Ohio State journal and Columbus gazette (Columbus, Ohio : 1825), 1835-06-06

              1 mUU HI mm SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE G, 1835. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY SCOTT & WRIGHT. No. 51, Vox.. XXIV Whom No. 1397. JOURNAL AND SENTINEL. T. C. GALI..OIli?lt, KDlTOlt. Ollice on High street, second door south of Armstrong's Hotel. THUMB Two Uollurs mid Fifty Cents, is wleanct, or Tlirno Dollnrl, at the end of tlio yenr. No sulisrribor Hllowed to d.s-continue while he remains indebted to tliu ollice. THIS NORTHERN BOUNDARY Ql'ESTION. LETTER ITIOM MR. VIKTOI TO Jilt. T1I-TOX. (Concluded.) That bill, so far as respects the State of Ohio, directed tlio President of tho United States to designate two or more typogrnpical engineers, whoso duty it should bo to determine, us near as possible, tho latitude 1st, of tlio southerly bend of Lake Michigan: 2d. tho point 0:1 the ta- "... nOshore of Lake brie corresponding witli the kit .... . rt T , itudo ot tlio southerly bend or extreme 01 ignite Michigan; 3d, tho southerly extreme of tho north capo of the Miami bay of Lake hnu. These provisions of tho bill nro most obviously inconsistent with the idea that the article of the constitution of Ohio, now in question, is void and nugatory; and shows, ulso, what the understanding of that committee was as to tho moaning and purposo of the resolution offered hy me. It was twice read, and committed to a Com-miltceof the Whole House on tho Stuto of the Union, and was left, at the close of the session, on the calender of bills, for the want of time to act upon it. At the next session of Congress Mr. Wright offered a resolution in tho very words of tho resolution oflcrod hy myself ut the preceding session, which was also referred to tho Committee on Territories, and un exact copy of tho bill of tho session before was again re. ported, which passed tho House on the 24th of February, A. V. 1829, (vulo House Journal, page 313, but not in time to bo finally acted aipon in the Senate. I think 1 hazard nothing in saying that Judge Wright never intended, more thun myself, to imply any doubt of tho validity of the claim of Ohio. But it is loo plain a thing to bo seriously argued, that tho resolutions and proceedings of Congress prow, ing out of them since tho admission of Ohio, cannot bo resorted to for the purposo of repel. ling tho legal inferonco of assent to the whole constitution of Olno as one cntiro instrument. Admissions affecting tho rights of tho State, if uiado at all, must bo made by tlio Legislature of tho State, and not by its Representatives in Congress, who havo no power to muko them. Having now examined all the arguments re. lied upon by Michigan to rebut the logul infer enco of nssent by Congress to tho proviso in question deduced From the legislation ami pro. cecdings of Congress both contemporaneous and subsequent to the admission of Ohio, it may not bo presumptuous to sny, that a firm conviction is felt that it hns not been weakened, much less repelled, by any thing urged against it. Before dismissing this branch of tho sub. ject, it is deemed important to direct your atton. tionto an act of Congress, which, to receive a sensible interpretation, would seem to involve u clear admission of the prior nssent of Congress to tho proviso in question; and, consequently, greatly to fortify Ohio in her construction of the legislation of Congress when sho was received into tho Union. In July, A. D. 1832, an net was passed entitled "An actio provido for tho taking of certain observations preparatory lo the adjustment of tho northern boundary line of tho State of Ohio;" (see 10th vol. Laws U. S. 201.) That act directs tho President of tho United States to cause to bo ascertained by accurate observation, the latitudo ond longitudo of the southerly-extreme of Luke Michigan; the point on tho Miami of the lnko which is duo cast therefrom; tho latitudo and longitudo of the most northerly cape of the Miami bay; the latitude and longitude of the most southerly point in the northern boundary line of tho United States in Lake Erie; the points at which a direct lino drawn from the southorly extreme of Lnko Michigan to the most southorly point in tho northern houn. dary line ol tho Unilcd States will intersect ihe Miami river and bay; and, also, 1110 point in tho Mississippi which is duo west from the south, orn oxtremo of Lako Michigan. When tho not of 1812, directing tho east lino to bo run from the head of Lake Michigan according to tho net of 1802, was passed, tho contingency provided for in the constitution of Ohio was highly iin. probable, as has been already shown. . Con-gross, thorelbrc, naturally directed this cast line only to be run. Notwithstanding that lino, from tho manner in which it was run, could not have been mathematically correct, it nevertheless approached sufficiently near to accuracy to change the stato of probabilities; and it now became more probable than otherwiso, that tho conlin. rront boundary was the real division line. If, then, after this, Congress legislated nt all res. pecting the boundary, it would, with tho addition-al information now obtained, notico tho conlin-gont boundary, and tnko steps to ascertain it, in case it intended to recognize its validity. On tho contrary, if Congress did