If we can understand a plain sentence of English the condition has no application to us and had none to Michigan, and the contrary opinions of Messrs. Buchanan, Benton, and Wright must have been expressed in the heat of debate (as in fact we know they were, for we were present and heard the debate) and probably without a very careful examination of the question. The contrary and unanimous opinions of four different judiciary committees of Congress, composed of both Whigs and Democrats, matured by a careful investigation of the question and presented in the form of reports, are, in our opinion, entitled to more weight, although some of them were Whigs, than mere off-hand opinions expressed in debate by men however wise and learned.

We think it unneccessary to talk about Whig or Democratic authority upon this question when the same opinions on both sides were held in common by members of both parties. Mr. Thomas, chairman of the judiciary committee of the House, was a Democrat, and Mr. Clayton of the judiciary committee of the Senate was a Whig, and their reports coincide exactly. But we would not take either of them as authority without some good reason. It cannot be denied that the Ordinance of '87 places the whole question of forming the Northwest Territory into more than three states entirely at the discretion of Congress; but if the numerical condition of admission was intended to apply to the two states which Congress might form in addition to the three which Congress did form by the ordinance, then Congress had no discretion about it; the discretionary power to form the two additional states or not, as Congress should "hereafter find it expedient," was both given and taken away by the same article of the ordinance. It tells Congress that they shall have authority to form one or two more states in the Northwest Territory "if they shall hereafter find it. expedient," but that they shall admit them into the Union whether they find it expedient to form them or not! We entertain a high respect for the opinions of such men as Messrs. Buchanan, Benton, and Wright, but we cannot con

sent, for the saving of their carelessly expressed opinions, to convict the Continental Congress of enacting such a palpable absurdity.

Besides, these same senators who expressed this opinion sustained the bill to admit Michigan, and by which the right of Congress to extend the state of Ohio north at pleasure was both recognized and exercised. The great bone of contention was whether Congress had a right to extend the northern boundary of Ohio north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend of Lake Michigan. This involved the whole question of Michigan's title to state sovereignty; for if Congress could extend the boundary of Ohio north of this line at all, it could extend it over the whole of Michigan to the Canada line, and it was so admitted on all hands. Congress did extend Ohio north of this line, and thus, in the most authoritative manner, denied the right of Michigan to a single foot of territory, independent of the will of Congress; and Messrs. Buchanan, Wright, and Benton voted for the bill. We need only add that the right of Michigan to state sovereignty could have been no better than her right to territory, and that a state without territory would be decidedly worse off than a king without subjects.

STATE GOVERNMENT-No. 4

[February 17, 1846]

Through the politeness of our delegate, Mr. Martin, we have been favored with a copy of a bill introduced by him on the thirteenth ult. Its provisions being matters of immediate interest to the people, we publish it this week with the law of the territory on the same subject.

Section one grants authority to the inhabitants of the territory to form a constitution and state government and guarantees the admission of the state into the Union when formed. To obtain the previous consent of Congress to the

formation of a state government we have always contended was the most wise and politic course. Indeed, although we may form a constitution and submit it to Congress as a mere proposition, yet we cannot form a government in any absolute or effective sense without such permission. Suppose, for example, we proceed without such permission to form not only a constitution but a government-elect a state legislature, a state governor, and United States senators-and some question of boundary or constitutional principle should supervene and prevent, for a time, our admission into the Union. We should in that case find ourselves under two distinct governments, the state and territorial, and each maintaining a hostile attitude towards the other, and utter confusion and anarchy would be the possible if not the probable result.

We should be sorry, moreover, to see our first senators, like those of Michigan, placed in the awkward position of claiming seats as United States senators from a nonunited state. Whether we proceed under the act of the territory or this proposed act of Congress, or both, we hope to see nothing more done previous to our actual admission into the Union than the bare adoption of a constitution. It is not essential to the maintenance of our dignity that we should make ourselves ridiculous and pretend to be ignorant of the first principles of the government under which we live, and we are happy to observe that the action of our legislature thus far has not exceeded the bounds of propriety.

Section two defines our boundaries, embracing the whole of the territory. This is an important question, which, if there can be any doubt about it, ought to be definitely settled by Congress previous to the formation of the constitutionotherwise we must run the risk of a nonconcurrence on the part of Congress in the boundaries we might claim, and the delay and expense of a second convention to reconsider the question of boundary. The case of Iowa, though somewhat different, will serve as an example upon this point. Should Congress amend the bill so as to divide the territory, we

do not think that either law, equity, or good faith would be compromised to any serious extent, especially if it should meet the views of the people of the territory, as we are inclined to believe that it would. A division of the territory-say by the Chippewa River-would make two states of ample size. A state 1,000 miles in length cannot subsist harmoniously for any great length of time, and should it all be formed into one state in the first instance we may confidently expect a division of the state at no distant period.

It is true that when Wisconsin becomes a state the number of states provided for by the Ordinance of 1787 will be complete; but it is the opinion of many intelligent men that the provisions of the ordinance are merged in the constitution of the United States, which gives to Congress absolute sovereignty and unlimited control over the territories. However this may be, it is evident that these arbitrary enactments concerning a country, the geography of which was, at the time, scarcely better understood than that of the planet Jupiter, must ultimately yield to the convenience of the multitudes of freemen who are to inhabit it.

We hope this bill will pass, not only because the expenses of the convention are provided for, as in justice they should be, but that we may come into the Union in a regular and orderly manner and with the least difficulty and delay. The negligence of Congress in making these necessary preliminary provisions for the formation of new states has driven the territories into the adoption of measures unwarranted by the Constitution and the relations they sustain to the United States, and Congress in its turn has been compelled to leap over these enormous irregularities as an apology for its own negligence. We are not of the number who regard the modus operandi of forming new states as a matter of indifference. We have yet immense territories in reservethe Republic is as yet scarcely more than half formed, and the relations subsisting between the United States and their territories, the rights and obligations of the parties, and the proper mode of transition from a territorial to a state or

ganization ought to be clearly defined, understood, and practiced upon in a manner consistent with the national sovereignty and the provisions of the constitution-otherwise, we know not what oppressions may betide the future territories, or what difficulties we may encounter in governing them. We hope, therefore, regardless of the crazy examples that have been set us, Wisconsin will sail into the Union and cast anchor gallantly, and scientifically, and not be boosted in stern foremost and on her beam's end, by the waves of popular excitement.

TO PERSONS OF FOREIGN BIRTH

[February 24, 1846]

It should be borne in mind by every friend of free suffrage, and especially by our friends of foreign birth who are directly and personally interested, that every foreigner who shall have been in the territory six months previous to the day of election, in April next, and shall have filed his declaration to become a citizen of the United States will be entitled to vote for or against state government, and that the same qualification entitles him to vote in Sepember for delegates to form a constitution. All such persons who are now in the territory, will, if they remain here, have acquired the necessary residence to entitle them to vote in September, and should not fail to file their declarations before that time. If they have been long enough in the territory to entitle them to vote in April and have not yet filed their declaration, they should do so before the April election.

We have always regarded this requirement as superfluous, as, in our humble judgment, it requires men to declare their intentions of becoming what they must and will become whether they intend it or not. But in the passage of the law the best of Democrats considered it necessary to indulge to some extent the prejudices of their opponents in order to