SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. ples 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 self-constituted 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 had 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 honorable 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. [JANUARY, 1837. undertake to say that this constitutes any thing 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 8,000. 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 25,000 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 honorable 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 specified the time when the convention was to be held, who were to be the managers, 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 people of the United States to amend the federal constitution; nor can it call that, except authorized by two-thirds of the States. 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 constitution was nothing against that of numbers. Here we find, on this floor, and from the head of the Judiciary Committee, the same principle reviv- Ours is a federal republic-a union of States. ed, and, if possible, in a worse form; for, in Michigan is a State-a State in the course of Maryland, the anarchists assumed that they admission-and differing only from the other were sustained by the numercial majority of States in her federal relations. She is declared the people of the State in their revolutionary to be a State in the most solemn manner by movements; but the utmost the chairman can your own act. She can come into the Union pretend to have is a mere plurality. The only as a State, and by her voluntary assent, largest number of votes claimed for the self-given by the people of the State in convention, created assemblage is 8,000; and no man will called by the constituted authority of the State, JANUARY, 1837.] Admission of Michigan. [SENATE. To admit the State of Michigan, on the author- | ing the conditions of the act of last session. If ity of a self-created meeting, or one called by that be the fact, then all that is necessary is, the direct authority of Congress, passing by that the Legislature should call another conventhe authorities of the State, would be the most tion. All difficulty will thus be removed, and monstrous proceeding under our constitution there will be still abundant time for her admisthat can be conceived; the most repugnant to sion at this session. And shall we, for the sake its principles, and dangerous in its consequences. of gaining a few months, give our assent to a It would establish a direct relation between the bill fraught with principles so monstrous as individual citizens of a State and the General this? Government, in utter subversion of the federal We have been told, that unless she is admitcharacter of our system. The relation of the | ted immediately, it will be too late for her to recitizens to this Government is through the ceive her proportion of the surplus revenue unStates exclusively. They are subject to its au-der the deposit bill. I trust that on so great a thority and laws only because the State has assented they should be. If she dissents, their assent is nothing; and, 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 connection 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? 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. 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, Mr. GRUNDY confessed that he could not see then we establish the doctrine that Congress any thing in the whole proceedings calculated has power to call at pleasure conventions with- to excite alarm. The Senator (Mr. CALHOUN) in the States. Is there a Senator on this floor had told the Senate that a proceeding in Marywho will assent to such a doctrine? Is there land had excited more apprehension in regard one, especially, who represents the smaller to our institutions than any thing that had ocStates of this Union, or the weaker section? curred since the establishment of our GovernAdmit the power, and every vestige of State ment. Now, that was the gentleman's opinion; rights would be destroyed. Our system would but he (Mr. G.) had seen the time when there be subverted, and, instead of a confederacy of was felt more solicitude with respect to the free and sovereign States, we would have all stability of our Union than what had recently power concentrated here, and this would be- happened in Maryland, or in the proceedings come the most odious despotism. He, indeed, which had been adopted in Michigan. In order must be blind, who does not see that such a to determine the question before the Senate, it power would give the Federal Government a might be as well to take a short review of the complete control of all the States. I call upon facts and circumstances connected with it. 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 Senators 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 that two-thirds of the Legislature and people of Michigan are in favor of accept By the ordinance of 1787 it was provided that this Territory, and all portions of the territory ceded by the State of Virginia north-west of the Ohio, should be admitted as a State, not by conventions called for the purpose of ratifying a proposal made by Congress, but upon the fair condition that when their population should have amounted to a certain number. Michigan, at the time she first applied to be admitted into the Union, possessed a population of one-third more than was required by the ordinance of 1787. But he should state that, before asking for admission, as she had a right to do, she called a convention, and framed a constitution. The General Government had at that time a right (without prescribing the terms to be