Kentucky, and charged them with a dishonorable compromise to obtain power. How circumstances alter cases, and principles, too, sir! What was charged, upon suspicion only, as a scandalous bargain between the emineut statesmen to whom I have alluded, as a disgraceful fraud upon the people, a gross violation of constitutional duty and republican virtue, was openly and boldly attempted by themselves. They even endeavored to vindicate it, as evincing immaculate purity, patriotic honesty of purpose, strict fidelity to their constituents, the highest and most exact regard to the limits of delegated power.

Sir, the twenty-one knew too well their rights and their duty to listen for a moment to so flagitious a proposal. They were not to be menaced into intimidationnot to be bargained into a compromise-not to be seduced by any consideration into a desertion of their duty. They knew that the organic law, under which they held their appointment, had prescribed, in the plainest manner, the single specific purpose which they were to fulfil, and how they were to fulfil it. They refused, therefore, to enter into the political traffic proposed to them, and left it to the others to look beyond the single object of their duty, and pretend to an enlarged guardianship over the general good.

Besides, the nineteen had not qualified, and were as yet clothed with no official authority. They had failed in the very first step of their duty. They had not even begun to fulfil their constitutional obligations. No proposal, of whatever description, therefore, could be received from them; least of all, such as would have led the majority to betray their constituents and violate their constitutional oaths.

These were among the men who considered nullification as the great political heresy of the times They thought it at least moral treason in a sovereign State to pass an ordinance nullifying an act of Congress. Yet it was no crime in them, who were invested only with a little brief authority, to play the fantastic trick which I have described upon the sovereignty of their own State. When they became candidates for the electoral college, they pledged themselves, expressly or impliedly, "to serve if elected." This service, thus promised, was the performance of the duty enjoined upon them by the constitution; nothing less and nothing more. That duty was evaded, their pledges violated, and the constitution nullified for a time, by the next step they took. They affected to resign their seats in that body of which they were not qualified members to the people, whom they insulted and betrayed by this mockery of a resignation. I call it a mockery, because they could not resign. They had no right to disorgan ze the Government by so flimsy an artifice. They could not cast off the duties they had undertaken, because there was no provision for applying their places. It has been well said that they had no more right to resign the offices they had assumed than the suicide has to avoid his parental duties, by surrendering bis obligations into the hands of his Creator. That this resignation was a mockery is true in another Base: since some of them, when rebuked by the people, found it quite as convenient to reassume their trusts it had been to lay them down. This pretended resignation they attempted to justify in a manifesto, abounding with shallow sophistry and miserable subterfuge. They alleged that they were chosen to bring about a change in the form of government; whereas they were apponted for the single and obvious purpose of continuing the Government as it had existed for sixty years. It W not true that all the counties which elected the recusants were in favor of any radical change in the con lution. Some of them were notoriously opposed to Bach change, and had repeatedly voted against it by their delegates in the Legislature. In none of them was

[H. OF R.

a revision of the constitution made a test question. The parties had been marshalled every where on the ground of presidential politics. In some districts, indeed, the Van Buren party brought into their electioneering speeches, as collateral topics, the State's appropriation for internal improvement, and the bill indemnifying the sufferers by the mob at Baltimore; while, in other places, some clamor was raised about the tenure of offices. But in no one county were parties drawn off upon the ques tion of reform. There are many reformers among the whigs, many who conscientiously believe that the constitution makes a wrong distribution of political power among the counties; for our system of government presents the appearance of a confederacy of counties, in which each has equal representation and equal power. I know that much complaint has been made on this score for a considerable period: that those counties which have advanced most rapidly in wealth and population desire, and claim as their right, a proportionate increase of power. This is not a matter of surprise. Their wish is as natural as is the reluctance of the smaller counties to part with any portion of their weight in the Govern. ment. Yet, notwithstanding this reluctance, they have not been unreasonably opposed to any modification of the constitution.

