OHIO AND MICHIGAN.

THE Controversy which has for some years existed between the State of Ohio and the Territory of Michigan, relative to the boundary betwixt them, has of late assumed a far more serious aspect than we presume had ever been anticipated by the national government, or by the parties more immediately interested.

Some time during the early part of the past summer, the legislature of Ohio passed, with surprising unanimity, a law, appropriating three hundred thousand dollars, to be employed, discretionately by her executive, in establishing and maintaining her jurisdiction over the tract of land in dispute. In the passage of this act, the legislature had manifestly in view, not the civil, but the military power of the State; it not being usual, we believe, to place so large a sum of money at the disposal of a single officer for judicial purposes merely.

This enactment, thus placing Ohio in a menacing attitude towards Michigan, seemed very naturally to call upon the latter to put forth whatever strength and ingenuity she possessed, in her own defence. She accordingly responded to the belligerent legislation of her powerful neighbor, by passing, at a special session of her council, convoked for the occasion, a law authorizing her executive to contract a loan of three hundred and fifteen thousand dollars, and to employ the money in maintaining, as circumstances might require, the integrity of her territorial limits.

Both these acts, it is apprehended, are anomalies in State legislation. They are certainly without precedent in the history of our country, if we except certain enactments of New-York, while a colony, for enforcing her claims to what was afterwards a portion of the State of Vermont, and the countervailing acts of the latter, with reference to the same subject. Without doubt, Ohio has made a laudable show of her power and importance, in voting the appropriation, and is fully able to raise the money; but Michigan has, one would think, considering her inferiority in wealth and numbers, fairly outdone her antagonist, in spirited legislation; and, in addition to her signal patriotism, furnished proof to the world that she possesses resources whose developement may hereafter render her a match for Ohio, even in the field - should fields, unfortunately, ever become objects of competition between

them.

The passage of the law of Ohio was soon after followed by a proclamation of Governor Lucas, the executive of the State, plainly indicating his determination to carry its object into effect, and calling upon the commandants of the several divisions of militia throughout the State to report to him forthwith the number

of volunteers and mounted riflemen which could be supplied from their several corps.

6

But, in order to form an accurate idea of the grounds of this unhappy controversy, the reader will please accompany us back a few years, and take a brief view of the rights of the respective parties, as defined by the ordinance of 1787, for the government of the territory north-west of the river Ohio.' This is the celebrated ordinance which was drawn up by Nathan Dane, of Beverly, Massachusetts,' as chairman of the committee, and which, in the eloquent language of Mr. Webster, stamped upon the soil itself, while yet a wilderness, an incapacity to bear up any other than freemen.' If the reader will turn to it, he will discover that it contains six articles, which are therein described to be articles of COMPACT between the original States and the people and States in said territory, forever to remain unalterable, unless by common consent.' En passant — what is the common consent which alone is capable of altering, not this only, but any compact? The answer is plain. It must be consent of all the parties to that compact. The consent to alter must be common' to those whose consent has created. The rule is plain. It is universal. The will or consent of a third person is excluded in every possible instance. Who, then, are the parties to this compact? The instrument itself answers the question: the original States and the people and States in said territory.' The territory spoken of, comprises that portion of the United States bounded on the north by the line dividing the United States from the British provinces; east, by the same line passing through the middle of lake Huron and through lake Erie, till it reaches the north-eastern extremity of Pennsylvania; thence, in a line directly south, until it intersects the river Ohio; south, by the same river to its mouth; and west, by the Mississippi to its head-waters, in the then unexplored regions of the north. Such is the territory-the community, which constitutes one party to the indenture. The original States constitute the other.

The inference intended to be drawn is, that Congress, not being a party to this compact, cannot annul or modify it in any of its provisions; that the rights it creates are vested rights, and as such, cannot be made subjects of legislation.

By the fifth article of this compact, it is stipulated that, should Congress thereafter find it expedient, they should have authority to form one or two States in that part of said territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of lake Michigan.' [See ordinance.]

In 1802, Congress, by act of legislation, enabled the people of the eastern division' of the north-western territory, to form for themselves a constitution, and provided for the admission of

that division under the name of Ohio, as one of the States of the Union.

It ought to be borne in mind what was the precise northern boundary of this eastern division,' for it is this tract of country which is denominated the State of Ohio,' in the act of Congress admitting her into the Union. [Act of Congress, Feb. 19, 1803.] This boundary is defined as an east and west line drawn through the southerly extremity of lake Michigan, running east after intersecting a due north line from the mouth of the Great Miami, until it shall intersect lake Erie.' It is then exactly coincident with the east and west line mentioned in the ordinance of 1787. No act or resolution of Congress can be found which purports to change the position of this boundary a single second of latitude; and yet, that State lays claim to a tract of land lying north of, but bordering on it, and extending from Indiana to lake Erie.

6

But, how is this claim set up? The constitution of Ohio is burdened with a provision, by which it is fully understood and declared,' that if the southern bend or extreme of lake Michigan should extend so far south that a line drawn due east from it should not intersect lake Erie; or, if it should intersect it east of the mouth of the Miami of the lake, (at present, the Maumee) then, and in that case, with the assent of Congress, the northern boundary of this State' should include the tract now in dispute.