not intend to ro-cognize its validity, then it would bo absurd, and worse than useless, to legislate respecting it, as such legislation could only bo calculated to mis. lead and nroduco fulso impressions, besides in- volving on unnecessary expenditure 01 time ana money in ascertaining a fact wholly unimpor-tnnt us tho contingent line would bo on that hy. .potliesis. On tho lutlor supposition, Congress would most obviously causo tlio lino to bo nc-curatoly run out nccording to tlio net of 1802, nnd pay no regard whatever to tho contingent line. Tho act, then, of 1832, in directing the latitudo and longitudo of the io.?i uorlhcrly cape of tho Miami bay to be ascertained, is consistent with no othor intorprotution than that Congress recognizes it ns the boundary in enso nn east lino from Lako Michigan shall puss south of it; and. consequently, greatly strengthens tho legal inforenco of the assent of Congress to it at the timoof tho admission of Ohio into tho Union, llnvinir now disposed oftho question of the 11s sent of Congross to tho boundary of Ohio, 1 beg leave to cull your nttontion to another argument which it was supposed had long since been put at rest by tho legislation of Congress, and would not now bo noticed had it not found u place in an official paper of 1I10 lato hxccutivo ol Michigan nnd is now broucht forwnrd again by tho Del irmto from that Territory with renewed confi dence. It is insisted that, by tho ordinance of 17H7. for tho Government ol tho territory northwest of tho Ohio river, Congress is deprived -V nf ilm nnwer of oxtcntliiiL' tho Mates ol Illinois, f r . .... . ... r .1 -.1 - In.lir.nn. nnrf I 110. or CI ICr 01 UICIll, uuuvu nil- east and west lino through tho southern extreme of Lako Michigan. This proposition, if well founded, will up-turn some of the most important legislation of Congress for the Inst thirty years, and ossentiully change the face of things in the western country, by extending Michigan on the enst to tho l'enn-sylvnnia line, und cutting off on tho west the laircst portion ol Indiana and Illinois. Who. ever maintains a proposition fraught with such consequences should bo required to sustain it bv irrofragablo argument. Tho filth of tho articles of compact in that ordinance marks out tho cntiro country ubovo the Ohio into three grand divisions or States, whoso oust, south, and west boundary lines aro fixed, and constitute tho present boundaries on those sides of theStutes of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Tho north boundury of each of these divisions or States is tho territorial line between tho United States und Canada, running up tho grcnt chain of lakes from Lake Erie, at the Pennsylvania lino, to tho Lake of tho Woods, ut Ihe source of the Mississippi. Having mado this partition of the entire country into three States, then follows a proviso in these words, viz. "Pro. vided, however, and it is further understood and declared, that the boundaries of these ihree Stutes shall be subject so far to bo uttered, that if Con- gross shall liurealler find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two Stales in that part of said Territory which lies north of an east and west lino drawn through the southerly bend or extremo of Lako Michigan," (see 1st vol. Laws U. S. 480.) This article was sub-jeet to the assent of Virginia to give it validity. Tho obvious intent of the proviso to the article, was to reserve lo Congress n discretionary power over all tho country north of tho aforesaid enst and west line, to dispose ol it in such muniicr as tho future condition und circumstances of the country might render expedient. Congress, in the exercise ol that discretion, might permit the country, if expedient, to remain part of the three States then marked out. It might permit a part or parts of it to remain with tho adjacent States below, and form of the residue one or more States. It might niako one State, which should embrace tho whole or a part only. In tho sumo manner, it might mnkc two States in that part of the Territory, the form and extent of which would he such us Congress might think expedient. It is, however, maintained by Michigan that this east and west lino is a lino of fixed boundary for tho Stale or States above it, in case one or more Stutes bo formed there. If that position ho correct, it nuts an end to the ques tion, ami, as a matter of course, cuts down the Stutes of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to that line in case Congress shall deem It expepiont, at any time hcreul'tor, to form u Sluto or Stutes uhove it. It is held, on tho other hand, that the ordi nance does not make that lino a line of fixed boundary; but refers to it us a lino descriptive of the part of the then Territory over which this discre tionary power was reserved to Congress, und us a lino marking out Ihe limits cf that discretion. This interpretation is sustained by tho terms cf tlic proviso, hy the then siatoot knowledge oj the country, and by the uniform understanding of Congress, as evinced by repeated uets of subse- qiicut legislation. 