on the implied assent of Congress to certain distinct propositions of the convention of the State of Ohio. The first question naturally occurring is, what reason is there to infer such assent? It cannot be inferred from the acceptance of the constitution of the State of Ohio, as a whole, because the only questions necessary for Congress to ask, in relation to that constitution, were, "is it republican?" Does it secure to the people of Ohio the political rights and privileges guarantied to them by the ordinance of Congress of the 13th July, 1787? These were the only qualifications required by said ordinance for the admission to the Union of any of the new States in the Northwestern Territory; and if these questions could be answered in the affirmative, Congress was not at liberty to refuse, and could not refuse, to accept the constitution of Ohio, even though it had contained a hundred propositions, which the convention had no authority from Congress to place there, and which, if they belonged any where, properly belonged to another place.

The fifth article of the ordinance of 1787, which has been before quoted, expressly says: "And whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State Government: Provided, The constitution and Government so to be formed shall be republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles; and so far as it can be, consistent with the general interest of the confederacy, such admission shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free inhabitants than sixty thousand."

Congress having decided that the admission of Ohio into the Union was consistent with the general interest, passed a law, approved on the 30th day of April, 1802, fixing permanently the boundaries of the State, and authorizing the people living within those boundaries to form a constitution and State Government. Whenever, therefore, in pursuance of this law, the people of Ohio had formed a constitution, and that constitution had been examined, and found republican in its character, Congress could not refuse the State admission into the Union on the same footing with the original States, even though her constitution had contained any number of extravagant propositions. which it could never have been the intention of Congress to sanction. How then could such admission into the Union be construed to imply the assent of Congress to the proposition of the convention to change the boundaries of Ohio? These boundaries had been permanently fixed by the law of Congress under which the convention acted. That law authorized the convention to form a constitution and State Government, but gave them no authority whatever to enter into a negotiation about boundaries, which is a very different thing from forming a constitution within boundaries already given.

The boundaries of the State having, as has just been observed, been fixed by law of Congress, the convention could not change them, nor could they, without manifest impropriety, insert in the constitution any proposition to that effect. They could not, because, in the first place, they were not authorized or expected to do so; in the second place, because they were not elected for that purpose by the people; and lastly, because the constitution, for reasons heretofore assigned, is not a proper place for any proposition of this sort. If it could with propriety have been made

by the convention, such a proposition would, beyond doubt, properly have belonged, with the other propositions which were embodied in an ordinance by the convention, and with the constitution submitted to Congress.

Such seems to have been the opinion of a committee of the House of Representatives, consisting of Mr. Randolph, Mr. Elmendorf, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Henderson, and Mr. Archer, to whom was referred, on the 23d December, 1802, a letter from Thomas Worthington, an agent appointed by the convention of the State of Ohio, enclosing a copy of the constitution of said State, and an ordinance passed by said convention, containing certain propositions for the consideration of Congress, with instructions that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House." (See H. Jour. vol. 4, page 258.) In pursuance of these instructions, this committee, on the 2d February, 1803, made their report, the preamble to which is in the following words, viz. "The committee to whom were referred a letter from Edward Tiffin, president of the convention of the State of Ohio, and a letter from Thomas Worthington, special agent of said State, enclosing the constitution thereof, together with sundry propositions in addition, and in modification of those contained in the act entitled An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes,' report," &c. &c. After speaking of several propositions relative to donations of land, the report proceeds to say: "The proviso contained in the sixth section of the seventh article of the constitution of the State of Ohio, respecting the northern boundary of that State, depending on a fact not yet ascertained, and not being submitted in the shape of other propositions from the convention to Congress, the committee have thought it unnecessary to take it, at this time, into consideration."

The preamble to the report from which the foregoing extract is taken, is here copied, as is the extract itself, for the purpose of showing how far one of the Ohio delegation (Mr. Vinton) is in error, when he says, in his written argument on this subject, that this report" was not a report on the constitution of Ohio, nor had it any thing to do with that constitution." It would appear by the extract from the Journal of the House, before quoted, that the constitution was referred, with other papers, to this committee, and that they were instructed to report their opinion thereupon to the House.