found in the act of the 2d March, 1836) to receive her into the Union. But what did Congress do? Did they comply with her re SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. (JANUARY, 1837. quest, or with the terms of the ordinance? No. | islature?" Now, this was the consent of the Congress prescribed different provisions from people of Michigan-of the population entitled any to be found in the ordinance. Now, ac- to vote, residing there. And shall the Legislacording to the view he took of the subject, this ture of that State have the power to refuse or sovereign and independent State, having the grant that which the people may demand on so same right to be represented on that floor as important a subject as this? It seemed to him South Carolina or Tennessee, has been for a long it ought not to be required; and, therefore, time kept knocking at the doors of Congress, and the conclusion he drew from the question was, still they were shut against them. He would, that the people have a right to convoke their having said this much, say nothing further on assemblies, the delegates from which have a this part of the subject. right to meet in convention, and there, if they deem proper, ratify the conditions prescribed by Congress. If he were right in that conclusion, then the preamble was correct; and if wrong, it ought to be struck out. He felt no concern in regard to this branch of the subject at all. He was free to admit that, without the preamble, he was ready to vote for the bill. But for the third section of the act of 1836, let him tell the Senate, Michigan would have been represented here, and in the other House, long ago. Well, now the people have been called upon in their primary capacity, and have given their assent to the conditions of Congress, why should the Senate cause further delay in admitting her? The Senator from South Carolina had said it would not take long to have another convention. He (Mr. G.) admitted it; but every moment did her injury. Senators were, by delay, violating a greater principle than that of which the gentleman had spoken. It was a greater infraction of principle than any known to free government. At the last session, and for some sessions previous to that, a very serious controversy had arisen between the State of Ohio and the Territory of Michigan. What, he asked, did Congress do, in its great desire to see tranquillity and harmony restored between them? It passed the act of 1836. And yet the Senator from Ohio (Mr. EWING) now wanted to see no such provision as that contained in the act of 1836, and which he (Mr. GRUNDY) believed to have been placed there by the committee in the proper discharge of their duty, and which he thought commendable in them. [Mr. EwING explained. I contended for the third section. I thought it of no importance then, nor do I now.] Mr. GRUNDY resumed. He was speaking of the Senator's exertions in regard to another bill, or other bills, which were introduced to fix the northern boundary of the State of Ohio; and before that was accomplished Senators insisted that Michigan could not be admitted into the Union. Well, what was the objection now to her admission? None that he could see. But when the Senate came to pass this act of admission, they put in this section: "That, as a compliance with the fundamental condition of admission contained in the last preceding section of this act, the boundaries of the said State of Michigan, as in that section described declared, and established, shall receive the assent of a vention of delegates elected by the people of said State, for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required," &c. con He admitted, with the Senator from South Carolina, that the testimony establishing the fact of the assent of the people of Michigan was of great importance, and in this case not according to the strict rules of legality; yet the testimony was of such a character that Legislatures would not refuse to act upon it, although courts of justice would reject it, because not duly accredited by the oaths of witnesses. But did not Senators do daily many acts upon testimony not on oath, but for which the statements of men of high standing, honor, and honesty, guaranteed their truth? What, he asked, was the amount of the testimony produced? Why, that between five and six thousand votes were given at the election of members for the convention in September last, and that from eight to nine thousand were given Now, that was the provision to which this preamble has a reference. Did that section say that the Legislative Assembly of Michigan should call a convention to decide on the subject? Not a word did it contain to that effect. Did the constitution of Michigan authorize the calling of a convention on the part of the Leg-for the delegates who formed the convention in islature? Not a word did the constitution contain on the subject? But the Legislature did call a convention, and they refused to assent to the conditions contained in the act of Congress. Now, to judge that Congress did not intend putting a legal construction on the section, that the intervention of the Legislature should be necessary, let him suppose that the Legislature should refuse to act, and consequently call no convention, and the people of Michigan had risen up una voce, and given their assent to the meeting in convention, would gentlemen have said "the convention must be called by the Leg December. What was the object in calling upon the people of Michigan? It was to know whether they were willing to come into the Union on the terms prescribed by the act of the 24 of March, 1836. They have answered, and given their assent. In one county there was given at the first election for the delegates who were