States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and influence of foreign powers?

"To the second question it may be answered, that if the General Government should interpose by virtue of this Constitutional authority, it will be of course bound to pursue the authority. But the authority extends no farther than to a guarantee of a republican form of government, which supposes a pre-existing government of the form which is to be guarantied. As long therefore as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guarantied by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."

THE "NEW STATES,"

ADMITTED INTO THE UNION SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE AS FOLLOWS:

VERMONT,

Formed from part of the territory of New York, with the consent of its Legislature, by act of March 6, 1790. (Vide Journal Senate of the United States, Feb. 9, 1791, and appendix to Journal House of Representatives, vol. 1, p. 412.) Application of the Commissioners of Vermont to Congress for admission into the Union was received at Philadelphia, Feb. 9, 1791, a constitution having been formed Dec. 25, 1777. Vermont admitted by act of Congress approved Feb. 18, 1791, to take effect, i. e., "shall be received and admitted," on March 4, 1791. Entitled to two Representatives by act of Congress Feb. 25, 1791.

An act giving effect to laws of the United States in Vermont, after March 3, 1791, approved March 2, 1791.

A constitution adopted by Vermont, July 9, 1793.

KENTUCKY,

Formed from the territory of Virginia with the consent of its Legislature by act of Dec. 18, 1789. (Vide Journal Senate of the United States, Dec. 9, 1790, and Bioren & Duane's edition Laws of the United States, vol. 1, page 673; and message or speech of President to Congress, Dec. 8, 1790.) Application of the convention of Kentucky received, Dec. 9, 1790. (See Journal House of Representatives, vol. 1, p. 411, appendix.) (Its constitution not then formed.) Act of Congress for its reception and admission on June 1, 1792, approved on Feb. 4, 1791. Entitled to two Representatives, by act of Congress Feb. 25, 1791.

(No act giving effect to laws of the United States in Kentucky.)

A copy of the constitution formed for the State of Kentucky laid before Congress by the President of the United States, on November 7, 1792. A new constitution was adopted on August 17, 1799.

TENNESSEE,

Formed of territory ceded to the United States by the State of North Carolina, by act of December, 1789, conveyed to the United States by the Senators from North Carolina, Feb. 25, 1790, and accepted by act of Congress of April 2, 1790. An act for the government of the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio, was approved 26 May, 1790. See also act of 8 May, 1792. The people of that territory formed a convention, adopted a constitution on Feb. 6, 1796, and applied for admission, (vide Journal House of Representatives, April 8, and Senate Journal, April 11, 1796, and folio State Papers, "Miscellaneous," vol. 1, pp. 146-7, 150,) upon which "an act for the admission of the State of Tennessee into the Union was passed and approved, June 1, 1796, by which the laws of the United States were extended to that State, and it was allowed one Representative in Congress.

The said laws were again extended to the State of Tennessee by an act approved January 31, 1797, and by an act approved February 19, 1799. (This last act divided the State into Eastern and Western Districts.)

OHIO,

Formed out of a part of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, which was ceded to the United States by the General Assembly of Virginia, at their sessions begun October 20, 1783, and accepted by the Congress of the United States, March 1, 1784. The act of Virginia was modified by act of Assembly of December 30, 1788, consenting that the territory be divided into not more than five, nor less than three, States. An act to provide for the government of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, was approved on August 7, 1789. This territory was divided into two separate governments by act of Congress of May 7, 1800.

The census of the territory, and petitions from the people thereof, referred to committee of the House of Representatives. (See Journal, January 29, 1802. See report March 4, 1802, folio State Papers, "Miscellaneous," vol. 1, p. 325.) An act to enable the people of the eastern division of said territory to form a constitution and State government was passed and approved April 30, 1802, by which that State was allowed one Representative in Congress. A constitution was accordingly formed on November 1, 1802, and presented to Congress. (See Journal Senate, January 7, 1803.) The said people having, on November 29, 1802, complied with the act of Congress, of April 30, 1802, whereby the said State became one of the United States, an act was passed and approved on February 19, 1803, for the due execution of the laws of the United States, &c., within that State.

An act in addition to, and in modification of, the propositions contained in the act of April 30, 1802, was passed and approved on March 3d, 1803.

NORTH-WESTERN AND WESTERN TERRITORY.

OHIO being the first State formed out of the territory north-west of the river Ohio, and admitted into the Union, it is deemed proper to insert here the circumstances and facts which led to the cession of that territory, and the principles agreed upon and established for the rule of its future government, which will apply equally to the other States formed out of this territory.

Preliminary to the "Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States north-west of the river Ohio, it may be proper to refer to the acts and proceedings which led to the cession of this and other territory to the United States by individual States; to the acts of cession themselves, and to other acts having a direct bearing upon this interesting subject.