1 lie terms of tho proviso im- ply discretion: tho lungiiuge employed is, that. if expedient, Congress si. all havo authority to lormoneor twoblates "(iithut part of said Territory." Tho word in used in Ihis context implies discretion over the limits and form of tho Stato or States to bo made. If tho phrase had been, ".shull have uulhniity to form ono or two States of that part of said Territory," tho word of, in the same context, would have been n de nial ol all discretion over tho limits ol the State or States to bo formed. In thn latter case, the State or States must havo embraced the whole country to sutisfy the terms used. Tho latter, also, is tho word that would naturally and obviously havo been used if thero had been a def. inite intention of limiting and restraining the discretion of Congress. Sucli n restriction, if in- tended, was a matter of great moment, having nn important bearing upon the ordinance, and rndically changing its ctlect. I he mind, there- fore, of the distinguished individual who con ceived and penned the law would have had its attention fixed upon it as a prominent idea, and used terms of limitation free from all ntubignity. It should bo recollected that the ordinance of 1787 is no loose and undigested cfllirt of Intel-lect: that it stands out prominent and alone, the proudest monument of the wisdom and sagncity of Congress which tlio statuto book exhibits from the closo of the revolution down to the present day. That such a restriction wns intended on tho power of Congress in tho partition of that part ol the country into Mutes, is also rendered im probable by tho then stato of knowledge of that district ol it. When the ordinance of 1787 was passed, the country along the whole course of the Ohio was known. On tho Kentucky side of the river, settlements had been formed many years before; numerous war parties had penu-tinted into tho country, and only n few years before General George Rogers Clark, with his army, hud marched through tho whole interior us far us tho Mississippi river, reducing the posts of Si. Vincents, on tho Wabash, and Kits- kuskia, on tho Mississippi. Sonic settlements also were mado, and others forming, beyond the Ohio, nnd tho country was then attracting to il adventurers and enterprising associations, nnd especially tho Ohio compuny, nnd John Clevo Symmcs and Ins associates. It must, therelore, huvo bocn well known nt that time that the mouths of tho Big Miami and Wabash rivers formed the natural points for tho partition oftho country into threo griind divisions or Stutes, based on tho Ohio river; making ono Stato be tween thoso two points, and ono on tho exterior of each of them. Hero, then, wo havo the reason why tho or dinnnco divided the country into threo States by fixed boundaries on three sides. 1 hus lar they had knowledge lo net upon. But the country nhovo tho cast nnd west linu in question, except about Detroit, wus uhnost wholly unknown, and, after tho lapso of nearly half u century, very little is still known ol a largo portion ol it And heneo Iho northern boundary ol these States wus lelt nn open, or, more properly speaking, a movable linn to ho adjusted, and the c lintry itsell disposed ol, when a moro period knowledge of it should bo obtained. As fur as thoir knowledge extended, tho conn try was marked nut hy fixed and defined limits, What lay beyond their knowledge was wisely left for Ihoso who should coino lifter them. And tlii3 course wus tho more necessary, us, whntcver was fixed by tho articles of compact in tho ordinance, was put beyond tho power of alteration by subsequent legislation of Congress. This interpretation is ulso further sustained by the unilorin understanding ol Congress, as evinced hy ils legislation. When Indiana wus formed into n Stale, her northern boundury wns fixed ten miles north of the lino in question, and Illinois was carried up much higher still. (See Oth vol. Laws U. S., 00, 292.) In both of these cases, the acts of Congress authorizing them to form a constitution, and do-fining their boundaries, as well as tho subse-qucnt resolutions of admission into tho Union, refer expressly to tho articles of compact in the ordinance of 1787, and tho resolutions declare that theso constitutions (having these boundaries,) aro in conformity to those articles, (see Oth vol. Laws U. S., 218, 412.) To do away tho effect of these acts of Con-gross on this question, much importunco has been attached by tho Delegate from Michigan lo some verbal declaration .said to havo been made at somo time by the individual who was the delegate from Illinois at the time of the passing ol tho act authorizing that State to form a constitution and State Government, that he had no expectation that Congress would have extended thn boundary of that Stnte above the hue in question, und that, through tho heedlessness or inattention of Congress, to tho provi-sions of the ordinance, lie obtained for his State territory which, by the ordinance, sho hud no right to possess. The absurdity of listening to tlio declarations of any individual who lindjno. vote ns to the part he took in making laws of the highest and most solemn import, such ns the creation of mdepen- dent communities, for tho purposo of upturning or expounding thoso Inws on such authority, is thought to bo too glaring to require comment, The subject therefore will be dismiss-id by re marking, that it is somewhat extraordinary that mo Delegate irom Illinois should have entertain ed tho opinion imputed to him, sinco Congress had then very recently done the samo thins on