elected, 180 votes of a majority. These delegates constituted the majority in the first convention; and by their votes the assent of Michigan was refused. At the first election, about 1,700 votes were cast, including both parties. At the last election, 1,900 votes were given in favor of the assenting party alone. The whole thing was changed, and must have been changed by the revolution of opinion. [SENATE. On this subject my colleague and myself entirely concur. Indeed, we have from the first differed but little in our opinion as to the controversy lately pending between our State and Michigan; but we here concur entirely as to the effect of this preamble upon her, and we may fairly assume that we speak the opinion and feelings of the State on that point. We hold this preamble untrue in fact, and of most dangerous tendency. Our State, for whose benefit gentlemen profess to have inserted it, has no interest in the thing. She does not ask for it; and if she had an interest, no matter how deep and vital, she would not consent that that interest should be subserved by stating, in a solemn act of legislation, that which is untrue. Without going further into the subject, he wanted the Senator from South Carolina to inform the Senate how he would do justice to the people of Michigan; and, further, how the passage of the bill was to be obtained in any form. Would he send the people back again to a convention? The delay was unnecessary, and objections would be made of a similar character. Why should the Senator not vote for the bill, the preamble being struck out. What difficulty was there in it? For his (Mr. G.'s) part, he could not see any. He contended that there was nothing of a political character in this matter, either on one side or the other; therefore, it was fairly on principle that a difference of opinion could be said to exist. In answer to the inquiry of the Senator from South Carolina, "Can Congress call a convention in a State?" he answered, "No!" nor did it in this instance; neither does the preamble or bill give such a power, nor imply it. He would conclude his remarks by merely declaring that, whether the preamble should be stricken from the bill ored them is now settled. Congress, by its act, not, he would vote for it. TUESDAY, January 3. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill declaring the admission into the Union of The State of Michigan. The question pending was on a motion made yesterday by Mr. MORRIS to strike out the preamble of the bill. This motion Mr. M. now varied, by moving an amendment to the preamble, (recapitulating the proceedings in Michigan under the act of the last session of Congress for the admission of the State,) which modification he was desirous of trying before the question should be taken on striking out the preamble. Mr. EWING, of Ohio, said: To the bill now before the Senate I have no other objection than that which I stated at the last session, viz: that I feel reluctant to admit a new State into the Union, unless she come in regularly, in accordance with a law of Congress previously enacted. But I waived this objection in the case of Arkansas, because a precedent had been set by the admission of Michigan at the last session. Still, however, I think it wrong; the practice is loose, irregular, and calculated to lead to bad consequences. And I think it proper to say that in the present question, in any of its forms, the State of Ohio has no interest whatever; none in the preamble, none in the bill itself, save that interest which she shares in common with all the other members of the confederacy; and, in voting on this question, I shall vote precisely as if Ohio were the most distant State in the Union from Michigan, instead of being separated from it only by a boundary line, which line was once disputed. Permit me to reiterate that there exists at this moment no controversy whatever between Ohio and Michigan, nor does there exist, at least on the part of the citizens of Ohio, the slightest feeling of enmity toward their neighboring fellow-citizens. There is no such feeling there; and I well know there is none here. The controversy which once agitated and excit has assented to the boundary claimed by Ohio in 1803, before Michigan was erected into a Territory; and unless the act of 1805 is irrevocable, there can never again be any controversy between Ohio and Michigan on the question of boundary. If it is pronounced irrevocable, then it is not in the power of Congress to modify or touch it, and the boundary therein specified will be declared by the Supreme Court to be the true boundary. But if that act is not irrevocable, we are so affected by it that it never can be revived against Ohio. But I said the preamble to this bill asserts what is not a fact. I shall endeavor to make that position good. What is its language? "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 " Now, I take it that, in the insertion of this preamble, the Judiciary Committee meant to declare that the convention referred to was a legal convention; that it was such a convention as is contemplated in the act of Congress for the admission of Michigan into the Union; that it was a convention according to law. This is the fact asserted in the preamble, and this I controvert. The evidence is well condensed in the recital which my colleague offered as an amendment to the preamble, and we have it more at large from the President, in his official communica SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. (JANUARY, 1837. tion now on our tables. From this it appears the slightest proof of their election or qualifithat a convention, called by an act of the Leg- cation. That paper, containing the assent of islature of Michigan, did