when money is scarce, and to be placed in the hands of the bond-payers, to whom they will be equal to specie, although payable at a distant part of the country, and for all other purposes of less value. It was to guard, if possible, against this probable contingency, that I addressed the Department. "Respectfully, "CHARLES HOOD, Cash'r.” The letter from which this extract is taken bears date "Commercial Bank, Boston, March 18, 1836." Here, Mr. President, we see that notes of this bank, not issued by the Boston branch, but by distant branches, are finding their way into the hands of the debtors of the Government, in that town, and through them into the deposite bank there, while the other banks of that city will not receive them at par at their counters, and the branch of the bank there will not redeem them. Hence they constitute a depreciated currency, and still our agent is bound by law to take them at par. Ought we, then, while our law imposes this burden and loss upon the deposite banks, to add, by our own voluntary act, the further restriction proposed in the amendment under discussion? Mr. W. said, he thought not. It seemed to him enough that we were compelling the deposite banks to receive a depreciated currency, and to account to us for it at par, without prohibiting them from making payments on our account in their own notes, which are at par, of denominations similar to the depreciated notes they are, by our law, obliged to receive. But, Mr. W. said, this is not all. The Secretary of the Treasury, having obtained this information as to the course pursuing in Boston to force these notes upon the Government, made a call upon one of the directors of the Bank of the United States, appointed by the Government, for further information as to the course taking by the late bank, and by its successor, in reference to its notes in circulation. The correspondence was very short, and he would read it to the Senate. The following is the letter of the Secretary: "TREASURY DEPARTMENT, "SIR: I will thank you to inform me what disposition is made of the bills of the Bank of the United States as they are redeemed-are they kept on file, or destroyed --or handed over to the new bank, and by it reissued. And, also, to state who are the agents for the branches of the old bank; and whether these agents have been directed to redeem all the old bills or checks presented in the usual course of business, or only those issued by the branch for which they act. "I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, "PHILADELPHIA, March 25, 1836. "SIR: In reply to your letter of the 23d instant, I beg leave to inform you that the circulation of the old Bank of the United States is reissued by the new bank, and that no new circulation under the present charter has been prepared; that no one of its branches is considered as having any legal existence after the 4th instant; and that all the notes of the bank and its branches are considered as payable at the bank in Philadelphia. "I am, very respectfully, "LEVI WOODBURY, Esq., 66 HENRY TOLAND." Secretary of the Treasury." Here, Mr. W. said, is the present condition of things. We compel the deposite banks by law to receive at par, in payment of debts due to us, the notes of the late Bank of the United States, notwithstanding its charter has [SENATE. actually expired, and the institution no longer possesses banking powers. By a regulation of the directors, all those notes, no matter where issued, or by what branch, are to be redeemed at Philadelphia, and at no other place in the United States. This must depreciate the value of the notes for all other purposes but that of payments to the Government at all points distant from Philadelphia. The deposite banks receiving them must send them to Philadelphia to be redeemed, or to convert them into current funds. They do receive them, and do so send them to the dead institution. Are they then discharged from further expense, and trouble, and loss, on their account? No, sir, the correspondence shows that another institution, to which this Government is a stranger, immediately reissues and returns to the place from whence they came, these same notes, to be again paid into the deposite banks as a depreciated currency, and again returned to Philadelphia at their cost, that they may exchange them for money. Who does not see that, by this process, these notes may for ever circulate as the legal currency of the Treasury, and that they may be issued and diffused over every foot of our territory, to be purchased up by those who owe the Government, to the full extent of all the payments to be made to it? These notes, therefore, must constitute the deposites of the Government in the deposite banks, and, by the amendment proposed, we prohibit their payment from those banks to the creditors of the Government, and thus make them unavailable funds in their hands until they can be sent to Philadelphia, and their equivalent returned. Of this, Mr. W. said, he did not complain, as he did not wish that any creditor of the Government should be compelled to receive, in payment of his demand, depreciated paper. Indeed, as he understood the law now to be, no creditor of the Government was under obligation to receive any thing but gold and silver, and that the acceptance of bank notes from the Government, in any case where they were