the admission of Indiana. Anefl'ort has ulso been mado by the Delegate from Michigan to fortify his interpretation of the ordinnnce of 1787, by a reference to a proposition made to Congress by Mr. Grayson on tho 7th of July, 176(1. (Journal of Old Con- gross, 2d vol., 1110.) Congross, nt that time, had under consideration the subject of the division of tho Northwestern Territory into States, for the purposo of recommending to Virginia to release Congress from tho stipulation contained in her act of cession to tho United Suites, requiring that tho Territory should be divided into States of one hundred and fifty miles square each. In lieu thereof. Mr. Gray- son's resolution proposed to divide tho country I? . . C, . . . I- .1 , . . . . into nvcoinics, ueuning uie boundaries by lixed limits, three ol which were to bo formed south of un cast and west lino through tho southern extreme of Lako Michigan, and two above it. making it a line of boundary or base line of the two upper States. Unfortunately for tho in. ferenceof tlio Delegate from Michigan, that the fifth article of tho ordinance of 1787 was based on this proposition, nnJ, of course, to bo ex- phii.ned by relerencc to it, two obstacles arc in iho way: 1st. That tho divisions of the conn-try proposed by Air. Grayson, nnd thoso con-tniiied in tlio ordinance, aro not (ho same. 2d. That tho proposition of Mr. Grayson wns re-jected by Congress. (See Journal of Old Con. gross, 2d vol., Ml.) In lieu thereof, a recommendatory resolution. addressed to Virginia, wus passed on tho same day, in the following words, viz. "Resolved thut it be, nnd it hereby is, recommended to the Legislature of Virginiu to take into considcra tion their net of cession, nnd rcviso tho same, so lar ns to empower tho United States in Con gross assembled to make such a division of the Territory of tho United Stales lying northerly and westerly ol the river Ulno, into distinct ro publican States, not more than live nor less than three, as Ihe silual on of that cunln, and fu ture circumstances, tuny require; which Slates shall horeallcr become members of tho Federal Union, und havo tho sumo rights of sovereignty, irocdoin, and independence, ns Iho original Slates, in conlornnty with the resolutions ol Congress ol tho 10th of October, 1780." (See Journal old Cong. 2d vol.. 110.) That resolution was prefaced by n preamble staling Iho reasons lor its adoption, ono ol which will 8ullicieutly explain why Air. Gray sou's motion was lost. It is, that a more per feet knowledgo of tho country wus necessary to fix "tho limits and dimensions of tho new Slates." Tho resolution ns adopted was the bu. sis of iho rith article in the ordinance, with this modification only, that tho boundaries of the States on the Ohio was fixed, ns has been already explained, as far ns they had sufficient information to act upon, mid as to the rest of the country, (being more than half of ii,) in pur. sunnco of Iho resolution of 1780, they left the division of it to be made when it should be better known. When the ordinanco was passed, no additional information of tho upper part nf tho J erntory could have been obtained since thn adoption of tho resolution of 1780. It wns still in tho exclusive possession of tho British and Indians. Iho next year alter the ordi nance, nnd while tho situation of tho country remained uio samo, Virginia passed a law as senting to tho proposed ultorution of her act of cession, which is prefaced by a proninblo reel- ting tho resolution ol 1780, and tho oth article of compact in the ordinance of 1787, as tho mo. tivo for its enactment, (seo vol. I, Laws U. is., 4S1.) So that tho resolution of 1786, so far from giving uny counlenanco to the interpreta. lion uttemptcd to bo put on so much of tlio or, dinancc of 1787 as relates to the division of the part of tho Territory now in question, furnishes a key to tho construction smco given by i. gross to that ordinance in forming tho boundary ol Indiana and Illinois. And Ihis brings us lo tlio proper p'neo to no tico an argument upon which much stress is laid by Governor Cass in the mcssngo from which an extract has been already taken, and now urged ogam by the Delegate from the I erntory. I ho aigtimeiil is, that the act ol 180o establish ing a temporary Government in tho Territory ol Michigan, corners upon that district ol conn try an absolute, vested, and unulterable right to como into the Union, with the limits there given to tho Territory, when it shall contain sixty thousand inhabitants. That uct creates a government over ull the country lying north of an east nnd west lino through tho southern ex. trcmo of Luko Michigan, and etiif of a lino drawn from that point north through the middle of that lake to its northern extremity, und thenco north to tho territorial lino in Lako Superior. The lnw is wholly silent on the subject of form-ing a Stato Government of that country; but tho 2d section of tho act declares thnt the government by that act established, shall bo a govern, ment within that Territory in nil respects sim. ilar to that provided by tho ordinance of 1787, nnd the act of 1789 for tho government of the Territory Northwest of tho Ohio river, r.nd that "tho inhabitants thereof shall bo entitled to, and enjoy, ull and singular the rights, privileges, and advantages, granted and secured to the people of tho Territory of tho United States Northwest of the Ohio river by the said ordinance." (3d vol. Laws U. S:, 032.) It is hy virtue of these expressions that a right is claimed for Michigan to como into tho Union with theso limits, when sho shall have sixty thousand inhabitants, and to reduce the Slates of Ohio und Indiana down lo this east and west line, the laws of Congross to the contrary notwithstanding; since tho right of Congress to form one or two States in the country ubovo that line is one of the rights so- cured by the 5th nrticle of compact in that or-dinanco. This nrgurncnt is open to severalanswers. 