The very last Legislature passed a bill providing for the formation of a new county, with equal representa tion, out of the fragments of other and larger counties; and at the same session, by another bill, authorized an increase in the representation of the city of Baltimore: thus making a considerable alteration in the distribution of power in the House of Delegates. As for any thorough, radical change in, this respect, the reformers themselves have never been able to agree. They have held two conventions, which, if they have not dissolved in their own weakness, have certainly not succeeded in reconciling various theories, and concentrating the opinions of their members and constituents upon any one specific plan of reform. Let this be done. Lt some known, fixed scheme be deliberately presented to the people for their consideration, and if it obtain the general sanction, my life upon it, the smaller counties, who know what is due to public opinion, will yield their peculiar interest to the general good. But they have no idea of being tricked into an abandonment of the constitution by a set of men not authorized, constitutionally or otherwise, to meddle with such matters, and one of whom, at least, as a member of the Legislature, had always before recorded his vote against it.

My colleague [Mr. THOMAS] seems to claim for the minority of the college, as they did for themselves, an amount of power not granted by the constitution, because they represented a portion of the State containing a much larger population, both white and federal, than the residue of the State represented by the twenty-one. It is scarcely necessary to expose this fallacy; but surely he does not mean to claim the support of the very large minorities in that section whose votes were cast against the nineteen. I will only say, on this head, that when the constitution is set aside, and numbers are to be counted, the arithmetic should be exact, and all due subtractions be made. At all events, I believe, sir, that at the November election a majority of the "white population" of the counties represented by the nineteen will put the seal of condemnation upon the doctrines and pretences of their unfaithful electors.

As to the right of the people to change their frame of government, no one denies it. It needs no parade of authorities to satisfy the people of Maryland of those unalienable rights which every sciolist understands, and the knowledge of which is as common to them as the very air they breathe. They know, too, that between revolution and constitutional change there is no middle

H. or R.]

course. A revolution may be peaceful and bloodless, where there is a general acquiescence in it. Where there is not such a common consent, where parties are equally arrayed in opposition, it must needs be forcible and violent; and whichever party succeeds, the triumph must be a melancholy one, which all good men will deplore. The right of change can present but two aspects-the one above and beyond the constitutional charter, which is revolution--the other under and in strict accordance with the constitution. A different theory contradicts the wisdom of ages, and endangers the only safeguards of regulated liberty. If the irregular action of the popular will can be substituted for constitutional proceedings, we shall have new constitutions worked up by every fresh ferment, and laws enacted and repealed amidst the tumult of primary assemblies. This would throw society into wretched confusion, and benefit no one, except, perhaps, the demagogue who had boldness and address enough to "ride on the whirlwind and direct the storm.". It is to regulate and steady the popu lar will that constitutions are formed and laws enacted; and if delegated agents may violate them with impunity, upon such pretences as those of the nineteen, there will soon be an end to law, order, peace, and freedom.

That the minority of the electoral college considered their course as destructive of the Government, is apparent from the address which they put forth to the people. In this they recommend the immediate appointment of a convention, with power to continue the commissions of all civil and military officers until a new Government could be formed. Who gave them this authority? What freeman at the polls ever dreamed that he was voting for dictators, who would destroy the constitution under which they were appointed, and command the people to construct another? What citizen imagined that his country was about to be plunged into a revolution-that all the checks and forms of freedom were about to be violated-the constitu ion to be laughed to scorn--the bulwarks of the law, which protect and defend all alike, to be swept away in a moment, and popular excitement and partisan fury to take place of that calm deliberation, that sober moderation, and conscientious judgment, without which no safe or good gov ernment can be formed? Sir, the people, of whatever political cast, saw the whole drift of this proceeding. A portion of the Van Buren party reprobated it openly and frankly--others condemned it by a silent vote at the polls; and many, who could not break their party ties, yet joined in the general condemnation. The result has given me increased confidence in the virtue and sagacity of the people. They will not "see the right, and yet the wrong pursue;" and though they may be deceived for a time, by artful politicians, they are certain at last to sift the wheat from the chaff.

