Слике страница
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

House, by a vote of a majority of nearly (if not quite) two thirds, taken by yeas and nays, determined that the petition should be received. Immediately afterwards, on the same day, he had presented another petition, (alluding to the petition before the House;) he question on reception was raised, and upon that question three gentlemen were heard so long as they thought proper to speak; and another gentleman, [Mr. Bynum,] in the midst of his speech against the reception, was cut off, without either having himself a chance to close his remarks, or giving any other member a chance to reply to him; so that, on one side, that was to say, the free side of the question, debate was absolutely smothered. The Speaker had heard, with perfect complacency and satisfaction, every gentleman who had any thing to say against the reception of the petition, but would hear nothing in favor of it. He (Mr. A.) claimed the freedom of speech in this House, and would claim it as long as he could speak. He claimed the privilege of answering, here, the gentlemen who asserted, and maintained by argument, that these petitions should not be received. He did not doubt that this question would come up again, and, in the forward progress of the genius of slavery, he had no doubt that the next step would be to refuse to receive all such petitions as these. All the arguments used in favor of the suppression of debate on this subject, by previous questions and motions to lay on the table, which admit of no debate, might be brought to bear with equal force against the reception of these petitions at all; sinee it was no better than mockery to receive petitions, and then refuse to hear them read; and, for aught he knew, ere long, any member who should dare to raise his voice on the subject of the abolition of slavery would be expelled from this House. Sir, said Mr. A., I am ready to be that member, whenever the House shall come to that decision.

Mr. PINCKNEY said that the noise in the hall had been so great that he had not been able distinctly to hear the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. P. inquired of the Chair whether the member had taken an appeal from the decision.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Massachusetts had appealed.

Mr. PINCKNEY said that this question had been fully discussed and finally determined at the last session of Congress. He moved, therefore, the previous question

on the appeal.

And the House seconded the call: Yeas 99, nays not counted.

Mr. LAWRENCE called for the yeas and nays on the question of ordering the main question; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 129, nays 48.

So the House determined that the main question should now be taken.

And the main question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" was then taken and carried: Yeas 145, nays 32.

So the House determined that the decision of the Chair should stand as the judgment of the House.

QUARANTINE AT ELSINEUR.

The House then resumed the consideration of the petition presented by Mr. CUSHING, in relation to the quar antine on American vessels at Elsineur.

[JAN. 23, 1837.

object, and of the disposition he proposed to make of it; which explanation he would give in the fewest possible words.

He said it was known to the House that the Danish islands are situated at the entrance of the Baltic sea, by means of which Denmark commands, to a certain degree, the navigation of that sea, in and out, owing to the narrowness of the various passages, whether between the islands themselves or between the islands and the mainland of Denmark and Sweden. The Sound, which is the principal of these passages, is guarded by the castle of Knowberg, at Elsineur, which, although it may be passed by armed ships, as happened in the case of the English attack on Copenhagen, yet is amply sufficient to overawe and arrest merchant vessels. In fact, Denmark holds the keys of the Baltic.

Denmark has taken advantage of this fact, for a long period, to lay a tribute on all merchant vessels passing up the Baltic, called the Sound dues. This tribute is paid without any value received by the merchant. It is not distinguishable in principle from the tribute formerly paid to the Barbary States. It is a gratuitous exaction of the most objectionable character, and ought not to be submitted to by the United States for another hour.

Denmark has recently taken similar advantage of her position, to subject our trade to another impediment; and that is, a most vexatious quarantine. Her conduct in this respect is, it is understood, countenanced inadvertently by Russia, in consequence of the fears of contagion entertained by that Power, and by the other Powers whose dominions are washed by the Baltic.