By the preamble here copied, it appears that the committee did report their opinion to the House, not in part, but in full, on all the subjects referred to them, so far as they deemed it necessary to report at all. The extract here quoted relates particularly and exclusively to the proposition in the constitution of the State of Ohio, on which the delegation from that State found their claim in the present controversy. Can it be said then that this report "has nothing to do with the constitution of Ohio?" It is the only report ever made in the House of Representatives, either upon that constitution, or upon any of the papers accompanying it; and the extract from it, which has been quoted, is the only report, or part of a report, ever made in either House of Congress, relative to the proposition in the constitution of Ohio, which is now the sole ground of controversy between that State and the Territory of Michigan.

For a lucid and able exposition of the grounds of dispute between Ohio and Michigan, I beg leave to refer the committee to the message of Governor Cass to the Legislative Council of Michigan Territory, in 1881, an extract of which is appended to this letter, and I also beg leave to refer the committee to two very able letters on this subject written in 1820 by the Hon. William Woodbridge, then secretary of the Territory, and (in the absence of Governor Cass) the acting Governor thereof. One of these letters was addressed to Governor Brown, then Governor of Ohio, and the other to the Secretary of State of the United States.

At Detroit, where the message of Governor Cass, and the letters of Judge Woodbridge, were written, access to congressional documents could not be had, and being obliged to rely on memory alone for both the words and sentiment of the foregoing report of Mr. Randolph, on the proviso in the constitution of Ohio, on which that State rests her claim, it is not surprising that some slight inaccuracies should have been committed. On comparing the said report of Mr. Randolph with what those gentlemen have said on the subject, such seems to have been the case. The error, however, is quite unimportant. The sentiment expressed is substantially the same; and those who think to weaken the arguments of Governor Cass and Judge Woodbridge, by showing the sentiment of Mr. Randolph's report to have been incorrectly stated, will probably be disappointed.

It will be found, on referring to that report, that it bears quite as strong·ly against the claim of Ohio as has ever been stated by those gentlemen. It will be observed that, instead of one reason, as mentioned by Governor Cass and Judge Woodbridge, the report itself assigns two reasons why the committee thought it unnecessary to take the proposition of Ohio into consideration. The first was that that proposition depended on a fact not then ascertained. This certainly might be considered a good reason why Congress should not act upon the proposition at that time, and it is a good reason why the same body should not attempt to change the boundary at the present time, for that fact is not yet ascertained. I beg leave to state -distinctly and positively that the fact that a due east line from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan will not intersect the national boundary in Lake Erie, is not yet ascertained. On the contrary, it is known that such a line will intersect the national boundary, or, if it does not, the difference will be so trifling that it can scarcely be told.

The other reason assigned in the report, why the committee thought it unnecessary to consider the proposition of the convention, is, that said proposition was "not submitted in the shape of the other propositions from the convention to Congress." If it were a proposition at all, it should have been placed among the other propositions, as has been before remarked; and if it were not a proposition, it might be classed among the idle, nugatory, and unauthorized provisions in the constitution, of which the convention might have inserted a hundred; and still Congress, as has been before shown, would have been obliged to accept said constitution, provided it was republican in its character. Here are certainly two good and sufficient reasons assigned why neither the committee nor Congress should act on the subject at that time, and why they should leave the boundaries of Ohio as they were fixed in the law authorizing her to form a constitution. Congress did so leave them. On the 19th February,

1803, the President of the United States approved an act of that body, entitled "An act to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the State of Ohio;" the preamble to which act is in the following words, viz. "Whereas the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio did, on the twenty-ninth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and two, form for themselves a constitution and State Government, and did give to the said State the name of the State of Ohio,' in pursuance of an act of Congress entitled 'An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio to form a constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes,' whereby the said State has become one of the United States of America; in order, therefore, to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the said State of Ohio, Be it enacted," &c. &c.