1 regret, sir, that I have been compelled to say thus much on a subject not directly of national concern, and to consider Michigan as being almost terra incognita, during this debate. I have not the least objection to her admission into the Union, although the proceedings have been irregular, and should not be permitted to grow into a precedent. The population of the Territory is suffcient, certainly. Congress has, I think, the right and the power to prescribe her boundaries, and has exercised that power definitely. But the bill, on which we are now about to vote, recites the performance of a condition which, in my opinion, has not been performed; and I am not willing to give my assent to the doctrines by which it has been attempted to justify these irregu larities.

Mr. CUSHMAN then obtained the floor, and said he would respectfully submit to the House, whether this question had not been sufficiently debated. He was himself perfectly satisfied that it had been, and he therefore moved the previous question.

[JAN. 26, 1837.

The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered, severally, without a division.

Mr. CHAPIN asked for the yeas and nays on the main question, being the passage of the bill; which were ordered, and were: Yeas 132, nays 43, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, C. Allan, Anthony, Ash, Ashley, Barton, Bean, Beaumont, Bell, Black, Bockee, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Buchanan, Burns, J. Calhoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carr, Carter, Casey, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, N. H. Claiborne, J. F. H. Claiborne, Connor, Cramer, Cushman, Denny, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, Farlin, Forester, Fry, Fuller, Galbraith, J. Garland, R. Garland, Gho!son, Gillet, Glascock, Graham, Grantland, Grayson, Haley, J. Hall, Hamer, Hannegan, A. G. Harrison, Hawes, Hawkins, Haynes, Henderson, Herod, Holt, Howard, Hubley, Hunt, Huntington, Huntsman, J. Johnson, R. M. Johnson, C. Johnson, B. Jones, Kennon, Klgore, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Lay, J. Lee, T. Lee, L. Lea, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, A. Mann, J. Mann, W. Mason, M. Mason, May, McComas, McKay, McKim, Miller, Montgomery, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parks, Patterson, Patton, D. J. Pearce, Peyton, Pinckney, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Richardson, Robertson, Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, A. H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Sickles, Smith, Sprague, Standefer, Sutherland, Taylor, Thomas, Toucey, J. Thomson, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Wardwell, Washington, Webster, Weeks, White, T. T. Whittlesey, Yell-132.

NAYS-Messrs. Bailey, Bond, J. Chambers, Chetwood, Corwin, Crane, Darlington, Dawson, Elmore, Evans, Graves, Griffin, Hardin, Harlan, Hazeltine, Hiester, Hoar, Hopkins, Ingersoll, Janes, Jarvis, Jenifer, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, S. Mason, Mercer, Milligan, J. A. Pearce, Pearson, Phillips, Pickens, Potts, Reed, Russell, Steele, Storer, Taliaferro, W. Thompson, Underwood, E. Whittlesey, L. Williams, S. Williams--43. So the bill was passed.

[When the name of Mr. WISE was called, that gentleman rose in his place, and asked to be excused from voting, on the ground that he had been absent during the whole discussion on the bill, (on the select committees of which Mr. W. is a member;) which was granted.] The House then adjourned, at 6 o'clock, P. M.

Mr. HARRISON, of Missouri, from the Committee on the Public Lands, reported, with an amendment, Senate bill to authorize the Washington County Turnpike Company, in the State of Missouri, to locate and construct a road through the public lands. The original bill granted a right of way one hundred and eighty feet wide, and the amendment proposed to strike out the words "and eighty," so as to leave it "one hundred feet wide.". The amendment having been concurred in, Mr. H. moved that the bill be ordered to a third reading.

Mr. HARDIN expressed a wish to have the chatter read to the House.

Mr. HARRISON replied that he had not a copy in his possession, but his recollection of it was that the compa ny had ten years to complete the road, and five to commence it, three of which had expired. The road was to be from thirty-five to forty miles in length, and opene a direct communication between the mineral tract in Missouri and the Mississippi river; and all the bill provi ded for was a right of way.

