only declaratory of what should be thereafter done, and could have no binding force, even in the territories proper, without the subsequent action of Congress. What that subsequent action has been, your committee propose briefly to recapitulate.

By the act of Congress, of 7th May, 1800, the North-western territory, including that portion of the United States North-west of the river Ohio, was divided into two territories, one portion called the Indiana territory, included the country in question, and on the 11th January, 1805, the Indiana territory was again divided into two separate governments, one of which was called the Michigan territory; the western boundary of which was a line drawn north from the northern extremity of Lake Michigan, leaving the copper region west of this line, a part of the Indiana territory.

The act of 19th April, 1816, admitting Indiana into the Union, left this country a part of the Illinois territory, until the act of 18th April, 1818, admitting Illinois into the Union, when it became a part of the Michigan territory.

In all the legislation of Congress, from the ordinance of 1785, down to 1838, no reservation of gold, silver, or copper was made, and at the latter period, the various laws on the subject of the public lands, was compiled, and the compiler, in a note to page 13 of the compilation, says: "salt springs and lead mines are reserved by subsequent laws, (meaning subsequent to the ordinance of 1785,) but the reservation has been discontinued in respect to gold, silver and copper mines."

The ordinance of 1787, for the government of the North-west ter ritory, contained nothing effecting the present subject, and the subsequent act of 18th May, 1796, directed all mines, salt springs, salt licks and mill sites to be noted by the surveyors. The act of 3d March 1807, contains the following proviso to sec. 2:

“And provided, also, That in all cases where the tract of land applied for, includes either lead mine or salt spring, no permission to work the same shall be granted without the approbation of the President of the United States, who is hereby authorized to cause such mine or springs to be leased for a term not exceeding three years, and on such conditions as he shall think proper."

This authorizes the President to lease for three years, lead mines

or salt springs only; and by sec. 5 of the subsequent act of the same date, it is provided, "that the several lead mines in the Indiana territory, together with as many sections contiguous to each as shall be deemed necessary by the President of the United States, shall be reserved for the future disposal of the United States, and any grant which may hereafter be made for a tract of land containing a lead mine which had been discovered previous to the purchase of such tract from the United States, shall be considered fraudulent and null; and the President of the United States shall be and is hereby authorized to lease any lead mine which has been or may hereafter be discovered, in the Indiana territory, for a term not exceeding five years."

This law was applicable to the "lead mines" only of the Indiana territory, which at that time embraced the copper region of Lake Superior.

In 1821 the management of the mineral region was taken from the General Land office and placed under the control of the War Department, and under the act of third March, 1807 above referred to the present leases were granted.

The Commissioner of the General Land Office, in his report of December 8th, 1845, in speaking of the mineral lands and the policy of the government in relation thereto, says

"All lands, not thus reserved, are subject to sale and entry; and, consequently, land officers are selling mineral lands from day to day without being conscious of it. The evil, however, does not stop here. When the mineral agents discover that mineral lands have been sold, sometimes with, and sometimes without the knowledge of purchasers, they consider it their duty, in order to protect the interest of the government, to institute judicial proceedings to set aside the sales and recover back the mines. The dockets in some of the Northwestern States and Territories, are crowded at this time with suits of this character. These suits are likely to be strenuously contested; and after a lapse of years, and large outlays of public money, the United States may succeed in recovering back a quantity of land stripped of timber and exhausted of ore. The system itself is odious to the people. Its tendency is to convert the government into an immense land-lord, and the settlers into tenantry. Upwards of a million of acres, embra

cing some of the richest agricultural lands of the northwest, are reserved from sale and settlement, under the mistaken notion of preserving the mineral wealth, in which the country is supposed to abound, for the use of the government; whereas, in fact, there exists no possible process by which the exact locality of mineral can be determined by superficial indications, A million of acres, at the present minimum price, would bring $1,250,000 into the treasury, the annual interest upon which, at the rate of six per cent., would be $75,000; while it appears, by the report of the Secretary of War of the 16th of February, 1843, that the whole amount of rent lead received by the government, for the years 1841 and 1842, was only 74,924 pounds-worth about $1,600; a sum hardly sufficient to pay the annual salary of one of the superintendents. This report clearly shows that, in a financial point of view, the United States are not likely to be much benefited by the reservation of the mineral lands. The exhibits of 1843 and 1844 will make this still more evident. From a statement of the War Department, now before me, it appears that the government has expended on account of the mineral lands, including officers, agents, laborers, &c., for the years 1843 and 1844, the sum of $20,729 11; while the rent received for the same period only amounted to 242,814 pounds of lead, worth about $4,856 28 at Galena. Here is an actual loss in cash of $15,872 83, upon the mineral system, within the last two years; and to effect this extraordinary result, the settlement and prosperity of a large portion of our country are retarded, litigation promoted, and an opportunity afforded for the practice of the most enormous frauds upon the public. To enlarge upon this view of the subject, would extend it far beyond the limits of a report. I therefore respectfully, but earnestly, recommend that the mineral region be opened to public sale and private entry, and that the pre-emption principle be so extended as to embrace the diggings, discoveries, and improvements of resident miners and settlers in that region."