accepted, was the voluntary act of the person receiving them. He must say, however, that, until we ceased to compel the State banks to receive this depreciated paper, he could not believe that we ought to interdict them from the circulation, in their capacity as agents of the Government, of their own notes, which are at par value, unless those notes were of the denomination of twenty dollars. If these notes of the Bank of the United States were to be, in this disadvantageous manner, but once redeemed by the deposite banks, they might be able to sustain themselves under the unreasonable burden; but when it was seen, by the correspondence he had read, that they were to be continued in circulation, that a single redemption was merely furnishing to another institution additional means for a reissue, he must express his apprehensions that if, in addition to these burdens imposed, other and important privileges were denied to them, or greatly restricted, they might be driven to refuse their services to the Government, and thus lay the foundation for a new argument for a recognition and employment, if not a direct charter, of this new and dangerous State bank, by Congress. His apprehensions upon this subject were by no means diminished by finding some of the most zealous friends of the late Bank of the United States advocating this amendment. These gentlemen, so satisfied with the safety and superior value of a paper currency, when that bank had existence, and its notes constituted that currency, had now become too sudden converts to the dangers of bank paper, and too hastily attached to a metallic circulation, to gain his confidence. What were their reasons for this great change? Did they desire, in this way, to prove that their former opinions as to one great bank were sound, and that such an institution alone could transact the public business and preserve the cur rency? Did they wish to embarrass the deposite banks, at the moment when alarms as to their solvency were sounded from this chamber? Did they hope that such a course would compel the State banks to surrender their agencies, and thus produce a necessity for another national bank? Or had they become converts to the true, sound, democratic doctrine, that a metallic currency, for circulation among the people, was the course of wisdom and safety? He impugned no man's motives, and he would hope the latter was the true solution of his inquiries. He knew that was the patriotic object of the mover of the amendment, and he would go with him, in heart and by his vote, as far as he could believe that safety or prudence would permit; but he did believe this amendment proposed too rapid a change. We had gone to the extreme in the paper circulation. We must retrace our steps gradually, and with care and caution, if we would avoid a convulsion dreadful in its effects, and much more dreadful in its consequences. The effects time might repair or efface, but the measures which might grow out of the agitations and disasters might ingraft themselves too strongly upon our institutions ever to be shaken off. Experience spoke to us upon this point in a voice of warning which no one should disregard. Great abuses, such as he believed a Bank of the United States to be, always took their rise from public distresses, and he feared too hasty changes in our present currency would produce these distresses and their consequences. Mr. W. said he wished the bill to which he had referred might be acted upon here, before the principle involved in the amendment should be adopted. He repeated, he would go as far as he could think safety would permit; but he hoped our progress would be gradual, that it might be sure. If we could relieve the deposite banks from the legal obligation of receiving the notes of the late Bank of the United States, he thought we then might safely make some advance towards limiting them in their payments of their own paper to the creditors of the Government; but, until that was done, he was sorry to be compelled to act upon the proposi tion. [Mr. DAVIS here made an inquiry as to the amount of notes of the Bank of the United States in circulation.] Mr. W. said it was impossible for any person not possessed of the books and papers of the new United States Bank, chartered by the State of Pennsylvania, to answer that question. He spoke from memory, and without confidence in his correctness, when he said he believed the last return of the Bank of the United States to the Treasury Department showed some twenty or more millions of their paper in circulation; but that was no standard for the present time. The Senator did not seem to have understood the purport of the correspond. ence he had read. [Mr. W. here again read the letter from Mr. Toland, above given.] He From this letter the gentleman will see that these notes, as they came in, are immediately reissued by another institution. How, then, can the question be answered as to the amount in circulation? And the answer to-day would be no answer for to-morrow. wished further to state, what he believed to be the fact, that since the expiration of the charter, on the 4th instant, no returns of any description had been made to the Treasury from the late bank; and it was to be presumed the directors considered themselves no longer bound to make the returns required by the charter. This, Mr. W. said, was