Mr. HOWELL had objections to the bill. The firs was, that it granted a greater width than was given t other roads of the same character; and the next, and

JAN. 26, 1837.]

more important, was, that the survey was not required to be made till the road was completed, which would have the effect thereby of suspending all the sales of the public lands in the immediate vicinity, or any where in the vicinity. Mr. H. would therefore suggest the propriety of so amending the bill as to require the survey and location to be returned as soon as made.

Mr. HARDIN objected to the bill on another ground: its want of limitation as to the number of depots the company might construct on the public lands; and he suggested its commitment to a Committee of the Whole House, and made that motion.

Mr. BOON suggested that, if the bill were committed, it be recommitted to the Committee on the Public Lands. Mr. HARDIN accordingly made that motion. Mr. PARKS said a communication was expected from the Postmaster General, on the subject of securing the transportation of the mails on railroads; and he hoped no more bills granting right of way would be passed till then.

Mr. HARDIN'S motion was then put and agreed to, and the bill recommitted.

FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS.

[H. OF R.

convinced that those who wished to come back again ought not to wish for the passage of this bill, for the people would generally condemn it when they became acquainted with the facts.

Mr. TURRILL inquired whether the committee named in the bill was a joint committee.

The SPEAKER replied that it was a joint committee. Mr. TURRILL said so he supposed. He did not know that any thing he could say against this bill, in these times of popularity-seeking on a small scale, would have much if any effect; but, as he had made up his mind to vote against the bill, he felt called upon to state one or two objections to it, in addition to those which have already been urged by his colleague, [Mr. WARDWELL, ] and the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. SUTHERLAND,] who has just taken his seat. This bill is intended to provide for equalising the mileage of members of this House. At the commencement of each ses sion, the bill requires that a committee shall be appointed to examine into the honesty of members, and fix their mileage; and it would seem that it was apprehended that there might be a difficulty in finding members of this House possessing sufficient integrity and capacity to constitute this committee; for the bill provides that you

tees,

The House resumed the consideration of the unfinished business, being the motion of Mr. BELL for leave to introduce " a bill to secure the freedom of elections." Mr. BELL, resumed and continued his remarks, (as given entire heretofore,) till a motion was made to proceed to the orders of the day; which was agreed to.

PAY AND MILEAGE OF MEMBERS.

The "bill to establish a more uniform rule of compu. ting the mileage and per diem compensation of members of Congress" coming up on its third reading

Mr. WARDWELL asked the Speaker whether this bill must not be committed to the Committee of the Whole, under the rules of the House, on account of its making a charge upon the Treasury.

The SPEAKER decided that the objection came too late. It ought to have been made before the bill was ordered to a third reading.

Mr. WARDWELL then observed that he was opposed to the bill in its present shape. He had no interest in the matter. But he was unwilling to pass a law to operate upon those who should come after him, and not operate upon himself.

He was opposed to it, also, because it was unequal in its operation upon different members. In some instances, the mail route by land would be longer than the route by water, by which members always travel.

He had another objection. The bill before the House permits members to come into the District, and stay away from the business of the House the whole session, and yet receive their pay for every day of the session; while those who should go from the District for a few days, on account of sickness or any urgent business, would not receive it. The bill is wrong, and he would move to have it committed, for the purpose of amendment, were it not for the demonstrations the o her day that so large a majority was in favor of it, with all its imperfections.

Mr. SUTHERLAND had voted for the bill the other day, but he should have no objection to see it modified. He said the compensation, be it what it might, ought to be Just, and proportionably equal; but the present bill was obvirusly imperfect. He agreed, also, with the gentleman from New York, that they ought to pass a law applying to themselves, and not magnanimously pass one bearing upon their successors! He was for meting out justice, and beginning at home. He was thoroughly

in three Senators to aid in this investigation of mileage, so as to prevent the three members of the committee selected from this House from allowing too much mileage to the representatives. Sir, said Mr. T., if there must be a committee, let it be composed of members of this House. I am opposed to going to the Senate for any portion of it. Mr. T. thought that the mileage should be equalised if it could be done, and he was willing to have it adjusted by the Clerk of the House, or the Sergeant-at arms, and each individual member, but he could not vote for a bill which required each member of this House to be examined by a joint committee in relation to his mileage.