Our trade with Russia is highly advantageous to both parties. The cause of it is this, in a majority of instances: A ship sails from Boston, for example, for the island of Cuba, lays in a cargo of sugar, coffee, or other commodities produced in America, conveys them to Russia, and there purchases a return cargo of hemp, sail-cloth, iron, and so forth, for the United States. In addition to vessels with miscellaneous cargoes, there has gone up, during recent years, an average number of forty American merchantmen of the first class, laden with sugar, carrying 2,500 boxes, or 450 tons each, in all 100,000 boxes, of which vessels more than four fifths belong to the State of Massachusetts. They receive a freight at the rate of £3 10s. for the whole cargo, or £4 10s. for two thirds, and the remainder at half profits; and the House could judge, from these facts, concerning the value of the commerce, as well to Russia as to the United States.

It is the practice in the Spanish colonies to pack up their sugar in boxes, strengthened with strips of raw hide. The Danes stop the ship at Elsineur, compel ber to put in at Kyholm, Kansoe, or Copenhagen, and to discharge and store the whole cargo for purification, or to tear off the hide from the sugar-boxes, and substitute clamps or hoops of iron. All this subjects the merchant to hazard of loss and damage in the discharge of his goods into lighters and otherwise; to the great expense of storing, and so forth, on shore; to many petty exactions; and to an average delay of fifty or sixty days, and sometimes to a delay of a whole winter, by being frozen up in the Baltic. It has been stated that a ship is thus liable to an expense of not less than three thousand dol lars, without the slightest advantage to the health of the Baltic Powers, and to the common injury of Russia, the consumer of the cargo, and America, the carrier.

Mr. CUSHIMG said that the memorial which he had presented complained of a very serious grievance, under which the foreign commerce of the United States has for Mr. C. said there was no practical difficulty in the some time labored. It pressed with peculiar severity way of relieving the commerce of the United States on his immediate constituents; in consequence of which from these evils. Our intercourse with Denmark is reg they had repeatedly, both verbally and in writing, call-ulated by a treaty concluded the 26th of April, 1826, ed his attention to the subject. Under these circum. be in force for ten years, and until notice from eithe stances, he did not feel justified in allowing the memo- party. That time has expired; and the United State rial to leave his hands without a brief explanation of its now possesses the faculty of interposing, by negotiation

[blocks in formation]

to exact of Denmark a relaxation of all that is vexatious and unnecessary in the treatment of our ships at Elsineur. Mr. C. said he desired, in conclusion, to express his thanks to a gentleman of New York, one of the most honorable, intelligent, and estimable citizens of that great State, [Mr. James Tallmadge,] who had exerted himself recently, whilst in Russia, to have the matter rightly understood by the Emperor Nicholas.

It deserved, also, the careful consideration of Congress and the Government of the United States; and, to secure this object, he moved the reference of the memorial to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The memorial was referred accordingly.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.

[H. of R.

The SPEAKER said the resolution which had been adopted covered all these cases. The gentleman from the women of South Weymouth had, therefore, on the 9th instant, been received and laid on the table. The petitions from the women of Dorchester, and that from the men of Dover, had been declared by the Speaker not to be in possession of the House. The motion to receive the first had been laid on the tablethe motion to receive the second was under debate at the adjournment of the House on the 9th instant.

These explanations are absolutely necessary to understand my remarks, as reported in the Intelligencer, and my exceptions to the decisions of the Speaker.

He had decided that the two petitions were not in An unusually large number of petitions and memorials, possession of the House, and had sent them back to me. on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, He now said that the resolution of the House intervenwere presented by different members, and were im-ing, had covered all the cases. I asked him if those pemediately laid on the table.

Mr. ADAMS asked the House at this time to take up and decide on the objection raised to the reception of the petition, presented by himself, from Lydia Lewis and others, [and subsequently returned to him,] praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. [This is the petition referred to in the preceding debate.*]

To the Editors of the National Intelligencer: GENTLEMEN: There were three petitions referred to in the preceding debate:

First, this petition of Lydia Lewis and one hundred and fifty women of Dorchester. When I presented it and sent it to the Clerk's table, an objection was made to its being received. The Speaker had heretofore decided that, when objection was made to the reception of a petition, the motion to receive was debatable. But, to get round this decision, a motion was made that the motion to receive should be laid on the table, and then there could be no debate. The Speaker had been asked, if the motion to receive was laid on the table, what became of the petition? He said it remained in suspense and was not in the possession of the House. He accordingly ordered the Clerk to return to me the petition of Lydia Lewis and one hundred and fifty women of Dorchester, which was accordingly sent to me by the Clerk, and is now in my possession. It was the motion to receive it which had been laid on the table, and which I now asked the House to take up and decide.

