The question was now put on the motion of Mr. Grundy to postpone the previous orders, and carried, 22 to 16. So the orders were postponed, and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which having been again read at the clerk's table, as follows:

A Bill to admit the State of Michigan into the Union upon an equal footing with the original States.

Whereas, in pursuance of the act of Congress of June the fifteenth, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, entitled, "An act to establish the northern boundary of the State of Ohio, and to provide for the admission of the State of Michigan into the Union, upon the conditions therein expressed," a convention of delegates, elected by the people of the said State of Michigan, for the sole purpose of giving their assent to the boundaries of the said State of Michigan as described, declared, and established in and by the said act, did, on the fifteenth of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, assent to the provisions of said act: therefore,

Be it enacted, &c., That the State of Michigan shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatever.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That the Secretary of the Treasury, in carrying into effect the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the act of the twenty-third of June, eighteen hundred and thirty-six, entitled, "An act to regulate the deposites of the public money," shall consider the State of Michigan as being one of the United States.

Mr. Calhoun then rose, and addressed the Senate as follows:

I have bestowed on this subject all the attention that was in my power, and, although actuated by a most anxious desire for the admission of Michigan into the Union, I find it impossible to give my assent to this bill. I am satisfied the Judiciary Committee has not bestowed upon the subject all that attention which its magnitude requires, and I can explain it on no other supposition why they should place the admission on the grounds they have. One of the committee, the senator from Ohio on my left (Mr. Morris), has pronounced the grounds as dangerous and revolutionary; he might have gone farther, and, with truth, pronounced them utterly repugnant to the principles of the Constitution.

I have not ventured this assertion, as strong as it is, without due reflection, and weighing the full force of the terms I have used, and do not fear, with an impartial hearing, to establish its truth beyond the power of controversy.

To understand fully the objection to this bill, it is necessary that we should have a correct conception of the facts. They are few, and may be briefly told.

Some time previous to the last session of Congress, the Territory of Michigan, through its Legislature, authorized the people to meet in convention for the purpose of forming a state government. They met, accordingly, and agreed upon a constitution, which they forthwith transmitted to Congress. It was fully discussed in this chamber, and, objectionable. as the instrument was, an act was finally passed, which accepted the constitution, and declared Michigan to be a state and admitted into the Union, on the single condition that she should, by a convention of the people, assent to the boundaries prescribed by the act. Soon after our adjournment, the Legislature of the State of Michigan (for she had been raised by our assent to the dignity of a state) called a convention of the people of the state, in conformity to the act, which met, at the time

appointed, at Ann Arbour. After full discussion, the convention withheld its assent, and formally transmitted the result to the President of the United States. This is the first part of the story. I will now give the sequel. Since then, during the last month, a self-constituted assembly met, professedly as a convention of the people of the state, but without the authority of the state. This unauthorized and lawless assemblage assumed the high function of giving the assent of the State of Michigan to the condition of admission, as prescribed in the act of Congress. They communicated their assent to the executive of the United States, and he to the Senate. The Senate referred his message to the Committee on the Judiciary, and that committee reported this bill for the admission of the

state.

Such are the facts, out of which grows the important question, Had this self-constituted assembly the authority to assent for the state? Had they the authority to do what is implied in giving assent to the condition of admission? That assent introduces the state into the Union, and pledges it, in the most solemn manner, to the constitutional compact which binds these states in one confederated body; imposes on her all its obligations, and confers on her all its benefits. Had this irregular, self-constitued assemblage, the authority to perform these high and solemn acts of sovereignty in the name of the State of Michigan? She could only come in as a state, and none could act or speak for her without her express authority; and to assume the authority without her sanction is nothing short of treason against the state.

Again: the assent to the conditions prescribed by Congress implies an authority in those who gave it to supersede, in part, the Constitution of the State of Michigan; for her Constitution fixes the boundaries of the state as part of that instrument, which the condition of admission entirely alters, and, to that extent, the assent would supersede the Constitution; and thus the question is presented, whether this self-constituted assembly, styling itself a convention, had the authority to do an act which necessarily implies the right to supersede, in part, the Constitution.

:

But farther the State of Michigan, through its Legislature, authorized a convention of the people, in order to determine whether the condition of admission should be assented to or not. The convention met, and, after mature deliberation, it dissented from the condition of admission; and thus, again, the question is presented, whether this self-called, self-constituted assemblage, this caucus-for it is entitled to no higher name—had the authority to annul the dissent of the state, solemnly given by a convention of the people, regularly convoked under the express authority of the constituted authorities of the state?