the existing state of things, and gentlemen must see that hundreds of millions of these notes might be thrown over the country, but he feared they could not so well tell what institution was to redeem them. [MARCH 28, 1836. Mr. DAVIS said, all the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] expected to accomplish by his amendment was, that the disbursing officers of the Government should be prohibited from paying out bills under the denomination of $20. Under this amendment, the question would arise whether the disbursing officers shall disburse the money they shall receive. These banks never disburse the notes they receive, but their own notes. Any claimant of specie had the right to demand and receive it from these banks now; and if they did not pay out the money they received, he could not see the application of the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. WRIGHT.] Mr. D. was not aware that the notes of the United States Bank were depreciated. If they were, then they ought not to be received or paid out. He had said these banks were bound to pay specie. No individual had the power to compel the Government to pay him specie. The agents of the Government might offer him what they pleased, and he lies entirely at their mercy; he must receive what they offer, or nothing. It was important to know the amount of notes in circulation, and the amount of specie in that bank. If it had no specie to redeem its notes with, they would find but few of them in circulation. If, then, they could not be kept in circulation, he did not see why the deposite banks should have this privilege. Mr. BUCHANAN said that he entirely approved of the general principles and the policy upon which the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] was founded. The country was now flooded with bank paper, and it was certain there would soon be still greater issues. The amount of bank notes now in circulation was greatly beyond any just proportion to the specie in our banks; and from the vast increase of banking capital in the different States, since the com mencement of the present year, this evil would for some time continue to increase. The evils which resulted from the system to the laboring man, to the manufacturer, and to all classes of society, except speculators, were palpable. He should not now attempt to portray them. This he would undertake upon some future occasion. He would merely observe that such a system, conducted by banks, in this respect, wholly irresponsible for their conduct, which at one time could make money plenty, and at an another time could make money scarce; which at one moment could nominally raise the price of all property beyond its real value, and at the next moment reduce it below that standard, must be ruinous to the best interests of the people. It was calculated to transfer the wealth and property of the country from the honest, industrious, and unsuspecting classes of society, into the hands of speculators, who knew when to purchase and when to sell. Mr. B. said that the ebb did not more necessarily succeed the flow of tide, than that we must, ere long, have a severe pressure in the money market. He did not think, then, that this was a propitious moment to proceed at once to the extent which the Senator from Missouri had proposed. The pressure must inevitably come, and he wished no portion of the responsibility of producing it to rest upon Congress. What (said Mr. B.) will be the effect of adopting this amendment? It is true that it does not prohibit the Government from receiving bank notes of a less denomination than twenty dollars, but it is prohibited from offering in payment notes of a less denomination. The inevitable consequence will be, that the Secretary of the Treasury must obtain specie from the banks for all the notes received by the Government of a less denomination than twenty dollars. The disbursing officers of the Government must be furnished with a much larger amount of gold and silver than is at present required, for the purpose of paying our army and navy, and our other creditors. They must pay all sums or balances, of a less denomination than twenty dollars, in the precious metals. In order to protect themselves, the deposite banks would be compelled to draw upon the debtor banks for specie; and this operation would contribute to produce a panic and a pressure. If the banks only were to be affected by this process, he should care but little for the consequences; but they would be obliged to demand payment from their debtors in order to fortify themselves. The community would thus be made to suffer. Whilst he went, with all his heart, in favor of the policy of restraining paper issues, and thereby increasing the circulation of specie, so far as it could be done constitutionally by Congress, he thought that the present situation of the country required that we should proceed cautiously and gradually in reaching the ultimate end which we had in view. He was willing at present to prohibit the Government from offering in payment notes of a less denomination than ten dollars; with a distinct understanding that, after another year, we should adopt twenty dollars as the standard. The banks would, in the mean time, have an opportunity of preparing for this event, without distressing their customers. would therefore move to strike out