Secondly, the petition of Eliza G. Loud and two hundred and twenty-eight women of South Weymouth. I had presented it immediately after the motion to receive the petition from Lydia Lewis and the women of Dorchester had been laid on the table. Some of the members from the South now insisted that the question upon receiving this petition from South Weymouth should be Erectly taken. It was taken by yeas and nays, and by A vote of 137 to 75 was received. I had moved that it hould be read; but a motion had been made that it should be laid on the table, (not debatable,) and on the lable it was laid.

Thirdly, the petition of Ralph Sanger and forty inhabitants of Dover. I had presented it immediately after the petition from the women of South Weymouth had been laid on the table; but, notwithstanding the decision of the House just before to receive the petition from South Weymouth, the question of reception was gain raised upon this petition from Dover, which was also sent back to me from the Clerk's table. In the midst of a debate upon this question of reception, and in the midst of a speech by a gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. BYNUM,] against its reception, the House the 9th instant had adjourned. The petition from

titions were by the intervening resolution of the House laid on the table. He said they would be laid on the table if I would send them to the Chair. This I declined.

The report proceeds: "Mr. Adams said he took it that the Clerk was responsible for the records of the House."

What I said was this: "The journals of the House show that at a former sitting of the House I presented these two petitions to the House. The Speaker now decides that, by a sweeping resolution of the House, they are laid on the table. If they are on the table, I take it the Speaker and the Clerk of the House are responsible for the truth of the House's journal, and for the possession of its archives."

With regard to the petition from L. Swackhamer and fifty-three ministers and members of the Lutheran church in the State of New York, the report is substan tially correct; but as the Speaker, after refusing to allow the petition to be read, at the demand of Mr. HOAR, of Massachusetts, permitted it to be read when the reading was called for by Mr. PARKER, of New Jersey, and it was read, I ask of your candor and impartiality to publish it with this letter. The debate concerning it cannot otherwise be understood.

I am, with great respect, gentlemen, your obedient servant, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U. S., Jan. 26, 1837. [Copy of the memorial referred to in Mr. Adams's letter.] To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled:

The undersigned, ministers and members of the Lutheran church, in the State of New York, respectfully represent: That, since the people of the United States have given to our representatives, by the first article of the federal constitution, the right "to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever," over the District of Columbia, it is the duty of every citizen to watch the character of the law existing there. In this view, we call the attention of Congress to the condition of more than six thousand of the inhabitants of the District, for whose persons and civil and religious rights the laws of Congress have provided no protection. Instead of securing to them those rights, which our nation has solemnly declared to belong equally and inalienably to to all, your laws have deprived them of all personal rights, and subjugated their wills to the absolute control of others, to whom they are said to belong as property; and have also unconstitutionally deprived them of the power of obtaining redress for their wrongs, by prosecuting their claims in courts of justice, and of the right of trial by jury in many cases, and virtually of the right of petitioning Congress.

[ocr errors]

We, therefore, respectfully request Congress forth

H. OF R.]

Abolition of Slavery.

Massachusetts might send his petition to the Chair, and it would be laid on the table.

Mr. ADAMS said he did not doubt his right to send the petition to the Chair. The Speaker had decided heretofore that the petition was not in the possession of the House. Mr. A. now wished for a decision on the question of receiving the petition, which, on the journal, appeared to have been presented by him.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman might present his petition, and send it to the Chair, to be disposed of under the resolution.

Mr. ADAMS said it was not his intention to send it again to the Chair.

The SPEAKER said then there was nothing before the House, and the gentleman was out of order.

Mr. ADAMS said he took it that the Clerk was responsible for the records of the House.

