That they have carefully and diligently examined and considered the case, and with all the anxiety to obtain the truth that the gravity of the questions and the dignity of the application excited. They have seen and examined the following documents, which have either a direct or remote bearing upon the points submitted. The ordinance of congress of July 13, 1787. The act of congress of April 30th, 1802, ch. 40. The act of congress of February 19, 1803. The act of the legislature of Michigan of July 25, 1836. The first convention of the people of Michigan of September 26, 1836. The second convention of December 15, 1836. The act of congress of January 26, 1837. In communicating to counsel the concurrent resolutions of the legislature of Michigan, his excellency the Governor stated the following points as being those which were deemed to embrace the entire merits of the question at issue. 1. Had Michigan a just and legal claim under the ordinance of 1787 to the territory in dispute? 2. Was the subsequent action of the congress of the United States, depriving her of that territory, authorized and constitutional? 3. What is the binding force and effect of the assent of the people of Michigan, to the conditions of the act of congress, providing for the admission of the state into the federal union? 4. Was the assent of that convention the "common consent" required by the ordinance of 1787, for the alteration of the southern boundary of the state of Michigan, as established by the act of 1803 ? 5. Is the right of Michigan to the contested territory precluded, either by the action of congress or the assent of her own people? 6. If not, what is her remedy for regaining the jurisdiction over the territory, the power of the supreme court of the United States over the subject, and the proper mode of bringing the question before that tribunal? 1. In answer to the first question, we are of opinion that the people of the territory of Michigan had a just and legal claim, under the ordinance of 1787, to the territory in dispute. That ordinance established certain articles of compact between the original states and the people and states in the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, which were to remain forever unalterable unless by common consent, and in and by one of these articles the boundaries of the states within the territories were to become fixed and established, and the eastern state, (now Ohio,) had its boundaries declared, and which were, on the north, the territorial line between the United States and Canada. But the boundaries of that and the other two western states were subject to be so far altered, that if congress should find it expedient, they should have authority to form one or two states in that part of the said territory which lay north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. Here was a clear stipulation, that an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan, was to be the boundary line between the three states, (and of which the eastern state or Ohio was one,) and any new state or states that might be formed north of that line, and that stipulation, was binding until withdrawn by common consent. 2. In answer to the second question, we do not know of any act or acts of congress, which can be deemed to partake of the character of depriving Michigan of the territory in question, prior to the acts of the 15th and 23d of June, 1836. The act of congress of April 30, 1802, for the admission of Ohio into the Union, and the act of congress of January 15, 1805, erecting the territory of Michigan, and the act of congress of May 20, 1812, for surveying the northern boundary line of Ohio, expressly recognized the Michigan line; and though the act of congress of April 19, 1816, for admitting Indiana into the Union, shifted the east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan, to an east and west line, ten miles north of the other, yet the territory affected by that alteration of the line, is not part of the territory now in dispute. The alteration was made with the consent of Indiana, declared by her convention, and the territorial government of Michigan never questioned it. It passed by common consent. The act of congress of the 15th June, 1836, was passed after Michigan had met in a state convention and adopted a constitution for herself as a separate state, and it recognized her territory as established by the act of congress of January 11, 1805. It was an act preparatory to the admission of Michigan into the Union, and made also, as its title purported, to establish the northern boundary of the state of Ohio. It declared that the northern boundary line of Ohio should be a direct line drawn from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of Miami Bay, &c. This was undoubtedly a change to the prejudice of Michigan, of the line established by the ordinance of 1787, and recognized in the subsequent acts of congress. But the statute further provided for the consent of Michigan to the alteration, by making her consent to that alteration an express condition of her admission into the Union, and which consent was required to be solemnly given by a convention of the people of Michigan. This condition, precedent, we are of opinion was unduly attached to the admission of that state, for the articles of compact in the ordinance of 1787, gave that state a right to be admitted into the Union whenever she had obtained the requisite number of inhabitants. The necessity of the consent of Michigan to the alteration of the boundary line thus unduly required, was evidence of the sense of congress that the alteration would not rest upon any secure foundation without it. But the subsequent act of the 23d June, 1837, without reference to any consent of Michigan, goes on to declare that the northern boundary of the state of Ohio should be established and extend to a direct line running from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami Bay, &c. This was putting an end to the question at once, without waiting for the consent of Michigan to be given as required by the preceding act, and in our opinion those two acts did unauthorizedly, and in breach of the original compact of 1787, deprive Michigan of her right to the territory in question. 