will be done with the surplus? With a few remarks on this question, I shall conclude what I intended to say.

There was a time, in the better days of the Republic, when to show what ought to be done was to ensure the adoption of the measure. Those days have passed away, I fear, forever. A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many, and various, and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks. This mighty combination will be opposed to any change; and it is to be feared that, such is its influence, no measure to which it is opposed can become a law, however expedient and necessary, and that the public money will remain in their possession, to be disposed of, not as the public interest, but as theirs may dictate. 'The time, indeed, seems fast approaching, when no law can pass, nor any honour be conferred, from the chier magistrate to the tide-waiter, without the assent of this powerful and interested combination, which is steadily becoming the government itself, to the utter subversion of the authority of the people. Nay, I fear we are in the midst of it; and I look with anxiety to the fate of this measure as the test whether we are

or not.

If nothing should be done-if the money which justly belongs to the people be left where it is, with the many and overwhelming objections to it-the fact will prove that a great and radical change has been effected; that the government is subverted; that the authority of the people is suppressed by a union of the banks and executive-a union a hundred times more dangerous than that of Church and State, against which the Constitution has so jealously guarded. It would be the announcement of a state of things from which, it is to be feared, there can be no recovery-a state of boundless corruption, and the lowest and basest subserviency. It seems to be the order of Providence that, with the exception of these, a people may recover from any other evil. Piracy, robbery, and violence of every description may, as history proves, be followed by virtue, patriotism, and national greatness; but where is the example to be found of a degenerate, corrupt, and subservient people, who have ever recovered their virtue and patriotism? Their doom has ever been the lowest state of wretchedness and misery: scorned, trodden down, and obliterated forever from the list of nations. May Heaven grant that such may never be our doom!

XVI.

SPEECH ON THE BILL FOR THE ADMISSION OF MICHIGAN, JANUARY 2, 1837.

MR. GRUNDY moved that the previous orders of the day be postponed, for the purpose of considering the bill to admit the State of Michigan into the Union.

Mr. Calhoun was opposed to the motion, and said, the documents accompanying the bill had but this morning been laid upon the tables, and no time had been allowed for even reading them over.

Mr. Grundy insisted on his motion. Of one point he was fully satisfied, that Michigan had a right to be received into the Union; on this, he presumed, there would be but little difference of opinion, the chief diffi culty having respect to the mode in which it was to be done. There seemed more difference of opinion, and he presumed there would be more debate, touching the preamble than concerning the bill itself; but he could not consent to postpone the subject. Congress were daily passing laws, the effect of which pressed immediately upon the people of Michigan, and concerning which they were entitled to have a voice and

a vote upon this floor; and, therefore, the bill for their admission ought to receive the immediate action of the Senate. As to the documents, they were not numerous. The gentleman from South Carolina might readily run his eye over them, and he would perceive that the facts of the case were easily understood. Indeed, there was but one of any consequence respecting which there was any controversy. When the Senate adjourned on Thursday, many senators had been prepared, and were desirous to speak, although the documents were not then printed. It was the great principles involved in the case which would form the subjects of discussion, and they could as well be discussed now. He thought the Senate had better proceed. One fact in the case was very certain: there had been more votes for the members to the last convention than for the first. How many more was a matter of little comparative consequence. The great question for the Senate to consider was this: What is the will of Michigan on the subject of entering the Union?

If this could be decided, it was of less consequence whether the bill should or should not expressly state that the last convention, and the assent by it given, formed the ground of the admission of the state.

Mr. Calhoun here inquired whether the chairman of the committee was to be understood as being now ready to abandon the preamble? If the Judiciary Committee were agreed to do this, he thought all difficulty would be at an end.

Mr. Grundy replied, that, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he had no authority to reply to the inquiry, but, as an individual, he considered the preamble as of little consequence, and he should vote for the bill whether it were in or out. Michigan ought, undoubtedly, to be admitted, and all the consequences would result, whether the preamble were retained or not. He had received no authority from the committee to consent that it should be stricken out. For himself, he was settled in the belief that Congress possessed full power to prescribe the boundaries of a territory, and that, when that territory passed into a state, the right remained still the same. Congress had already established the boundary of Ohio, and that settled the question. He never had perceived the necessity of inserting in the admission bill the section which made the assent of Michigan to the boundaries fixed for her by Congress a prerequisite to her admission, because the disputed boundary line was fixed by another bill; and, whether the preamble to this bill should be retained or not, Michigan could not pass the line, so that the preamble was really of very little

consequence.

Mr. Calhoun said that, in inquiring of the honourable chairman whether he intended to abandon the preamble of the bill, his question had had respect, not to any pledge respecting boundaries, but to the recognition of the second convention and of its doings. He wanted to know whether the chairman was ready to abandon that principle. He had examined the subject a good deal, and his own mind was fully made up that Michigan could not be admitted on the ground of that second convention; but the Senate might set aside the whole of what had been done, and receive Michigan as she stood at the commencement of the last session.

Mr. Grundy observed, that if the gentleman's mind was fully made up, then there could be no necessity of postponing the subject. The gentleman has fully satisfied himself, and now (said Mr. G.) let us see if he can satisfy us. His argument, it seems, has been fully matured, and we are now ready to listen to it. Though I consider that there is no virtue in the preamble, and that the effect of the bill will be the same whether it is stricken out or retained, yet I am not ready to say that I shall vote to strike it out. I am ready to hear what can be said both for and against it.

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. that we

To understand fully the objection to this bill, it is necessary 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 Here we find on this Constitution was nothing against that of numbers? 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