If all or any of these questions be answered in the negative--if the selfcreated assemblage of December had no authority to speak in the name of the State of Michigan-if none to supersede any portion of her Constitution-if none to annul her dissent from the condition of admission, regularly given by a convention of the people of the state, convoked by the authority of the state-to introduce her on its authority would be not only revolutionary and dangerous, but utterly repugnant to the principles of our Constitution. The question, then, submitted to the Senate is, Had that assemblage the authority to perform these high and solemn acts? The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary holds that this selfconstituted assemblage had the authority; and what is his reason? Why, truly, because a greater number of votes were given for those who constituted that assemblage than for those who constituted the convention of the people of the state, convened under its constituted authorities. This argument resolves itself into two questions-the first of fact, and

the second of principle. I shall not discuss the first. It is not necessary to do so. But, if it were, it would be easy to show that never was so important a fact so loosely testified. There is not one particle of official evidence before us. We have nothing but the private letters of individuals, who do not know even the numbers that voted on either occasion; they know nothing of the qualifications of voters, nor how their votes were received, nor by whom counted. Now, none knows better than the honourable chairman himself, that such testimony as is submitted to us to establish a fact of this moment, would not be received in the lowest magistrate's court in the land. But I waive this. I come to the question of the principle involved; and what is it? The argument is, that a greater number of persons voted for the last convention than for the first, and, therefore, the acts of the last of right abrogated those of the first; in other words, that mere numbers, without regard to the forms of law or the principles of the Constitution, give authority. The authority of numbers, according to this argument, sets aside the authority of law and the Constitution. Need I show that such a principle goes to the entire overthrow of our constitutional government, and would subvert all social order? It is the identical principle which prompted the late revolutionary and anarchical movement in Maryland, and which has done more to shake confidence in our system of government than any event since the adoption of our Constitution, but which, happily, has been frowned down by the patriotism and intelligence of the people of that state.

What was the ground of this insurrectionary measure, but that the government of Maryland did not represent the voice of the numerical majority of the people of Maryland, and that the authority of law and the Constitution was nothing against that of numbers? Here we find on this floor, and from the head of the Judiciary Committee, the same principle revived, and, if possible, in a worse form; for, in Maryland, the anarchists assumed that they were sustained by the numerical majority of the people of the state in their revolutionary movements; but the utmost the chairman can pretend to have is a mere plurality. The largest number of votes claimed for the self-created assemblage is 8000; and no man will undertake to say that this constitutes anything like a majority of the voters of Michigan; and he claims the high authority which he does for it, not because it is a majority of the people of Michigan, but because it is a greater number than voted for the authorized convention of the people that refused to agree to the condition of admission. It may be shown, by his own witness, that a majority of the voters of Michigan greatly exceed 8000. Mr. Williams, the president of the self-created assemblage, stated that the population of that state amounted to nearly 200,000 persons. If so, there cannot be less than from 20,000 to 30,000 voters, considering how nearly universal the right of suffrage is under its Constitution; and it thus appears that this irregular, self-constituted meeting did not represent the vote of one third of the state; and yet, on a mere principle of plurality, we are to supersede the Constitution of Michigan, and annul the act of a convention of the people, regularly convened under the authority of the government of the state.

But, says the senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), this assembly was not self-constituted. It met under the authority of an act of Congress; and that act had no reference to the state, but only to the people; and that the assemblage in December was just such a meeting as that act contemplated. It is not my intention to discuss the question whether the honourable senator has given the true interpretation of the act, but, if it were, I could very easily show his interpretation to be erroneous; for, if such had been the intention of Congress, the act surely would have spe

cified the time when the convention was to be held, who were to be themanagers, who the voters, and would not have left it to individuals who might choose to assume the authority to determine all these important points. I might also readily show that the word "convention" of the people, as used in law or the Constitution, always means a meeting of the people regularly convened by the constituted authority of the state, in their high sovereign capacity, and that it never means such an assemblage as the one in question. But I waive this; I take higher ground. If the act be, indeed, such as the senator says it is, then I maintain that it is utterly opposed to the fundamental principles of our Federal Union. Congress has no right whatever to call a convention in a state. It can call but one convention, and that is a convention of the United States to amend the Federal Constitution; nor can it call that, except authorized by two thirds of the states.