It would seem, therefore, by the whole tenor of the legislation of Congress relative to the public lands, that all mineral reservations, except as to lead and salt springs, have not been claimed or exercised, save as to the leases of portions of the copper regions of Lake Superior, within the territorial limits and jurisdiction of this state.

The discretionary power of the President of the United States, to be exercised relative to the public domain only relates to the quantity, time and place of exposing the same to sale, which shall be by his proclamation. No other or further power is given to the President, except those contained in the acts hereinbefore referred to.

The question, then, arises, how far are the leases in question in accordance with the policy of the federal government, its constitutional authority, and the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state of Michigan?

If, as we have seen, this policy has never been pursued by the federal government, in the cases of gold, silver and copper mines, except in the present instance, we are naturally led to the conclusion, that it is an experiment attempted to be introduced without the consent and against the interests of this state. No policy which is not settled, and bearing a uniform and equal character, can rightfully be applied to a particular state against its consent.

By article four of section four of the constitution of the United States, it is provided, that "the United States shall guarantee to eve“ry state in this Union a republican form of government.”

Under this guarantee the sovereignty and jurisdiction of every state is acknwoledged, and its right to regulate its internal affairs, not inconsistent with the powers delegated to the United States, or subversive of a "republican form of government" cannot be questioned.

Among the essential attributes of a "republican form of government," is the abolition of entailed estates and perpetual tenantries, and the right of the federal government to introduce and establish in that regard, a policy different from that adopted by the states acting within the legitimate sphere of its authority, cannot for a moment be maintained. If the right of the federal government to lease the mineral lands in this state is acknowledged, then its right to lease the wheat lands, timbered lands, and in fact all the public lands within its limits cannot be questioned, for no line of demarcation could be drawn, and a conflict of interest and jurisdiction between the federal and state governments would inevitably follow. An interest antagonist to, that of the state could be thus established, and receiving the protection of the federal government, might become of sufficient magnitude to control, if not to swallow up the state government itself;

thus virtually establishing one independent government within the limits of another.

By all fair construction of the relations between the federal government and the several states, as adopted and acquiesced in by universal consent, the sale of the vacant and unsold public lands is reserved to the general government; and the right, after sale, to tax such lands, for the support of the state government in which they lie is inseperably connected with the sovereignty and jurisdiction of such state. Is it then, in the power of Congress to change a settled and salutary feature in our government, and by the introduction of a system of leashold tenures, abrogate the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the state in that regard?

The

The committee feel warranted in saying that from the premises they have already laid down, the general proposition is deducible that the federal government has not the rigat to lease her public lands within this state without first obtaining its consent. If indeed, a doubt could remain, the provisions of section four of the act of 15th June, 1836, providing for the admission of Michigan into the Union, settles the whole question, as to the powers of both governments. said fifth section is in these words: "And be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained, or in the admission of the said state into the Union, as one of the United States of America, upon an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatever, shall be so construed or understood as to confer upon the people, legislature or other authorities of the said State of Michigan any authority or right to interfere with the sale by the United States, and under their authority, of the vacant and unsold lands within the limits of the said state; but that the subject of the public lands, and the interests which may be given to the said state therein shall be regulated by future action between Congress on the part of the United States, and the said State or the authorities thereof; and the said of Michigan shall in no case and under no pretence whatsoever impose any tax, assessment or imposition of any description upon any of the lands of the United States within its limits.”

The provisions of this section, are perhaps more liberal for the rights and interests of this state, than laws generally are for the admission of new states into the Union; for it is clear that the only right