The attention of the whole country appears to have been first drawn to the subject, in a forcible manner, by the decided stand taken by the State of Maryland, during the discussion in the Congress upon the objections of certain States to the articles of Confederation, in June, 1778. That State proposed, on the 22d June, 1778, and afterwards insisted, that the boundaries of each of the States, as claimed to extend to the river Mississippi, or South Sea, should be ascertained and restricted, and that the property in the soil of the western territories be held for the common benefit of all the States. From that time until 2d February, 1781, the State of Maryland refused to accede to the articles of Confederation, in consequence of having failed to obtain an amendment upon that point, against which course Virginia had remonstrated.

On the 25th November, 1778, the act of New Jersey for ratifying the articles of Confederation was presented, in which this and other difficulties were referred to; but their delegates were directed to sign those articles, "in the firm reliance that the candour and justice of the several States will, in due time, remove as far as possible the inequality which now subsists."

The delegate from Delaware having signed the articles of Confederation on the 22d February, 1779, presented on the 23d sundry

resolutions passed by the Legislature of that State, among which were the following:

"Resolved, That this State thinks it necessary, for the peace and safety of the States to be included in the Union, that a moderate extent of limits should be assigned for such of those States as claim to the Mississippi or South Sea; and that the United States in Congress assembled, should, and ought to have the power of fixing their western limits."

"Resolved, That this State consider themselves justly entitled to a right, in common with the members of the Union, to that extensive tract of country which lies westward of the frontiers of the United States, the property of which was not vested in, or granted to, individuals at the commencement of the present war :-That the same hath been, or may be, gained from the King of Great Britain, or the native Indians, by the blood and treasure of all, and ought therefore to be a common estate, to be granted out on terms beneficial to the United States."

Upon which Congress passed the following resolution on the said 23d February, 1779, eight States voting in favor, and three against the same, viz.:

"Resolved, That the paper laid before Congress by the delegate from Delaware, and read, be filed; provided, that it shall never be considered as admitting any claim by the same set up or intended to be set up."

On the 21st May, 1779, the delegates from Maryland laid before Congress the following instructions received by them:

Instructions of the General Assembly of Maryland, to George Plater, William Paca, William Carmichael, John Henry, James Forbes, and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, esquires.

Gentlemen:

Having conferred upon you a trust of the highest nature, it is evident we place great confidence in your integrity, abilities, and zeal to promote the general welfare of the United States, and the particular interest of this State, where the latter is not incompatible with the former; but, to add greater weight to your proceedings in Congress, and take away an suspicion that the opinions you there deliver, and the votes you give, may be the mere opinions of individuals, and not resulting

from your knowledge of the sense and deliberate judgment of the State you represent, we think it our duty to instruct as followeth on the subject of the Confederation-a subject in which, unfortunately, a supposed difference of interest has produced an almost equal division of sentiments among the several States composing the Union. We say a supposed difference of interests; for if local attachments and prejudices, and the avarice and ambition of individuals, would give way to the dictates of a sound policy, founded on the principles of justice, (and no other policy but what is founded on those immutable principles deserves to be called sound,) we flatter ourselves this apparent diversity of interests would soon vanish, and all the States would confederate on terms mutually advantageous to all; for they would then perceive that no other confederation than one so formed can be lasting, Although the pressure of immediate calamities, the dread of their continuance from the appearance of disunion, and some other peculiar circumstances, may have induced some States to accede to the present Confederation, contrary to their own interests and judgments, it requires no great share of foresight to predict, that, when those causes cease to operate, the States which have thus acceded to the Confederation will consider it as no longer binding, and will eagerly embrace the first occasion of asserting their just rights, and securing their independence. Is it possible that those States who are ambitiously grasping at territories to which, in our judgment, they have not the least shadow of exclusive right, will use with greater moderation the increase of wealth and power derived from those territories, when acquired, than what they have displayed in their endeavors to acquire them? We think not. We are convinced the same spirit which hath prompted them to insist on a claim so extravagant, so repugnant to every principle of justice, so incompatible with the general welfare of all the States, will urge them on to add oppression to injustice. If they should not be incited by a superiority of wealth and strength to oppress by open force their less wealthy and less powerful neighbors, yet depopulation, and consequently the impoverishment of those States, will necessarily follow, which, by an unfair construction of the Confederation, may be stripped of a common interest, and the common benefits derivable from the western country. Suppose, for instance, Virginia indisputably possessed of the extensive and fertile country to which she has set up a claim: what would be the probable consequences to Maryland of such an undisturbed and undisputed possession? They cannot escape the least discerning.

Virginia, by selling on the most moderate terms a small proportion of the lands in question, would draw into her treasury vast sums of money