3. But in answer to the third question, and which will involve in it an answer to the remaining questions, for they all depend on the same principle, we are of opinion that the state and people of Michigan are bound by the consent given by the convention of the 15th December, 1836, to the alteration of their southern boundary line, and by their subsequent recognition of their lawful admission into the Union under that consent, and the act of congress of January 26, 1837, made in pursuance of it. The lawfulness of the convention which gave that consent is not now to be drawn in question. The state and the congress of the United States have equally assumed its act to be valid, and acted under it, nor can it be admitted for a moment that the second convention acted under duress and not freely. It was a matter resting in their sound discretion whether the convention would submit to their entrance into the Union upon the conditions annexed. The state of Michigan is now stopped by considerations of honor and dignity, and by her own solemn acts and recognitions, from denying the validity of her admission into the Union and from calling in question this day the binding force of the terms upon which she consented to become a member of the Union. The alteration in the north boundary line of Ohio has now been made by the "common consent" required in and by the ordinance of 1787; and in our opinion Michigan has no remedy left her, that is known to the constitution and law of the land, by which she can lawfully disturb the boundary line as now settled. New York, September 6, 1838. JAMES KENT, Documents relative to the State Loan-Prime, Ward & King's Report, J. Delafield's receipt, &c. New York, Nov. 16, 1838. Sir-In reply to the communication which you addressed to us, on the 12th instant, desiring information on the subject of the Michigan loan, entrusted for negotiation to our Mr. King, under directions from your agent Mr. Delafield, we beg to enclose a copy of Mr. King's note of 28th April last, to Mr. Delafield, explaining the failure to effect the desired loan in Europe, which gives the needful information on that point. In relation to our valuations on London and subsequent reimbursement of their amount, we have to state that we acted under the explicit instructions of Mr. Delafield, as will be seen by reference to the enclosed copy of his letter to us, of 11th April last, but at that time he and we, here, were ignorant of the fact, that the bonds to extent of 300,000 dollars, were not in a form to be sold in Europe. Our reimbursements were made on the best terms in our power, and free from risk to the state of Michigan, charging the London commission, and one per cent for drawing and remitting, but of course without guaranteeing the state from loss upon the operation. It is right to add explicitly, that it was for no convenience or profit to us, that these valuations were made, and that we were ready, at any moment, to advance our half of the amount agreed upon with your special agent when here, and it was undoubtedly believed that a fall in the rate of exchange would enable us to make reimbursement upon terms that would save any expense or loss to the state, which, unfortunately, proved otherwise. We remain sir, with respect, S. T. MASON, Esq. Your obedient servants, PRIME, WARD & KING. Governor of the State of Michigan. Messrs. PRIME, WARD & KING New York, 11th April, 1838. GENTLEMEN: I have your letter of yesterday, stating that at my request as agent, and under our joint responsibility to reimburse the advance, if required, you had drawn upon Messrs. Baring, Bro's, & Co. of London, against the $300,000, Michigan bonds consigned to them for sale. Say on 31 March, £20,000 7 instant, 12,200 19 2 £32,200 19 2 60 days at 5 $93,333 33 56,666 67 $150,000 00 At your request, I do hereby acknowledge the receipt of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, advanced to the state of Michigan; and I engage individually, to refund to Messrs. Baring, Bro's & Co. one half of the amount drawn as above stated, on demand, with interest and commissions, in case of need, confirming the engagements set forth in your letter of the 10th instant, I am, respectfully, yours, (Signed) J. DELAFIELD, Agent for the State of Michigan. Three parcels of Michigan bonds, amounting together to $300,000, accompanied by Mr. Delafield's letter, of 29th November, transferring his agency, with an exemplified copy of the acts of Michigan, authorizing a loan of $5,000,000 and an act amending the same, authorizing a rate of interest not exceeding six per cent, was received in London, in December, 1887. Preparatory negotiations had been entered into there with a prospect of success, in the anticipation that the amendatory act of Michigan would have been clear and explicit as to making principal and interest, both in sterling money, payable in London. Said amendatory act, as also the original act, relating to these bonds, no where expressly and directly, nor in any way but by inference, authorized or permitted the payment of the principal abroad, although it was explicit as to such payment of interest, but it directly limited the rate at which payment of either or both should be made in London, at par, or four dollars forty-four one hundredths per £ sterling, although it required that any premium or gain of exchange upon negotiation should be accounted for to the state of Michigan. That although the state might receive proceeds of the negotiation of bonds in sterling abroad, at a premium of ten per cent, yet it should only refund the money and pay the interest at par, in other words, to receive four dollars eighty-eight one hundredths, |