Mr. LANE said he had nothing to lose or gain by the passage of this bill, for his residence was so situated that he could travel either by water or by stage from his own door. It so happened that he could lose nothing, retrospectively, by any of its provisions, for he had never lost a single day or hour since he had the honor of being a member of that House; and that he bad charged his mileage upon the nearest route. He, however, considered this bill, though not intended to be so, a direct attack upon the Western members; and he went on to show the inconveniences that would be attendant on compelling members to travel by the mail route in the Western States, especially where the mails were transported only on horseback. It was enough if members travelled by the usual travelling route. If it was so amended as to require members to travel by the most direct mail route, where the mail was carried in stages, he would then be better pleased with the bill, as it regarded others.

Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, stated that in trav elling the river route, he and his colleague, and the members from Louisiana, did travel by the regular mail route, for the mail descended and came up the Missis sippi.

Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, contended that those who lived at the greatest western distance were best off, and made most money, on account of the facili ties of river travel, independent of the ease and comfort of being on board a steamboat. Mr. T. went into a dc. tail of the present inequalities of the mode of charging.

Mr. BOON had voted for the engrossment of this bill, and at that time it was his intention to have voted also for its final passage; but on a re-examination of it, and after having heard what he had, a radical change had taken place in his determination. The bill proposed one thing with regard to members charging their own mile

H. OF R.]

age, which was done at present, viz: that each member should certify. So did each member now. If, however, any change was to be wrought, let them bring it about first on themselves, and not enact a Buncombe measure, to bear only on those who were to come after them. He preferred it should lie over till the commencement of the next Congress.

Mr. CRAIG supported the bill, and briefly replied to Mr. LANE and others. The extraordinary facilities for travelling, of late years, rendered the change proposed by the bill absolutely indispensable.

Mr. MANN, of New York, after a few remarks showing the imperfections of the bill, moved to commit it to & Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. Mr. RENCHER (who originally reported the bill) entered into a general argument in defence of its several provisions.

Mr. PARKER expressed his satisfaction with the bill, and his intention to vote for it. The improvements in travelling required a total revision of the mode of charging; and the bill proposed nothing more than fixing a fair and equal ratio. So far from the provisions of the bill going too far, he would have voted for it if some of them had gone still further.

Mr. CALHOON, of Kentucky, contended that, by a fair construction of the law, members were justified in travelling the route usually taken by ninety-nine out of one hundred of the travelling community. The fact was well known to those acquainted with the geography of the Western country, that if members were invariably required to travel by the nearest route, they would be unable, at inclement seasons of the year, to go by that route. He should vote against the bill.

Mr. CAMBRELENG designated this as a poor, miserable dish, brought forward year after year; and although charges were not directly made, they were made in the most obnoxious form, for they were implied charges, and the impression went abroad that members took more than they were entitled to. Though Mr. C. had himself come to the conclusion that no member had

charged more than he had a right to charge under the construction put upon the law by all the presiding officers of the House for the last twenty years, yet he hoped the House would make at least one effort to get rid of the subject. He hoped, therefore, the bill would pas, with all its imperfections, many as they had been described to be, upon its head.

Mr. PATTON hoped the bill would be committed; for, if it were, he would move a proviso that no Repre sentative or Delegate to Congress should be allowed to receive a sum exceeding the rate of eight dollars a day, from the end of one session to the time of taking his seat

[JAN. 27, 1837.

ving the seat of Government to some eligible point on the Ohio or Mississippi rivers.

Mr. ANTHONY remarked that they had consumed nearly the whole day in the discussion of this bill, and as he had very little doubt but that every member had made up his mind how he would vote, therefore, to test the sense of the House whether the discussion should be continued, he moved the previous question.