1. That if tlio exposition given above be tlio true intorpctration uf that urtiolo, viz. thalil reserved to Congress a discretionary power over (bo future division of that part of the Northwest Territory, then tho rights secured lo tho people of .Michigan by the act of 180", nro subject to that discretion, thero is nothing in tlio act to countenance tho idea that (Jon-gross intended to divest itself of tlio powcrrcscr. ved to it by the ordinance. 2. The act was not passed till some years after tho admission of Ohio into the Union, and could not therefore affect the prior rested rights ot tlio Stato otOhio. 'S. Tho act of 18H.) is not a compact, but an ordinary act of legislation, and as such, the power that made it may repeal, alter, or modify it at pleasure, and, consequently, may annihilate or change the boundaries of it at will. 4. The argument proves too much for the purposes of .Michigan. In May, 100, Congress established Iho Territorial Government of Indiana, embracing within its limits the country lying wi t of a line running fruin tho mouth ol tlio Kentucky river to l'ort Recovery, and thence north to the boundary lino of Ihe United Stales. Ibis north line would pass up through tlio peninsula of .Michigan, nnd embraces ahoiil half of the country include I within that ler ntory under Iho act of lbO.i. the second section of the act of 1800 gives to the inhabitants of Indiana Territory the samo rights that ore granted and secured lo Ihoso of Michigan in the second section of tho net of 180"i to establish that Territory. Tho second section of the .Michigan act is copied literally from tho second section of tho Indiana act. Consequently, if there be any thing in the argument, Indiana has the prior right over .Michigan, nnd tho encroachment is on her rights by Michigan, nnd tho samo argument which, if cood, would enable .Michigan ivhcn sho comes into the Union lo cut down Indiana, will now justfy that Stato in taking possesion of, and extending bor laws over, all that part ol .Michigan which lies nest of a north line from l'ort Recovery. Hut it is appnrcnttbal tho provision nbovo mentioned, in neither of Ihoso acts was intended lo be regulation of boundary. It is not tho subject about which the law isspeaking in tho Beelions where it is introduced. The rights intended to be granted and secured were, evidontly, rights of property, personal liberty, and Ihoso politi cal and municipal rights nnd privileges whioli bolong to tho form of government that Congress was then employed lu creating. It is believed that what has now boen said has firmly established Iwo propositions, viz. 1st. That Congress has assented to the boundary of Ohio as defined by ilt constitution. 2d. that that boundary docs not violate the ordinanco of 1767. And ifso, they imposo on Congress a duly of clear moral obligation, ivbilo it yet has tho power lo do so, to close tho door upon future controversy and litigation. If, huivover, it should bo thought that tho contingent altera tion proposed in Ihe constitution of Ohio has not been assented lo, nnd is still an open and pond ing proposition, then tho Slato of Ohio claims tho action ol Congress upon it as such. She has a right, in this aspect of the question, to ask that that shall now bo done which, with the luels now disclosed, if then known, would havo been duno when Ohio was admitted into the Union. It throws us hack again upon tho grcnt question of a just, equilalilc, nnd expedient partition of tho country into Slates. In doing this, wo cannot resort to bettor guides than the principles laid down hy tho sagacious states men who passed tho resolution of 1780. In Iho preamble of that resolution, they say, that "in fixing tho limits and boundaries of new tMntcs, duo attention might lu he paid to natural hniindarics, and a varioty of circiimtlan- tg which will bo pointed out hit u more prrtcrt knowledge of the country, so as lo provido lor the futnro growth and prosperity of each Slate. Adoptiug thoso principles lor our giiulo, we inquire, what has "a moro perfect knowledge of Iho country" disclosed! It has disclosod the important fact that an cast lino drawn from the southern extremo of Lako Michigan cuts off the mouth of the largest river of Ulno descending tutu Lako Crio a river said to bo the l.irgosl of any of Iho numerous tributaries, of the great chaiu of I. alios, having its sourco in Ilia very heart of the Mato, and draining within its lim its more than five thousand snuaro miles nf conn try of uncommon fertility, no part of whose course is iu tho Territory of .Michigan. Docs not a duo attention lo natural boundaries, and just regard "for tho ftiluro growth and pros pcrily of oach