The SPEAKER said the entry on the journal was, that the gentleman from Massachusetts offered to present" a petition; it did not appear that he did present it. Mr. ADAMS. But by a subsequent decision of the House, notwithstanding the petition had not been received, it was ordered to lie on the table.

The SPEAKER called the gentleman to order, there being no question before the House.

Mr. ADAMS. Then I understand from the Speaker that the petition is laid on the table.

The SPEAKER said it would be if the gentleman sent it to the Chair.

Mr. ADAMS. I do not propose to send it to the Chair. [Mr. A. then presented a great number of similar petitions; all of which were laid on the table.]

Mr. ADAMS presented a petition which he thought could not be included in the resolution adopted by the House. It was a petition from fifty-four ministers and members of the Lutheran church in the State of New York, praying Congress to enact laws to secure to all the inhabitants of the District of Columbia the protection of the law and the rights of the declaration of independence. There was nothing about slavery or the abolition of slavery in it. He moved that it be referred to the Committee for the District of Columbia, and that it be printed.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Massachusetts knew the contents of the petition, but the Chair did no. If the petition related to the subject of slavery, it must be laid on the table.

Mr. HUNTSMAN thought the Speaker should read the petition, in order to ascertain whether it came within the meaning of the resolution.

Mr. PARKER insisted that the only way of arriving at the nature of the petition was to read its contents. Mr. ADAMS. But the order of the House declares that the petition shail not be read.

The SPEAKER. Then the gentleman admits that it relates to the subject of slavery.

Mr. ADAMS. I do not admit any such thing. I have presented the petition in the form required by the rule, by giving a brief statement of its contents.

The SPEAKER looked for a moment into the body with to pass such laws as justice and the character of our nation require, to secure to all the inhabitants of the District of Columbia, equally and alike, the protection of the laws, and the enjoyment of all those immunities and advantages which our declaration of independence and our constitution recognise as the inalienable right of every human being. And your petitioners, &c. Dated September 28, 1836.

[Signed by L. Swackhamer, John D. Lawyer, John Selmser, Adolphus Rumpf, M. J. Stover, Philip Wieting, William Ottman, George W. Lewis, ministers, and forty-six members.]

[JAN. 23, 1837.

of the petition, and then said that, in his opinion, it fell clearly within the meaning and intent of the resolution. Mr. ADAMS appealed from the decision of the Chair, and demanded the judgment of the House whether this petition should be received and read or not.

The SPEAKER said that the petition spoke of the absolute control held over a portion of the inhabitants of the District who were claimed as property. In his opinion it was embraced within the order.

Mr. PINCKNEY demanded the previous question on the appeal.

The SPEAKER said he had not yet ascertained that the gentleman from Massachusetts had yielded the floor. Mr. ADAMS said he had performed his duty in giving a brief statement of the contents of the petition. There was not a word about slavery or the abolition of slavery in it. It was a petition asking Congress to enact such laws as would secure to all the inhabitants of the District the benefit of the law and the rights of the declaration of independence. This was the object of the petition; nor more nor less. If the Speaker decided that this was one of the petitions included in the resolution, he (Mr. A.) desired that the decision might be taken down, and that the records of the House might show what sort of petitions were rejected, even without a reading. What the paper might contain, what portion of argument was in it, the House could not know until the petition was read; and although the Speaker had read it, and was therefore able to decide whether his (Mr. A's) statement was true or false, yet, in the petition itself, there was not a word about slavery. And if the House should determine that a petition simply praying that all the inhabitants of the District of Columbia should be entitled to "the benefit of the law and the rights of the declaration of independence," he wished the decision and the judgment of the House to appear on the records.

The SPEAKER said he had no difficulty in arriving at a decision, from the statement of the gentleman himself, independent of his own observation, that the petition fell within the scope of the resolution. The petition had been endorsed by some one as a petition from these ministers "to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia."

Mr. HUNTSMAN contended that the Speaker, as the presiding officer of the House, was to be the judge whether the petition came within the prohibition of the resolution. The petition either contravened the rule, or it did not. Of this the Speaker was to be the judge, and had the right to look into the petition; otherwise the House would be left entirely in the dark.