The House refused to second the motion: Yeas 71, nays 73. And the question recurring on the instructions moved by Mr. YELL,

Mr. HANNEGAN made an earnest opposition to the general provisions of the bill, showing how unequally it bore upon the members from the West and other parts of the country. He explained that, though once in favor of removing the seat of Government, he was so no longer, for he did not desire the noble and generous soil of the West to be contaminated. He himself had always travelled by the only practicable though not the direct land route, and charged for the route he was compelled to travel. He inquired if any member had ever deducted a dollar for lost time.

Mr. HAWKINS said he had, to a very considerable amount.

Mr. BROWN moved to lay the bill and instructions on the table, and asked for the yeas and nays on his motion; which were ordered. And the question, being taken, was decided in the negative: Yeas 58, nays 128.

The House refusing to lay the bill on the table, the question then recurred upon the motion to commit the bill with instructions.

Mr. PARKS moved that the House adjourn, but withdrew the motion at the request of the Speaker.

TEXAS.

received, in obedience to the resolution of the House of A message from the President of the United States was Representatives of the 17th instant, requesting the Pres ident to lay before the House, if not incompatible with the public interests, any information in his possession showing the condition of the political relations between the United States and Mexico; and, also, any further in formation that he may have received as to the condition of Texas.

Mr. HOWARD moved the reference of the message and documents to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and that the same be printed.

instructions to the committee.
Mr. BOYD inquired if it would be in order to move

The SPEAKER said it would.
Mr. PARKS claimed the floor.

The SPEAKER said the gentleman from Maine ha

nals, that such had been the case heretofore.

If the

communication.

matter of right.

He could not, therefore, claim it s

Mr. BOYD then moved to amend the motion of Mr. How ARD, by adding instructions to the committee to report resolution acknowledging the independence of Texas.

debate at this late hour, by endeavoring to attach th Mr. CRAIG hoped the gentleman would not create resolution to these documents.

Mr. REED asked for the reading of the message an documents.

Mr. VINTON moved an adjournment.

Mr. CLAIBORNE, of Mississippi, called for the ye and pays on the motion to adjourn; which the Hous would not order.

And the House adjourned.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 27.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN. Mr. THOMAS moved that ISAAC E. CRARY, who w attendance from the State of Michigan, and who

credentials were presented at the last session of Congress, be now qualified, sworn, and assigned to his seat.

Mr. ROBERTSON said he felt himself compelled, very reluctantly, to oppose the motion made by the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. THOMAS.] He had with pleasure voted for the admission of Michigan into the Union, and would, with equal pleasure, vote for the reception of the gentleman claiming a seat on this floor as her Representative, [Mr. CRARY,] did he not entertain a deep-settled conviction that in so doing he would violate the oath he had taken to support the constitution. It was a sense of duty alone, without the least expectation that the House would concur with him, that constrained him to meet the proposition at the threshold. question was one certainly of the highest importance, and not settled, as he believed, by any well-considered precedent. He wished no delay. His object was that it might be disposed of promptly and satisfactorily to all who doubted, or had not fully examined it; and with that view he should move that all matters touching the election, qualification, and return, of ISAAC E. CRARY, be referred to the standing committee especially appointed to make such investigations.

The

Mr. R. said that, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, the duty had devolved upon him, during the last and present session, of examining all questions connected with the application of Michigan for admission into the Union. It would be irregular, at this time, to enter fully into the reasons which had regulated his course upon that subject, although he had been deprived of an opportunity of doing so during the brief period allowed for its discussion. He would ask leave, however, to suggest some of those which had a more immediate bearing upon the question now pending.