htalo, forbid Uusl lf" due attention ought to be paid" to "oiVciinulaiicf j," thoso ol a weighty moment exist boro, both natural and artificial. By means of tho efforts now making in Ohio to improve tho Country, an increased importance lias been given lo Ihis outlet. That State is embarked in nn under taking to unite tho Ohio and Lnko Brio by a canal navigation through tho valleys of the .Miami river ot Ilia Ulno and the Miami river nl tho Lnko. About seventy miles of this work up Iho valley of thn Miami of tho Ohio is already completed; a alill further portion is under con tract, and near a million of dollars has been expended upon it in all. In a community depend ant wholly upon its industry and cnlorpriso for ils resources, there are obslaclos enough to bo oucouiitorod and uvorcoino in the provocation of such a work, without adding lo them tho dis couragement of cutting off Us outlet hist at its termination ; thus, at tho expense of Ohio. giving to Michigan an adventitious and uronson able advantage of no positive value to her be yond what the may obtain by vexatious and op prcssivo exactions and restraints on the coin uicrcc of her neighbor. Ohio must of necessity defray the cost uf this work, but it cannot escape observation that sho has scarcely a deeper interest in ils completion than Iho State of New York, and tho Slates south of Ohio on the Ohio and .Mississippi rivers. Hero, then, is presented a strong case for tho application of (he direction given in tho resolution of 1780 to lay out the Territory into Slates, "as the iilitulion of that country and future circumstances, may require," It may be well horo to inquire il thero is any thing in the relat ive natural advantages and Inttiro prospects of Ohio and .Michigan which require that Ohio should ho placed on the hillside, and .Michigan in tho valley! Upon this inquiry il may bo remarked that, of the sixteen States and Territories lying south of tho l'otomac and beyond tho Ohio, two only have a territory ns small as the stato of Ohio, and thai, in respect to tho country now inclu ded in tho Territory of .Michigan, the great difficulty will ha not in dividing it into two States which shall be large enough, but into two small enough, having a duo regard lo the relative ex- tont of tho other Htatcs m the Union. Vir- giania, with the largest territorial limits of any male in the Union, has only sixty four thou sand snuaro miles, while tho territory of .Mi chigan is computed to havo our hundred and seventy-seven thousand, and exceeding hy more than lorty -h v e thousand miles the onliro territory of tho States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, Should iMichlgan bo funned into a State, will the limits of tho bill of tho last session proposing her admission into tho Union, sho will possess near twice the territory of Ohio, with more navigable exterior than is to ha found upon any other spot of tho same dimensions within the domains of tho United Slates. Neither the situation of the country, nor the necessities of Michigan, would socin, therefore, lo require that Ohio should be deprived of tho outlet lo one of her largest nnd most important rivers. It may be proper here to remark again, that a reference lo the maps of the day will show il was the intention of Congress lo give to Ohio the whole of the upper part of Lako Uric, it being the only navigable border that stalo has on ils nrolhern limits; whereas, if the claim of Ohio be admitted according to her constitution, Michigan will still, besides having nearly all Lako Michigan, a part of Lake Superior, all of Lake Huron nnd Lako St. Clair, possess a lake border also on Lake Erio of somefivc-and-twenty miles, with a bay at the mouth of the river ftaisin, upon tho improvement of which Congress has already bestowed its allcnlion and liberality. The river Raisin itself, through nearly ils whole course, was supposed, when Ohio came into Hie Union, lo bo within Iho limits of her territory, nnd is laid down as a river of the State on tho maps down to tho year A. 1). 1818. It is lost lo Iho State, not by any ignorance of ils locality at the timo of its admis sion, hut from an ignoranco of Iho locality of Lake .Michigan. 1 Ins is a fact entitled to great weight in tho question considered on equitable principles. Iho Convention of Ohio acted Irum a cautious prudence to guard itsell against tho consequences of mistake ns to the actual position of Lako .Michigan, lint il did not seek to profit by any discovery of mistake, and, in the spirit of aggrandizement, ask for more territory than it was entitled to, under the pretence of securing itsell against accident and loss. Nor did it, ns very properly nnd equitably it might have been duno, require that, in case ot mistake, sho should be secured in all it was intended to grant to the State; but, receding some thirty miles below her sup posed boundary, required thai it should in no contingency, bo deprived of Iho inoulh of the importuul river which thero discharged itsell into tho lnko; llicroby showing Iho very great consequence which that body attached to lhat outlet. If tho Convention had not provided against this contingency, the Stato would, with out question, havo had a fair claim ill equity lo all the country men intended to be embraced within Us limits, instead of a lithe only, now