twenty dollars from the amendment, and insert ten. This would secure to our soldiers on the frontiers, and to our sailors, a considerable proportion of their pay in specie; and after another year we might proceed with comparative safety to the limit of twenty dollars. He Mr. BENTON said he would barely state that he had drawn up a bill to establish the currency of the country, that was intended to cut the Treasury loose from all the currency of the States; but he was satisfied that no bill of this kind could be brought forward without meeting some opposition. He had introduced this amendment, as the inception of a principle he hoped to see carried out. Though the United States were receiving all their revenues in depreciated paper, it would, so far from stopping him, stimulate his exertions to prevent the creditors of the Government from being paid in such paper. He wished to be understood that this little amendment, was only the commencement, and he hoped, therefore, that it would meet with no opposition. The argument of the gentleman from New York, so far from inducing him to abandon his amendment, only stimulated him to exert himself for the suppression of those bills, which might be given to the soldier in Arkansas, and be payable in Philadelphia, where he could not go to get them exchanged, but must take what the sutler chose to give him for them. He knew that many notes of these deposite banks might be paid out to the soldier, or laborer, who would have to exchange them at a loss. What would the notes of this Metropolis Bank be to the soldiers on the confines of Missouri? They know nothing about them-they cannot keep them-and must take whatever they can get for them. He was sorry that his friends differed with him as to the value of this initiatory measure, which he prized so highly that he might almost say his whole soul was staked on it. Mr. BUCHANAN said that, if the gentleman would agree to take his first step at ten dollars, and leave all the rest of the resolution as it stood, the poor soldier and laborer would still have the benefit of it. He would suggest to the gentleman to amend the amendment by inserting ten instead of twenty dollars. Mr. BENTON observed that gentlemen seemed to act as if they were legislating for the States, and not for the United States. We are only saying, said Mr. B., that certain notes shall not be paid out, not that we will not receive them. He wished to put the mark of the Government, in relation to bank notes, at twenty dollars, and he was confident, if this was done, that the people of the States would soon come up to it. He was sorry [SENATE. TUESDAY, MARCH 29. ADMISSION OF MICHIGAN. Mr. BENTON moved to postpone the previous orders, and to take up the bill to establish the northern boundary line of Ohio, and for the admission of Michigan into the Union; which motion was agreed to. They Mr. BENTON said the committee who reported this bill, and of which he was a member, had considered the southern boundary line as virtually established. had included in the proposed limits a considerable portion of territory on the northwest, and had estimated the whole amount of territory embraced within the territorial limits of the whole State at sixty thousand square miles. The territory attached, contained a very small portion of the Indian population. He spoke of the trade on the river between Lakes Michigan and Superior. As Michigan presented an extended frontier, both as related to the Indians and foreign Powers, it was desirable that it should be as strong and defensible a State as possible. Mr. B. moved to strike out the words in the third section "be authorized to," so as to make it read, the President "shall" announce the fact of the acceptance by the Legislature: also, to strike out the words " shall receive the approbation of the Senators and members of the House of Representatives elected to represent the said State in the Congress of the United States;" which were agreed to. He offered some further amendments of minor importance, which were also agreed to. Mr. CLAYTON gave the reasons which, he said, constrained him to oppose the passage of this bill. He was one of the committee who reported it, and had assented to the report under the hope that in the course of the discussion something might be elicited which would obviate the difficulties that now appeared to him of a very serious nature. In assenting to this report, he felt that this was a proposition which might be discussed before the whole Senate, and not smothered in the committee, inasmuch as the supporters of the measure ought, in justice, to be allowed to submit their whole plan, and as some plan might be offered in the course of the discussion which would reconcile all parties to the passage of the bill. He did not, then, say that he would not vote for the bill, though there were difficulties in the way of serious magnitude; indeed, he was anxious for the admission of Michigan, believing that she had a sufficient population to entitle her to it; but his object was to elicit discussion, in order that his objections and those of other gentlemen might, if possible, be overcome. bill proposed the ratification and confirmation of the constitution formed by the convention elected by the people of Michigan, but it changed the boundaries claimed by that constitution, in the most essential