Mr. PINCKNEY said that one half of the States were eternally prevented from presenting their petitions by discussions on this subject. He moved the previous question on the appeal.

Mr. ADAMS desired that, before the question was taken, the verbal statement he had made of the contents of the petition might be reduced to writing by the Clerk. Mr. A. was called to order.

Mr. A. proceeded to argue that the Speaker had decided that this verbal statement should be made―

The SPEAKER called Mr. A. to order. The gentleman from Massachusetts had made his brief statement, and upon that brief statement made, the Chair bad decided that the petition fell within the order of the House. From that decision an appeal was taken; the previous question had been demanded, and the Chair must ascertain if there was a second.

Mr. ADAMS. How can the previous question be taken, Mr. Speaker, without the House knowing on what it is to be taken?

The SPEAKER. The previous question will be on the decision of the Chair on the memorial presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

JAN. 24, 1837.]

Translators to the House-Admission of Michigan.

Mr. ADAMS. And what is the memorial presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts?

The SPEAKER said the gentleman had no right to propound such questions.

Mr. ADAMS said he presumed he had a right to ask that the brief statement he had given might be made known to the House.

Mr. W. B. SHEPARD asked Mr. PINCKNEY to withdraw the previous question; which Mr. P. declined to do. Mr. S. then said, amidst loud cries of order, that Southern men were compelled to sit and hear their constituents insulted, and the majority of the House denies them all opportunity of reply.

And the question being taken, the House seconded the demand for the previous question: Yeas 80, nays 51. So there was a second.

Mr. REED asked for the yeas and nays on ordering the main question; but the House refused them.

Mr. HOAR asked that the petition might be read, in order that he might understand on what he was about to vote.

The SPEAKER said it would not be in order. Mr. HOAR asked if it would then please the Chair to tell him on what he was about to vote.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAM] had presented a petition, and had made a brief a statement of its contents. The Speaker suppo. sed the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR] had heard that statement.

Mr. ADAMS said he wished the Speaker would state what that brief statement was.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Massachusetts would take his seat.

Mr. ADAMS said he would take his seat. [And he did so.]

The SPEAKER said it was not the part of the Speaker to repeat the statements made by members of the House.

Mr. ADAMS said, if the House permitted, he was ready to repeat his brief statement, for the benefit of his colleague.

The SPEAKER said the demand for the previous question had been seconded, and he could not entertain a question of this character at this time.

And the question being taken, the House decided that the main question should now be taken: Yeas 85, Days 35.

So the main question was ordered to be put. Mr. PARKER said it was impossible for him to determine the nature of the petition until it had been read. The SPEAKER (after a few moments' consideration) mid he doubted whether, under the circumstances, it would not be proper that the petition should be read, that the members might determine what direction should be given to it. It was very short.

The petition was accordingly read; and the SPEAKER aid he had decided that it fell within the order of the House.

Mr. COLES called for the yeas and nays on the main question; which were ordered.

Mr. ADAMS inquired what the decision of the Chair

The SPEAKER said his decision was, that the petition fell within the following order of the House. [The Speaker read the resolution so often referred to.]

Mr. ADAMS said he then understood the decision of the Chair to be on the verbal statement made of the contents of the petition, and on the petition itself.

The CHAIR said he had stated the question several times.

Mr. ADAMS wished for information. Would the decision of the Speaker, laying this petition on the table, be entered on the journal?

[H. OF R.

The SPEAKER. Unquestionably. If it is not there at the reading of the journal to-morrow morning, the gentleman can require it to be put there.

Mr. ADAMS. Oh, yes, sir, by the vote of a majority of this House.

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will do his duty. And the main question, "Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the House?" was taken, and carried: Yeas 170, nays 3.

So the House affirmed the decision of the Chair. After the reception and reference of numerous other memorials,

The House, at about half past 4 o'clock, adjourned.