claimed by virtue of the act of that body. And on tho tliscorory of the mistake, Congress could not in equity havo denied to Ohio what wns so lost. It is what any chancellor would decree in a case between individuals. Suppose an individual should attempt to convey an estate, the localities uf which were well known lo him and lo tho grantee, and with n map or survey of the estate and tho country around il in his hand, which bulb parlies believed to be correct, instead of metes and bounds by fami liar objects un the ground, ho should convey, by descrinlivo calls, that is lo say, by refer ence lo sumo distant object laid down on the survey, and it should afterwards bo discovered (hat tho locality ot the object rclorrcd to, was wholly mistaken un Iho map or survey; bt rensuii uf w hich, parts of the estate well known to both parties, and intended lo ho conveyed, were not embraced: would a chancellor bcsi- tato a moment tu correct this mistake, and dc crco n specific execution! And is not this the very case ol the rjtate nl Olno! As lias bcon already said, Iho country along Lako Lric, and in Ihe nurth part ot tho Male, w as then as well lu. oh n as il is at this day; ils localities wore familiar; bul by rol'crcneo to a distant descrip tive object, (viz. I. nko Michigan,) Iho localil) of which was supposed to be known, a mistake has happened hy which a part ol Iho country intended to have bocn included was not embraced. Thn claim of Ohio, from what has been said, it will he perceived rests upon three dis tinct grounds, and If cilhor nl them bo sustainable, sho will bo onlillod to ask ils sanction by Congress. They nro: 1st, 1 hat the constitutional boundary nl the Stale lias received tho nssent of Congress. Sd. That it is sustained by considerations of expediency lid, l)y tho principles of equity as adminis tered bclwoen individuals lloforo taking lcavo of this subject, il may not bo improper to make a remark upon one tupic, which does nut perhaps belong, in strictness lo cither of tho heads uf the foregoing argument, but which nevorlhelcss, goes tu show iho necessity of soma legislation, nt least to define more accurately Iho northern boundary ut Ohio. It is now ascertained that Hie line prescribed by tho act of 1802 is an .impossible boundary. Hint act bounds the alato on Iho north by an cast line drawn thruugh the Southern extreme of Lako .Michigan to its intersec tion with the territorial line, and thence ou the territorial lino to tho I'onnsi Ivauia line. Tho observations requ'red to be taken hy tho act of 18:V2 havo bcon only partially made, but enough has been dono In discloso Iho fact that the cast line drawn Train Lake Michigan will pass altogether south of the territorial line without intersection at any point, the south' era extreme of Lako .Micaigan and Iho territo rial lino aro the two points vailed lor. 1 he latitude of one is higher than that of the other, nnd llioy are required to be unilcd by an impossible line, viz. a duo cast line. It it therefore an open and nnsoltled boundary. Ono of two give way; that is lo say: ihcVnc must be deflected from a due cast line, and a direct lino run between Iho objects whatever may be its course. uonco the argument made for .Michigan, that nothing but au casl lino can bo the true buun- dary under (ho act of lbll'J, is clearly crronous; anu nonce, also, iho lino run in A. I). 1818, ifac-curately run out according lo the act of 1812, is not tho lino north boundary of tho State, an cast line being rccmiicd by lhat act to bo run. l'"or tiro reason here assigned, and others that might ho presented, the Legislature and people of Ohio aro impressed with a sincere ami imiuiilahlo conviction lhat Iho territory embraced within tlio limits of their constitution belongs to them in law, iu cijuity,and hy Ihe wi ll understood intentions nf the parties at the formation of (heir (fovernmont. They have, nevertheless, reposed the fullest reliance on the justice uf Congress; and have therefore, hitherto abstained from any decisive measures to obtain redress for tho unauthorized encroachment of tho Executive of .Michigan upon tho rightful soil and jurisdiction of the State. They still look to Congress as tho proper tribunal to settle this controversy, from a view of till ils cir-cumslancis; and cannot hut feci lhat, all Ihoso circumstances considered, it would bo an act of injustice to Ohio for it lo omit to dispose of this subject till afler the admission of Michigan into the Union; and by thus changing the par ties to tno question, ami converting it liom a legislative into a judicial question, lo iuvolvo the Stale nf Ohio, lo Iho serious embarrassment of its domestic policy, in a protracted nnd vexatious course of litigation which, it must bo apparent lo all, would grow up between tho Iwo communities, lu conclusion, I beg lcavo to say, iu behalf of the Representatives in Congress from tho Stale of Ohio, that, from respect for the vcncrahlo convention of men who gavo to Ohio her present constitution, lo Iho repeated and urgent remonstrances of tho Legislature of Iho state, from a just regard to Iho known sulicilode uf the people of Ohio on this important subject, nnd from thoir own firm convictions of tho jnstico of tho cause, they foci themselves imperiously called upon zealously to urge Congress lo bring this