particulars. The bill, in the 3d section, provided that this act shall receive the assent of the Legislature of the State acting under the authority of the convention elected by its people, and thereupon, and without further proceedings on the part of Congress, the President shall announce that the conditions of her admission are complied with, and her Senators and Representative shall be allowed to take their seats in Congress, without further delay. Gentlemen would perceive that the condition required by the bill for so important a change of the boundaries of the new State was not the assent of the people of Michigan, but the assent of her Legislature, acting under the The SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. authority of the before-named convention. He wished to call the attention of gentlemen to this point; Michigan was to be admitted into the Union as soon as her Legislature, acting under the authority of the convention, assented to the boundaries given in the bill. Was this a proper way to admit a State into the Union? Was this consistent with the principles of civil Government, or of the origin of civil Governments, which required the assent of the governed to the form and manner of their Government? How was the assent of the people living on the north side of the lake given, either expressed or implied? Congress, by this bill, added 20,000 square miles to Michigan, not embraced in the boundaries defined in the constitution adopted by them; and how was the assent of the people living in that portion of territory, who took no part in forming this constitution, given to these boundaries? How would gentlemen extend the jurisdiction of the new State over this 20,000 square miles, without asking the assent of the people living there? Again: this bill struck out 500 square miles contained within the boundaries claimed by this constitution. The constitution runs thus: "We, the people of the Territory of Michigan, as established by the act of Congress of the 11th of January, 1805." Now, this bill extended the jurisdiction of this constitution over the people of an immense tract of country, who are not within the limits of this Territory, as established by the act of Congress of the 11th January, 1805; and how this could be done, without violating the principle that all Governments were founded on the consent of the governed, he was at a loss to conceive. It was nowhere provided in the ordinance of the convention that this Legislature should have the power to alter or change the constitution or boundaries of the State; how, then, could the assent of this Legislature make this change of boundary binding on the State? At a large meeting lately held at the city of Detroit, it was asserted that the people of Michigan had given no power to any set of men to alter or change their boundaries. By the constitution framed by the convention, it was made a prerequisite that the people should assent to it, and the manner in which such assent should be given was clearly defined. Now, this assent had been given, and the constitution had been sent to Congress. Now, he did not believe that the people of Ohio and Indiana who lived within the line claimed by Michigan, ever gave their assent to this constitution; but he did not choose to go behind the evidence. They say that all who live within the line established by the act of Congress of January 11, 1805, voted for it; and how then could this Legislature give their assent to the substraction of this territory claimed to be within the limits of Michigan by this constitution' He was anxious to hear what gentlemen would say in relation to these difficulties, and he put it to them whether it would not be necessary to ask the assent of the people living on the north and west side of the lake to this constitution, to make it binding on them. Mr. C. gave his objections at length to another part of the constitution of Michigan, which provides that every white male inhabitant residing in the Territory at the time of the adoption of the constitution, or for a period of six months, shall be entitled to a vote. This clause, he contended, was in violation of the constitution, which gives to Congress alone the power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization. Mr. C. concluded by saying that he was anxious for the admission of Michigan into the Union; and if this bill should be rejected, as he thought it ought, another bill might be brought forward and passed at this session, providing for obtaining in the proper form the assent of all the people within the prescribed boundaries to the constitution, and thus Michigan might come into the Union with her sister, Arkan [MARCH 30, 1836. sas, on the first day of the next session. She would only be deprived of the privilege of being represented in Congress for the short period yet remaining of this session, which would be fully compensated by coming into the Union as all the other States had done. Mr. BENTON replied to Mr. CLAYTON, that both the points raised by him had been debated and acquiesced in by Congress for nearly a quarter of a century, and cited the acts of Congress of 6th and 14th April, 1812, in relation to the admission of Louisiana into the Union, which he contended were parallel with the present case, and went into a minute history of the circumstances connected