This, it will be remembered, is the only act of Congress ever passed in reference to the acceptance of the constitution of the State of Ohio, and the admission of that State into the Union; and the preamble, it will be observed, expressly states that the constitution then accepted was formed in pursuance of the act of Congress of 30th April, 1802. Of course, whatever is not in pursuance of said act, can form no part of the constitution then accepted; and if there be any such proposition in any part of the instrument, it must be classed among the unauthorized and nugatory provisions before spoken of, which Congress could not consistently notice, because that body had not the power either to prevent or correct them.

What has been said is believed sufficient to show, satisfactorily, that Congress, in admitting the State of Ohio into the Union, did not assent, either expressly or impliedly, to the proposition contained in her constitution relative to her northern boundary; and it is only necessary to refer to the Journal of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives, to show, beyond the possibility of doubt or contradiction, that such was the universal understanding at the time of her admission. Even the delegation from that State had not, at that time, the slightest idea that her proposition was assented to by Congress.

Thomas Worthington, afterwards Governor of the State, it will be recollected, was appointed by the convention of Ohio a special agent to present her constitution to Congress for acceptance; and as he was in Washington, and associating with the members of Congress during the time when said constitution was under consideration by that body, he must have known perfectly well their understanding in relation to every part of that instrument.

On the 19th February, 1803, the act passed extending the laws of the United States over the State of Ohio, (equivalent to admitting Ohio into the Union,) and eight months afterwards, on the 17th day of October, in the same year, at the opening of the next session of Congress, the aforesaid Thomas Worthington took his seat, as the first Senator from that State, in the Senate of the United States.

The following extracts from the Journals of the Senate will show that the line which he proposed as the southern boundary of Michigan, was a line drawn east and west through the southern extreme of Lake Michigan; and they will also show that the idea that Congress had assented to the proposition of Ohio, had then never entered his mind, nor the mind of any other member of the Senate.

His first public act was, on the 21st October, (the sixth day of the session,) to present the memorial of "Joseph Harrison and others, citizens of the United States, residing in that part of the Indiana territory which lies north of an east and west line extending through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan, praying that that district may be erected into a separate Government; and the memorial was read.

"On motion, ordered, That it be referred to Messrs. Worthington, Breckenridge, and Franklin, to consider and report thereon."

Mr. Worthington was thus made chairman of the committee, and, on the 1st day of November following, he made a report favorable to the prayer of the petitioners, and concluding with the following resolution, viz."Resolved, That the prayer of the memorial of Joseph Harrison and others ought to be granted, and that all that portion of the Indiana territory which lies north of a line drawn east from the southernmost extreme of Lake Michigan, until it intersects Lake Erie, and west from the said southernmost extreme of Lake Michigan, until it shall intersect the Mississippi river, shall form a separate territory, and that the said territory shall, in all respects, be governed by, and according to, the principles and regulations contained in An ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio,' passed on the 13th day of July, 1787. ·

"And the report was adopted.

"On motion, ordered, That the committee who made the report be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill accordingly.

"A motion was made that it be

"Resolved, That the sixth section of the seventh article of the constitution of the State of Ohio be referred to a committee, to consist of

members, with instructions to examine and report thereon, by bill or otherwise; and it was agreed that this motion lie for consideration.

"On motion,

"The Senate adjourned to eleven o'clock to-morrow morning." (See Senate Journal, vol. 3, pages 300 and 306.)

"WEDNESDAY, November 2, 1803.

❝ On motion,

"It was agreed that the motion made yesterday for a committee to examine the seventh article of the constitution of the State of Ohio be withdrawn, and that the following resolution be adopted:

"Resolved, That the proposition of the convention of the State of Ohio to the Congress of the United States of America, contained in the sixth section of the seventh article of the constitution of that State, be referred to a committee, with leave to report thereon, by bill or otherwise; and, “ Ordered, That it be referred to Messrs. Worthington, Breckenridge, and Franklin, the committee who, on the 21st of October last, had under consideration the petition of Joseph Harrison and others, to consider and report thereon to the Senate." (Senate Journal, vol. 3, page 307.)

"FRIDAY, November 4, 1803.

"Mr. Worthington, from the committee appointed on the 21st of October last on the petition of Joseph Harrison and others, and on the propo