TUESDAY, JANUARY 24.

TRANSLATORS TO THE HOUSE.

The unfinished business was the following resolution, heretofore reported by Mr. HUNTSMAN, from the Committee on Private Land Claims:

"Resolved, That the translator of the French and Spanish languages for this House, who was appointed under the resolution of the House of February 24, 1835, be continued as such until the 1st of February, 1838."

After some remarks from Messrs. HUNTSMAN, E. WHITTLESEY, G. CHAMBERS, and D J. PEARCE,

Mr. E. WHITTLESEY moved to recommit the resolution to the Committee on Private Land Claims, with instructions to inform the House what amount of translations the individual referred to had furnished within the last two years, and to report to the House the necessity, or otherwise, of continuing the said office.

After some desultory conversation, Mr. E. WHITTLESEY withdrew his motion, on the suggestion of Mr. C. JOHNSON that the resolution should lie over until the next session of Congress.

And the question being taken, the resolution was rejected.

After transacting the usual morning business, the House proceeded to the orders of the day, and took up the bill

for the

ADMISSION OF MICHIGAN.

The pending question being on ordering the bill to a third reading-

Mr. VANDERPOEL said that the fair and statesmanlike manner in which the bill under consideration had already been discussed by the gentlemen who had preceded him was, he hoped, an omen that no extrinsic topics will be forced into this debate; that at least one subject would here be debated without conducing to the effusion of party spleen, unbecoming this hall and the high places we here occupy.

After all, said Mr. V., this is not a very complicated question. The truth and right of the case, for which, he trusted, we were all seeking, did not lie altogether hidden between the lids of ponderous volumes on constitutional law. They were as well within the reach and capacity of the plain every-day practical thinker as the constitutional scholar; and although he could not but commend the industry and research of his learned friend from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS,] although he was forcibly struck with the force and applicability of most of the authorities which he cited, and subscribed to most of the doctrines which he urged, yet he (Mr. V.) fancied that we could attain a safe and a sound conclusion in this case, without consulting those sages and oracles with whose cogitations his learned friend had so liberally furnished us.

The sovereignty of the people, their right to change their Government whenever they please, the right of the majority to change their organic law whenever it becomes oppressive or inadequate to the purposes for which it was instituted; these, as general propositions, had not been, and would not, he thought, be denied. The right

H. OF R.]

Admission of Michigan.

of the people to change their Government, (if it were doubted,) might, however, be one question; but whether the people of Michigan, by accepting the conditions of admission held out to them by the last act of Congress, did, in fact, work such a radical revolution in their Government as to require any very labored vindication of the natural and inherent right of man to throw off the yoke of oppression when it becomes too galling to be borne, this was quite another matter. The two questions involved, as he understood them, were, first, have the conditions of admission held out by the act of Congress of last session been accepted by the people of Michigan? Secondly, was a change in the constitution of Michigan wrought, or attempted to be wrought, by the last convention, which accepted the conditions prescribed by the act of Congress; and if such change was, in effect, made, was it made by a competent body, and was it made secundem artem? -for it really appeared to him that there were some gentlemen who looked more to the form than to the substance of things.

In order correctly to understand the points that were involved in this case, it was necessary that we should understand the prominent facts that were connected with it, which, as introductory to the brief argument he proposed to submit, he would now succinctly state.