This proposition of Ohio, to alter the northern boundary of the State, was not discussed in the House of Representatives, nor any opinion expressed concerning it; but, in the Senate, it was openly rejected. The latter body expunged it from a bill to divide Indiana into two separate governments. The State was, however, admitted a member of the Union, with the above provision in her fundamental law - that is, the eastern division' was so admitted.

In 1805, Congress, for the purposes of temporary government, created the peninsular part of Michigan into a separate territory, and, in the delineation of her boundary, conferred to her the right vested in the State or States to be formed in the northern part of the territory ceded by Virginia, of resting at the south on a line running due east from the southern extremity of lake Michigan. Subsequently to the last mentioned act, Ohio made several fruitless attempts to obtain from Congress an acceptance of her proposition; conceiving, it is to be presumed, that it was competent for that body to confirm her claim by an act of direct legislation. But, meeting with an unconquerable repugnance on the part of that body to unsettle the ancient boundary; and discovering, farthermore, that if, on the formation of a State in the peninsular, a particular line must, by compact, forever remain as its southern limit, the same line must constitute the northern boun

dary of Ohio, as long as the former shall remain a State;' the legislature of Ohio at length resolved that their own constitution was a sufficient warrant to justify them in taking possession of the disputed territory, and that any further forbearance would ill become a million of freemen.' They farther settled, by resolution, that Michigan had neither the 'right' nor the 'power' to disturb the State of Ohio in the enjoyment of the thing in dispute, and that the same was completely within her control.' This, to say the least, was a very off-hand manner of making a conquest, and not a little mortifying to the opposite party, to whom there seemed to be nothing left but to consider herself already in the clutches. of her adversary; whereas, she had quietly enjoyed the disputed ground for the last thirty years, and was still, in point of fact, the occupier of the soil.

These proceedings were not, however, accompanied by any act of contemporaneous legislation; and although too highly savoring of the arrogance of a stronger party, could not operatively have produced much mischief to the territory. But, in the interval, the acting governor, resolving to be beforehand with Ohio, issued orders to General Brown, of the Michigan militia, who resides near the disputed tract, directing him to hold himself in readiness for any emergency which might call for the military forces under his command; and requiring him to see that the law of the Territory, for the arrest and punishment of persons exercising the Ohio jurisdiction within its limits, were strictly enforced. That officer was farther instructed to report to the territorial governor (Mr. Mason) the names of such civil or military officers as were known or suspected' of being in the interest of Ohio, or in the least degree to favor her views,' in order that their commissions might be immediately vacated by the executive, a sort of inquisitorial measure, without any apology, save in the haughty and domineering tone of Ohio.

In pursuance of these recommendations, that officer issued orders to his inferiors, commanding them to hold their respective divisions in a state of perfect readiness and organization

assur

ing them that the crisis had arrived,' that they would soon be called into active service,' and that he was commanded to say that, if there were any officer of the Michigan militia who hesitated to stake life, fortune, and honor,' in the coming struggle, it was his duty to tender his resignation, in order that his place might be more efficiently filled.

This manifesto, followed up, as it was, by the training and drilling of troops, the clangor of trumpets, the removal of military stores from one point to another along the disputed border, and other circumstances of glorious (?) war,' showed that the authorities, not to say the people, of Michigan, were in a high state

of inflammability and ready to defend themselves, promptly and efficiently, even at the hazard of some sober shooting.

These proceedings, however, all took place on the part of Michigan, before the enactment of any positive law by Ohio, for asserting her jurisdiction over the land in controversy; and if any blame be justly attributable to the territorial authorities, at this stage of the difficulty, it seems to be the resentful precipitancy with which the military arm of the Territory was displayed. Few days, however, elapsed before the Ohio legislature passed, with but one dissenting vote, a law for re-marking Harris's line;' and providing for the complete execution of her laws over her newly-acquired dominion. These commissioners, while engaged in an attempt to run the line, in conformity with the views of Ohio, were, by direction of the authorities of Michigan, fired upon by some troops who had been called out to arrest the commissioners and their attendants. The first discharge of musketry was followed by a speedy flight of the intruders—and it is not positively known whether or not, in the midst of their confusion, they saw myriads of naked savages leveling their rifles. upon them, and other myriads of cruel and barbarous men, mounted on wild horses, and sallying out of the surrounding thickets for the purpose of kidnapping the fugitives, binding them, Mazeppa-like, upon the ferocious steeds, and turning them loose through the forests! At any rate, however just it may have been to terrify them with imaginary horrors, there seems to have been no good reason for firing on them. It is not, we believe, usual for officers or their posses, while executing process, to fire upon the defendant in the first instance. But this point must, of course, be left to counsel learned in the law,' and ought not to be treated of by lay gents.'

The commissioners, in their progress towards the seat of war,' were accompanied by the executive of the State, who, it is said, made loud threats to crush, by means of the million of freemen,' whose destinies he was wielding, all opposition to the running of the line. In language of this kind, the men of the peninsula could, of course, discover nothing but the sacking of their towns, the depopulation of their settlements, and the slaughter of their wives and children, by the moss-troopers of Ohio. And it being understood that Governor Lucas had brought with him a strong military escort to endorse his threats, and that he was ready to do any deed of valor, even in the battle's eye,' the authorities of Michigan, not willing to be behind their enemies, in courage and activity, were engaged in transporting to Toledo (on the disputed ground) generous quantities of the munitions of war, belonging to the United States arsenal, near Detroit, and in rousing to arms the merry-men of the Raisin and the Rouge.