assemble, and, after Michigan in a matter so important, is not at all deliberation, did refuse to enter the Union authenticated. Where do you find the law acunder the conditions of the act of Congress, cording to which it was conducted? There is and that their dissent was forwarded to the none. It rests on nothing. There was a meetExecutive. Now, it is said by the honorable ing of certain individuals held at a place called, Senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. BUCHANAN,) I believe, Ann Arbor; and we have certain resthis convention was not held according to the olutions of theirs, which are to avail against act of Congress; that Congress directed the the doings of a convention held in pursuance people to meet; and that no reference was had of a law of the State, and all whose acts are in the act to the interposition of the Legislature fully and legally authenticated. I cannot reof Michigan; but that a subsequent convention, cognize such a paper. I must do violence to my which, it is said, afterwards assembled, alone own judgment, should I receive it. Even the satisfied the law. The question, then, is be-chairman of the Judiciary Committee could not tween the two conventions. If the first was do it. He called upon the Senators elect (and legal, the last was not. If the first was not le- whose admission here is to follow the passage gal, then we may inquire into the legality of of the bill) to say that every thing at this selfthe second. Now, let me put one question to styled convention was well and duly conductthat honorable Senator; I ask him whether, ed; and they do say so, and give the private had the first convention, instead of rejecting, letters of certain individuals to that effect. accepted the conditions contained in the act of And they give, further—and that I understand Congress, would he, in that case, have held to be the evidence principally relied on-an that assent illegal? Would he then have said article from a Detroit newspaper, stating that that it was a convention not held according to such an election was had, such convention held, the act of Congress? I would almost venture 3,000 more votes were given for the delegates to say that he would not; I rather think the to this last convention than for those who conconvention would have passed pretty well. But stituted the first convention. This, sir, is the if so, what has altered the matter? If that evidence to support an organic law of a new was a proper mode of calling a convention which State about to enter the Union! Yes, of an assented, why was it not a proper mode of call-organic law, the very highest act a community ing a convention which refused its assent? of men can perform. Letters, referring to other But after the convention assembled by the Leg-letters! and a scrap of a newspaper! islature of the State of Michigan (for our act did recognize her as a State, though I think very improperly) had dissented, no attempt whatever was made by the constituted authorities of the State to bring together another; none whatever. But an assemblage of the people, in meetings which are familiarly denominated caucuses, was held in some of the counties, and mutually agreed to call a new convention. Committees get together, and, after consultation, publish a time and place at which it is to assemble. The whole matter was utterly unauthorized, save by party organization, and was the effect of such organization. Will any man dispute it? Will any man pretend that this latter convention was the effect of a simultaneous and spontaneous impulse of the whole people of Michigan? Is there any, the least proof of such being the fact? The convention originated in county calls; and. all the counties but two joined in the plan, and held elections for delegates. What evidence is there of any regularity in these elections? Let us look at the papers. We have, to be sure, the act of the convention itself, giving the assent of the State to the act of admission, and which was transmitted to the President of the United States. And we have the certificate of General Williams, said to have been the presiding officer of the convention, and the names of the delegates. But there is not any official act or signature of any officer known to the laws either of Michigan or of the United States; not I am not satisfied that the Government of my country, or of any portion of it, should stand on such a foundation. I am not willing that an organic law of a sovereign State should be thus made and thus authenticated. But supposing that all the counties of Michigan did agree to the proposal, and did send delegates to this last convention, and we had the returns of the elections; yet who, I ask, presided at the polls? Who determined what votes should be received? How many votes was each man who favored the object permitted to give? Who voted? Was it the qualified electors, or was it all the men, women, and children, of Michigan and its vicinity? Mr. BUCHANAN said: Mr. President, judging from the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN,) this would seem to be a question big with the fate of the constitution and the country. According to him, the adoption of the preamble to the bill admitting Michigan into the Union, as it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, would entail upon us evils as numerous and as deadly as those contained in Pandora's box, whilst hope would not even remain. After depicting in melancholy colors the cruel destiny of our country, should this precedent be established, he concludes by saying, that in such an event this Government would become "one of the most odious and despotic Governments that ever existed on the face of the earth.” I presume it is attributable to my colder tem |