question, already too long delayed, lo an immediate and final ad justment. I am, sir, with sentiments of profound respect, your vorv obedient servant, SA.ML. T. VINTON. Wasiiinotjs City, January, 18JJ4. Hun. .John .V. Clayton, Chairman of the Judiciary Coinm'.t'ce if the Senate of the United States. Silt: 1 am informed that tho Judical y Committee oftho Senato havo under Ihoir consideration thnt part of tho northern boundary of Ohio which separates that Stale from tho Territory of .Michigan; and lhat the letters addressed on that subject at the present session nf Congress to the lion. Lewis Williams, chairman uf the Committee ou Tcrrilorcs in tho llouso of Representatives, by .Mr. Lyon, the dclcgalo from .Michigan, un behalf of that Territory, and by myself, on behalf of Ihe delegation in Congress from tho stato of Ohio, have been laid beforo your cominitlco by .Mr. Living of the Senate, for your persual. On reading the letter uf .Mr. Lyon, since it lias appeared in print. I porceivo he lays grcnt stress, and indeed bases his argument, upon Ihe ground that Ihe question iu controversy is a judicial question, over which Congress has no power, and that Iho parties lo it aro not, as described by me, tho L viljd SI lies and the Slate " oj Oliiv; but Iho t erritory uj .Michigan and the Stale of Ohio. If these positions aro Iruo, they closo llio controversy so far ns Congress is concerned, and further invcsligal ion of the caso by your committeo would bo both useless and unnecessary. When I w rote the abovo mentioned letler to Mr. Williams, I knew this idea bad been advanced; but I did not think il could or wuuhl ho seriously pressed and rvlied upon. 1 therefore contented myself with simply staling that tho real parlies lo Ihe controversy aro tho l ulled Stales and the Stato of Ohio, and that if settled before Iho admission of Alicbigan into the Union, they must adjust it. Tho importance attached lo thrso propositions hy Iho dclegato from .Michigan, and tho confident reliance he has ill their correctness, seems to imposo tu ma Iho necessity of giving them n distinct con- sidcintiou. I will first examine Iho proposition that it is a judicial qitcsliir.r, lu bo settled ill a courlof law, and over w hich Congress has no power. Il cannot be controverted, that Ihe division of the northwestern country into Stales, is in ils very nature a subject of legislation, nnd not of adjudication, inasmuch as such a division implies discretion und a pow er ol creation instead of the mere power ol expounding and declaring what has been created, which is (be sole attribute of adjudication. The ordinance of 187 is iiiiquesl ionahly an act of legislation, nnd to far ns its provisions aro final and complete, il is, liho all other laws, Ihe proper subject of judicial inlcrrctnliuii. So l'.,r as it contemplates In r t l,c r and future legislation to execute ils purposts, il is not tho subject ofjudicial interpretation, but of legislative discretion. The hllli article ol tiic ordinance divides Iho entire northwestern country into three States by fixed boundaries, subject lo a qu alilicat ion, viz: "that Ihe boundaries of lln.-o threo -Slates shall lul subject to bo ro fir altered, that if Congress shall hirer.ficr find it cindii'iit, they shall havo authority to form one or two Siies in lhat part of said territory which lies north of'aii east and wti.t lino through the southerly bend, or extremo of l.ako .Michigan," A.c. (1 vol. Laws U. H 4-0.) V, l.ctbci any Slato shall bo formed north of H at line, and if any, whether two or olio only shall bn created, and if two, how they ihall bo divided nnd bounded, nro clearly mailers of legislative discretion, and not of legal adjudication, I hn position then, that the question is judicial and not legislative, if it havo any foundation, must rest on somo act subsequent lu Iho orlinaiice, It is contonded for Al ichigan, that the subsequent ret of IfiOo, lo establish a temporary government in .Michi gan, has exhausted li e discretion of Congress, ami conlcrrcd on that 1 erntory a right to lorni a Slato Government whenever it shall contain sixty thousand inhabitants, which right it to bn enforced hy judicial determination. And it is further asserted, that Congress have, by numerous acts prior to the present lime, declared, in effect, ihoir determination, eventually, to form moro than three Sulci in tho -Northwctlern-Territory, and thai no matter when or where litis decision of Congress win first made, tho Territory had, hy virtue ol the ordinanco, ami of such delcrminntion, a right to como into tbo Union whenever il shall contain sixty thousand inhabitants. (Seo .Mr. I. yen's loiter, pages 7 and .) Neither tho fact hero assumed, nor I La conclusion from il, if il bo true, is admitted lo be correct. It cannot he pretended that Congress l as ever tspvcsdu declared its determination things only (considered bs a boundary) can ro-, to form more than three Statu in that country: liovo it of tbit difficulty. The objects called that it will form five may he, and undoubtdly for mutt yield to tho course, or tho course is, the public expectation; but that expacti-called for must give way lo the objects. Upon tion is founded upon tbo known extent, poti-wcll settled principles of law, the course must ! (ion, rcsotircea, and dcvclopmnciils cf tho coun-