with it, to show its exact similarity to the case of Michigan. Mr. CLAYTON replied, that the assent of the Legislature was required to this material change of boundary, and it was said, the assent of the Legislature acting under the authority of an ordinance of the convention. Now, did the gentleman suppose that the ordinance gave power to the Legislature to assent to the annexation of 20,000 square miles to the State, or the substraction of 500 square miles from it? Or did the gentleman suppose that the Legislature, acting under the authority of this ordinance, were authorized to give the assent of the people living within this 20,000 square miles? How could any man stand up, for an instant, and suppose that the ordinance gave any such power? He asked of gentlemen who intended to vote for this bill, to examine this constitution over, and see whether the provisions of the bill comported with it. Mr. HENDRICKS thought the case cited in regard to the admission of Michigan not exactly in point. There was no question of citizenship in Louisiana, and it was more than a year after her boundaries were prescribed and fixed before the new acquisition was made to her territory; and she had the right of rejection, although it accepted the additional territory. In this case the people of Michigan had no right of rejection. The people within the territory that was added had not participated in the formation of the constitution submitted to Congress; and, if they had, it is not known that the constitution would have been what it is. He did not wish to debate the question, but merely to show the difference between this and the case cited by the gentleman from Missouri. On motion of Mr. DAVIS, and by general consent, the further consideration of the bill was postponed till to-morrow, and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business; after which, it adjourned. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30. ADMISSION OF MICHIGAN. The Senate proceeded to consider the special order, being the bill to establish the northern boundary of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of Michigan into the Union. Mr. TIPTON rose and said: I cannot consent, Mr. President, to give a silent vote upon a measure of such vast importance to the people whom I have the honor in part to represent here. This bill provides for establishing the northern boundary of Ohio, and for the admission of the Territory of Michigan, upon certain conditions, into the Union as an independent State. Before I can vote for the bill, it becomes my duty to inquire what those conditions are. At an early period of the present session, I took occasion to express my objections to the admission of Michigan, whilst, by the constitution which she has presented here, she claims a portion of the State of Indiana, ten miles wide and one hundred and five miles in length, which was given to Indiana by act of Congress of the April, 1816, and reaffirmed to her by two subsequent enactments. I then undertook to show that this part of the constitution of Michigan was framed in direct contravention of the constitution of the United States. This argument, advanced by me three months ago, the friends of this measure have not attempted to answer. The disputed boundary between Ohio and Michigan has become a subject of anxious solicitude to every friend of his country; the matter in dispute is but of minor importance, when compared with the peace of the country and the happiness of the people. When this question of boundary was before the Senate, two years ago, I proposed to give to Ohio the territory lying east, and to Michigan that lying west, of the Maumee Bay, and to give to the two States concurrent jurisdiction over the bay itself. To this proposition both parties objected, and the matter remained unsettled. The state of feeling between the parties evidently became more dangerous, and, at the last session of Congress, I did not vote against the bill conferring to Ohio all she claimed: this bill passed the Senate, but did not become a law. Of the conduct of both parties respecting the disputed territory, I need not speak; it is fresh in the recollection of every Senator; and the almost unanimous vote upon the bill that passed a few days ago, establishing the northern boundary of Ohio, is sufficient evidence of a fixed determination on the part of the Senate to put an end at once to these dangerous controversies. Let us examine, for a moment, the question now presented by the honorable chairman of the select committee to which the constitution of Michigan was referred. The committee has reported a bill for admitting the Territory of Michigan on certain conditions; the second section of the bill describes the boundaries of the new State, but differing in many particulars from those claimed by the convention of the people, in the constitution which has been submitted to us. The bill proposes to establish the northern boundary of Indiana as the southern boundary of the State of Michigan; and the third section of the bill gives to their Legislature the right to accept these modified bounda ries. Here, sir, we have, in a bill for admitting a new State into the Union, a proposition to alter its boundaries, and leaving the acceptance of the new boundaries to the Legislature of the new State, the people of which have, in their