. Is this sound doctrine? Can it be so? Let us examine this position. On receiving evidence of the assent of a majority of the convention, the President was authorized to admit this State into the Union. He does not receive this evidence, or not in season, and the subject is submitted to Congress. Now, sir, my apprehension is, that the President's power conferred by the act has ended; that it has reverted to Congress, and they alone can exercise it. Does a delegated power for a specific object, and for a limited time, always continue? Cannot those who constitute an agent also revoke his power? And can they not exercise that power, when voluntarily surrendered by the agent? If not, I have yet to learn the first principles of statutes and their construction. Yes, sir, in my humble opinion, we have a right to exercise the powers we delegated to the President, and that section of the statute granting them will not be violated. That section is dead, and as if it never had passed; and the powers return to us, and, I trust, to be exercised by us in the admission of this State. We are But, sir, we are met with another objection, viz: That a majority of the convention have not assented to the terms prescribed in the act of June last. told, sir, that one convention assembled for the purpose of giving their assent, but withheld it, and that their doings ought to be conclusive. Again: the honorable Sen. ator from Ohio [Mr. EwING] tells us that the second convention was not called by authority, not according to act of Congress; that it originated with the people, and that they assembled in their primary meetings and chose their delegates to the convention. And then he triumphantly asks, who presided at those meetings? How were they organized, and who swore their officers? My reply to these positions and inquiries is, first, that the act of Congress requiring the assent of the convention does not point out how the delegates shall be chosen. It requires the assent of a majority of a convention chosen by the people for that purpose. Here, sir, the law has left it, and wisely left it, to the people to select their |