Ours is a Federal Republic-a union of states. Michigan is a state; a state in the course of admission, and differing only from the other states in her federal relations. She is declared to be a state, in the most solemn manner, by your own act. She can come into the Union only as a state, and by her voluntary assent, given by the people of the state in convention, called by the constituted authority of the state. To admit the State of Michigan on the authority of a self-created meeting, or one called by the direct authority of Congress, passing by the authorities of the state, would be the most monstrous proceeding under our Constitution that can be conceived; the most repugnant to its principles, and dangerous in its consequences. It would establish a direct relation between the individual citizens of a state and the General Government, in utter subversion of the federal character of our system. The relation of the citizens to this government is through the states exclusively. They are subject to its authority and laws only because the state has assented they should be. If she dissents, their assent is nothing; on the other hand, if she assents, their dissent is nothing. It is through the state, then, and through the state alone, that the United States government can have any connexion with the people of a state; and does not, then, the senator from Pennsylvania see, that if Congress can authorize a convention of the people in the State of Michigan without the authority of the state, it matters not what is the object, it may, in like manner, authorize conventions in any other state for whatever purpose it may think proper?

Michigan is as much a sovereign state as any other, differing only, as I have said, as to her federal relations. If we give our sanction to the assemblage of December, on the principle laid down by the senator from Pennsylvania, then we establish the doctrine that Congress has power to call at pleasure conventions within the states. Is there a senator on this floor who will assent to such a doctrine? Is there one, especially, who represents the smaller states of this Union, or the weaker section? Admit the power, and every vestige of state rights would be destroyed. Our system would be subverted, and, instead of a confederacy of free and sovereign states, we should have all power concentrated here, and this would become the most odious despotism. He, indeed, must be blind, who does not see that such a power would give the Federal Government a complete control of all the states. I call upon senators now to arrest a doctrine so dangerous. Let it be remembered that, under our system, bad precedents live forever; good ones only perish. We may not feel all the evil consequences at once, but this precedent, once set, will surely be received, and will become the instrument of infinite evil.

It will be asked, What shall be done? Will you refuse to admit Michigan into the Union? I answer, No: I desire to admit her; and if the sen-

ators from Indiana and Ohio will agree, I am ready now to admit her as she stood at the beginning of last session, without giving sanction to the unauthorized assemblage of December.

But if that does not meet their wishes, there is still another by which she may be admitted. We are told two thirds of the Legislature and people of Michigan are in favour of accepting the conditions of the act of last session. If that be the fact, then all that is necessary is, that the Legislature should call another convention. All difficulty will thus be removed, and there will be still abundant time for her admission at this session. And shall we, for the sake of gaining a few months, give our assent to a bill fraught with principles so monstrous as this?

We have been told that, unless she is admitted immediately, it will be too late for her to receive her proportion of the surplus revenue under the deposite bill. I trust that on so great a question a difficulty like this will have no weight. Give her at once her full share. I am ready to do so at once, without waiting her admission. I was mortified to hear on so grave a question such motives assigned for her admission, contrary to the law and Constitution. Such considerations ought not to be presented when we are settling great constitutional principles. I trust that we shall pass by all such frivolous motives on this occasion, and take ground on the great and fundamental principle that an informal, irregular, self-constituted assembly, a mere caucus, has no authority to speak for a sovereign state in any case whatever; to supersede its Constitution, or to reverse its dissent, deliberately given by a convention of the people of the state, regularly convened under its constituted authority.

XVII.

ON THE SAME SUBJECT, JANUARY 5, 1837.

MR. GRUNDY, chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, having moved that the bill to admit the State of Michigan into the Union be now read a third time,

Mr. Calhoun addressed the Senate in opposition to the bill.

I have (said Mr. C.) been connected with this government more than half its existence, in various capacities, and during that long period I have looked on its action with attention, and have endeavoured to make myself acquainted with the principles and character of our political institutions; and I can truly say, that within that time no measure has received the sanction of Congress which has appeared to me more unconstitutional and dangerous than the present. It assails our political system in its weakest point, and where, at this time, it most requires defence.

The great and leading objections to the bill rest mainly on the ground that Michigan is a state. They have been felt by its friends to have so much weight, that its advocates have been compelled to deny the fact, as the only way of meeting the objections. Here, then, is the main point at issue between the friends and the opponents of the bill. It turns on a fact, and that fact presents the question, Is Michigan a state?

If (said Mr. C.) there ever was a party committed on a fact-if there ever was one estopped from denying it-that party is the present majority in the Senate, and that fact that Michigan is a state. It is the very party who urged through this body, at the last session, a bill for the admission of the State of Michigan, which accepted her Constitution, and declared, in the most explicit and strongest terms, that she was a state. I will not the time of the Senate by reading this solemn declaration. It has

take up