constitution, claimed bounds essentially differing from those proposed in the bill. Now, sir, according to my apprehension, the first question is, can this be done? Can the Congress of the United States clothe the Legislature of any State or Territory with authority to alter or amend any portion of its constitution? Sir, I am not a lawyer; and, in some cases, would not attempt to set up my own judgment against the opinions of those learned in the law. But, in this case, it is both my right and my duty to judge of and adopt such measures as I conceive necessary to protect the interests of those who sent me here; and I do most solemnly deny the authority of Congress or of the convention of Michigan in this way to delegate any such power to the Legislature of Michigan. Has, then, the Legislature of Michigan any such inherent power? None will contend that it has. Is the Senate prepared to recognise the exercise of doubtful powers, whereby the peace of the country may be jeoparded? It surely should not leave so important a matter to doubt and chance. The next Legislature will, I have no doubt, accept the boundaries specified in the bill, for the sole purpose of gaining admission into the Union. But, once admitted, and the succeeding or some future Legislature will possibly think that the first had no right to agree to any alteration in their boundaries, as prescribed in the constitution; and they will reassert their claim to a portion of Ohio and Indiana, as claimed in their constitution now before us. They will probably VOL. XII.-64 [SENATE. apply first to Congress to put them in possession of that which they now claim. Should Congress hesitate or refuse, none can foretell what consequences will follow. A friend has furnished me with a newspaper, the Detroit Free Press, of the 16th instant, in which I find a publication of the proceedings of a public meeting, mentioned by the Senator from Delaware [Mr. CLAYTON] yesterday; and an article signed by honorable John Biddle, President of the Michigan convention, and fourteen other members of that body, in which they deny having delegated to their members of Congress, or to any future Legislature of the new State, any power to accept of other boundaries than those claimed by the constitution now before us. These are gentlemen of high standing, possessing great influence with their people. No one need pretend to shut his eyes now to the consequences which will follow if we pass the bill for the admission of Michigan into the Union, without referring the question of boundary to a convention of delegates to be hereafter chosen by the people for that purpose. I want an expression of approbation from the sovereign people, not from a knot of interested office-holders or office-seekers, on this important ques tion. If the friends of this bill have heretofore had a hope that the people of Michigan would permit their members of Congress or their Legislature to exercise any discretionary power with regard to the question of boundary, that hope must now vanish. We see that the people of Michigan are divided into parties upon this very subject; as one party goes down, another will come up, and deny the power proposed to be given by this bill to the next Legislature, to accept modified boundaries. I warn the Senate that the passage of this bill, in its present shape, will endanger the peace of the country. The people of Indiana have ever been a quiet, peaceable, law-abiding people; resistance to the law has never been heard of in that State, and I have no fears that it ever will be: but, sir, we have no wish to hear the flourish of trumpets or to see banners waving near our borders. It can lead to no good result. Indiana never will surrender what Michigan claims to any power on earth. Her Let the people of Michigan retrace their steps and strike from her constitution all claim to any portion of the neighboring States, and I am ready to admit her into the Union. Her present position is not chargeable to me; I proposed bills two years ago, preparing the way to admit both Michigan and Arkansas as other new States have been received into our Union. Let those who prevented the passage of these bills, together with the unfortunate and unjust pretensions set up by Michi gan to a part of the State of Indiana, account to the country for the difficulty that now surrounds us. admission under these circumstances is impossible. If the constitution of Michigan had been framed with a just regard to the rights of my constituents, I should have been anxious to admit her. There are many rea sons to incline me to that course. She is a northwestern State, adjoining that from which I come. give us more political power in that quarter. I have man friends in Michigan whom I would like to serve, could I do so without prejudice to the interests of my own State: but as the question is now presented, I must vote against the bill. I hope its friends will amend it so as to make it acceptable to my colleague and myself. Without this they need not expect our votes. It would I wish it to be remembered that, during the session of 1834, when the bills authorizing the taking of the census of Arkansas and Michigan came up before the Senate, motions were made by members of the political party then composing the majority in this body, to lay the bills on the table, or to adjourn; by which all |