It would appear, said Mr. R., from the official certificate exhibited by Mr. CRARY, that the election by virtue of which he claims a seat in the House took place in October, 1835. At that time, Michigan was undeniably a Territory of the United States; and she never ceased to be such, as he should contend, until yesterday, when she was for the first time admitted into the Union. It was true she had framed a constitution, adapted to the condition of a State. But that constitution had neither been authorized nor recognised by Congress. He would not say the previous assent of Congress was, in all cases, indispensable. Had the boundaries within which the future State of Michigan was to be comprised been definitively prescribed, a subsequent recognition might stand in the place of previous consent. But the designation of those boundaries belonged exclusively to Congress. The whole Northwestern Territory then remaining might, under the ordinance, be consolidated into one State, or divided into two, as Congress might deem most expedient. Until its will was declared upon this point, there was no particular portion of the Territory that could undertake to erect itself into a State, and fix upon its own limits. Even after Michigan had unlawfully assumed that power, Congress might have united her and Wisconsin into one State, or so divided the whole Territory as to throw half of the inhabitants of Michigan into one State and half into the other. point of fact, it did subsequently most materially change the limits assumed by Michigan, and make her assent to that change a fundamental condition of admission into the Union. There was, then, a preliminary act to be done by Congress, when Michigan formed her constituGan, until the performance of which, neither the people of Michigan, nor of any other portion of the Northwestern Territory, nor of the whole Territory, could lawfully constitute a separate community, authorized to frame a constitution or State Government.

In

But were this otherwise, had the limits of Michigan been definitively fixed by Congress, and its assent given VOL. XIII.-95

[H. OF R.

to the formation of the constitution, still Mr. R. contended that, until the final act of admission into the Union, Michigan remained subject to the Territorial Government of the United States; that she could not, until then, be entitled to representation in Congress, nor consequently to elect Representatives. He was aware it had been asserted that she became a sovereign State prior to her admission; that Congress could only admit States, not Territories; and that the Territory must therefore become a State before it could be admitted. This doctrine, specious as it may seem, was not sound. It was in direct conflict with the original deeds of cession, the ordinance of 13th of July, 1787, and the constitution of the United States. He would refer to the 4th article of the ordinance especially, which declares that "The Territories (of which Michigan is a part) and the States which may be formed therein shall forever remain a part of this confederacy, subject to the articles of confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made, and to all acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto." Upon the supposition that Michigan became a State prior to her admission, she must from that moment have ceased to be a part of the confederacy, or subject to its laws. She was no longer a Territory, and could not therefore be under a Territorial Government. No one would contend that a State Government and a Territorial Government could coexist over the same community. As a State, out of the Union, it was equally clear that the United States could not govern her. The federal constitution was emphatically, as its preamble shows, a constitution "of the United States," and "for the United States." The Government and laws of the "Union" could extend to States within it, and Territories belonging to it, only. Many of its provisions, which he would not trouble the House with reading, since they must be familiar to all, proved this. He would advert to one only-that which declared that representation and taxation should be apportioned in a certain ratio "among the States which should be included within the Union." From the moment, then, that it should be held that Michigan became a State, and a State out of the Union, Congress could neither establish post offices, nor custom-houses, nor judicial tribunals, nor collect revenues, nor punish offences, nor make any disposition of the public lands within her limits, nor enter upon them, without invading ber sovereignty. She might declare war, enter into an alliance with Canada, and do all acts which other sovereign States might do. If this anomalous condition could exist for a day, or, as is contended in the case of Michigan, for one or more years, it might continue for twenty years, or forever. And yet by the ordinance of 1787 it was declared that it should forever remain a part of the confederacy, and subject to its laws. We are driven to the conclusion, therefore, that a Territory under such restrictions could never lawfully cease to be a Territory until the moment it was admitted into the Union as a State. In that way alone could it remain a part of the confederacy. The moment it should become a State of the Union, then, and not till then, it would cease to be a Territory; as an alien, who has taken all the preliminary steps, would still continue an alien, and never cease to be such till the moment of his admission to the rights of citizenship.

Mr. R. said this view was further exemplified, and the idea that a Territory must become a State before it can be admitted into the Union refuted, by the instance of Kentucky. That State was originally a district of Virginia. Virginia authorized it, while still subject to her laws, to call a convention and form a constitution suited to an independent Commonwealth. The convention was also authorized to fix a day when that constitution should go into effect; but, "to prevent anarchy," the law au