I. The Territory of Michigan, according to the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, for the government of the Territory northwest of the Ohio river, was entitled to be admitted into the Union, as one of the confederate States, when she contained a population of sixty thousand souls. In June, 1835, when it was ascertained that this Territory contained a population of more than one hun dred thousand souls, the people of Michigan, through the medium of a convention chosen for that purpose, met and formed a constitution for a State Government. The preamble to this constitution declares the Territory of Michigan to be "as established by the act of Congress of 1805," which separated the Michigan from the Indiana Territory. That act would seem to include within Michigan the territory that formed the subject of dispute between the State of Ohio and Michigan. It might as well be stated here as elsewhere, and he (Mr. V.) begged the House to note this fact, the great importance of which would appear from a portion of his subsequent remarks, that the territory of which the State of Michigan was to be composed, according to her constitution, does not appear from the body of the constitution of Michigan, and is designated only in the preamble to the constitution. At the last session of Congress, Michigan came here with her constitution, and asked for admission into the Union. A question as to disputed boundary between Ohio and Michigan had already for some time agitated the great State of Ohio, and the growing and important Territory of Michigan, and had already assumed a very serious aspect. Congress was anxious to restore tranquillity between these contending parties, and instead of absolutely accepting the constitution of Michigan, and admitting her at once into the family of States, Congress, at its last session, passed an act by which the constitution and State Government which the people of Michigan had formed was "accepted, ratified, and confirmed," provided that a new boundary line was established, by which the whole or a part of the disputed territory should be given to Ohio; and, as a compliance with this fundamental condition of admission, Congress, by the third section of the act of last session, provided "that the boundaries of Michigan, as declared by the act of Congress, should receive the assent of a convention of delegates elected by the people of said State for the sole purpose of giving the assent required in the act of Congress." In September last, a convention of delegates, which assembled in Michigan pursuant to an act of the Legislature of that State

[JAN. 24, 1837.

or Territory, rejected the conditions of admission held out by the act of Congress of last session, by a vote of twenty-one to twenty-eight. On the 14th day of December last, another convention assembled, consisting of seventy-eight delegates, and unanimously accepted of the conditions contained in the act of Congress. The latter convention originated through primary assemblies of the people. After the first convention rejected the terms held out by the act of Congress, there was an election for members of the Legislature, held according to the constitution and laws of Michigan. This question of accepting or rejecting the terms of admission proposed by the act of Congress of June, 1834, was made a test question at this election; and it resulted in the election of members more than three fourths of whom were favorable to the acceptance of these terms of admission. The county of Washtenaw, one of the largest counties in the State, had returned seven members to the first convention, (which was a number equal to the entire majority of the disagreeing members,) by a majority of one hundred and eighty-one votes. Not more than 1,700 votes were given at this election, both for the assenting and dissenting members. After the first convention had rejected the terms proposed by the act of Congress, many prominent and respectable citizens of this county, convinced that a very large majority of its citizens were opposed to the result which the September convention had attained, addressed a letter to the Governor of Michigan, requesting him to call another convention. His excellency refused to comply with this request, on the ground that his power to call a convention was questionable; but, in his answer to the citizens of Washtenaw, who had thus addressed him, informed them that it was competent for the people in their primary assemblies to call another convention, and recommended that course of proceeding.

A convention was accordingly called by great numbers of the people, in their primary capacity. On the 5th and 6th days of December, elections were held in every county of the State except the counties of Monroe and Macomb. The judges sppointed by law to preside at the elections in the State presided at this, counted and returned the votes, and saw that the laws prescribing the qualifications of voters were duly observed. The December election resulted in the choice of seventyeight delegates, who subsequently convened, and unanimously voted in favor of coming into the Union on the terms held out by the act of Congress. This county of Washtenaw, which had given only seventeen hundred votes at the first election, and elected seven dissenting members, by a majority of only one hundred and eightyone votes, at the second election chose assenting members by a large majority, and gave about nineteen hundred votes for the assenting members alone. It also appears to us most abundantly that, at the last election, more than two thousand votes more were given for the assenting delegates alone, than were given at the former election for both assenting and dissenting delegates.

Upon these facts, the first question which naturally arises is, has the condition of admission held out by the act of Congress of June last been complied with? Or, in other words, have the boundaries of Michigan, as declared by the act of Congress, received the assent of a convention of delegates elected by the people of Michigan "for the sole purpose of giving the assent required by the act of Congress?"

As to this point, said Mr. V., it must be observed that although the third section of the act of Congress of last session required the assent of a convention elected by the people of Michigan, yet it did not declare by whom, or by what author y, an election for such convention should be ordered. It does not provide that it shall be called by the Legislature of Michigan, as there was no

« ПретходнаНастави »