bend or extreme of Lake Michigan. 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 those 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 in the State than sixty thousand." This provision gives to Congress a discretionary power to form either one or two States, at pleasure, out of that remainder of the territory which lies north of an east and west line so drawn as to touch the southernmost extremity of Lake Michigan. Now, you have made your three States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and you have erected a Territory of Michigan; but where does it go to? How far does it extend? Over the whole country north of this line, em. bracing what is now called the State of Michigan and the Territory of Wisconsin? I ask if it is not perfectly plain that, according to this ordinance, it is a matter of discretion with Congress to create in that territory one State or two States; and if the power is in Congress, what right have the people of Michigan to settle the question? How can the people of that peninsula settle a precedent question of boundary in the territory of the United States? Have they any such authority? They have none. This ordinance does not give them a particle. On the contrary, the question is left solely and exclusively to the discretion of Congress. And neither in this ordinance, nor any where else, within my reading at least, is authority given to the inhabitants of the peninsula to decide it. But this the people of Michigan undertook to do, and this is the only color of justification they had. The ordinance declared that, whenever there should be a population of sixty thousand people within any of the respective limits which it had laid down, they might be formed into a State, and admitted into the Union. But Michigan, though she had population enough, seemed to forget that no State could exist, until Congress should have first settled the question of boundary, and decided whether there should be in the territory one State or two. Michigan, then, most clearly had no power or authority under this ordinance to erect herself into a State, form a constitution, and demand admission into the Union. She was not a State, nor could she be. How did she come here, then, and what did she claim? By previous acts of Congress, you had given to Illinois a large portion of territory north of the line running east and west through the southern extremity of Lake Michigan; and in respect to Indiana, you had done the same. While Ohio, by a provision in her constitution, claimed another portion north of that line, and, without objecting or assenting to the claim of Ohio, you received her, under that constitution, into the United States; Michigan, in the mean while, claimed the very portions of territory which you had given to Indiana, and which Ohio claimed. She said that the inhabitants of the entire peninsula, as far down as the east and west line already mentioned, had a right to erect themselves into a State, and to form a constitution for the whole. This was the ground on which Michigan came to the Senate. I was not then convinced that any such State existed, and I still remain unconvinced. But the Senator from Pennsylvania says that we may waive irregularities. Perhaps we might, if the State you were to create had the identical boundaries claimed by Michigan when she formed her constitution, and the one. [JAN. 5, 1837. people you admit are the same that made the constitution and offered themselves. But what was the feeling here at that time? Was there a man here who would admit that Michigan was then a State? There was not You prepared, with great care and caution, a provisional act of admission, which subsequently became a law. And what appears on the face of it? Can any man read that act, and not admit that its passage was necessary because there was no State then? You admitted her on condition; because, by the law, you gave her a new boundary. You excluded her from the territory which you had given to Indiana, as well as from that claimed by Ohio; and, to compensate her, you added territory lying north and west of the lake, large enough for a State; and then you declared that, if she would give her assent to these bounds, she should be admitted into the Union. Was not that admitting that Michigan, as she stood, was not capable of coming in? The question went back to the people of Michigan, and what was done? The Legislature of Michigan called a convention of the people. It met, and considered the question, and finally concluded not to consent to the boundary. But, at a subsequent period, an irregular convention came together by the spontaneous movement of indi viduals, and without authority from any one-a voluntary collection-and declared its assent. Well, sir, how did that place the matter? You have got the consent of a convention, as it is called; but does that remove the difficulty? What did you send the matter back for? You sent it back that the people of Michigan might alter their constitution, so that the bounds of their State jurisdiction might be changed, by withdrawing jurisdiction from the territory claimed by Ohio and Indiana, and asserting it over the added territory. And has it been done? The constitution has not been changed in a letter. It stands just as it did. The jurisdiction of the State has neither been withdrawn from that territory you gave to Indiana, nor from that claimed by Ohio, nor extended to that which you assigned her on the other side of the lake. How can she extend her jurisdiction to the one, or withdraw it from the other, but by altering her constitution? And is her constitution altered? Not a letter of it. The convention at Ann Arbor claimed no right to alter the constitution, and they had none. By their own constitution there are but two modes provided according to which that instrument can be altered. I need not trouble you with the detail; I will only state that the process must originate with the Legislature. This is the provision of her own constitution. not that constitution ratified, in 1835, at the ballot-box? And how can its provisions be waived? Her constitu tion provides two modes, and it has not been done according to either. The convention did not pretend to alter the constitution; they claimed no such authority. Who was it, then, that came here last year? It was the people of the Territory of the peninsula of Michigan, including a part of Indiana and Ohio. They have not, then, withdrawn their jurisdiction from the lands and people in these two States. They propose the same constitution now that they did then. It was the peninsula of Michigan last year, and it is the peninsula of Michigan this year. The same constitution, the same people; yes, the same that the Senate unanimously refused to admit into the Union. And was Much has been said about the injustice of Congress in delaying its action touching the admission of Michigan. The charge may be true, but it does not affect me. I had no part in effecting the delay. But, whatever may have been our fault, it is not to be rectified by the adop tion of violent means. We may resort to those measures, but it will not help the argument. Again: I may say, individually, that I have no objection that Michigan should enter the Union. I believe that JAN. 5, 1837.] Admission of Michigan. [SENATE. the population of that Territory ought to be a State in flict a regular speech on the Senate. It had already sufthis Union. My only difficulty refers to the manner of fered too much by the cruelty of others. In fact, if disthe admission. If there has been no change in their posed to do so, he would not know how to commence, condition since last year, and last year you could waive or where to begin; whether at Mr. Dallas's letter, the the difficulty only by calling a convention, why is there Baltimore convention, the revolutionary spirit of Marynot the same difficulty now? If Maryland had presented land, or the divine right of Government to perpetuate herself one year alone for admission, and the following and enforce its own authority, independent of the conyear should come in company with Delaware, would the stituent power. These subjects had principally taken question of admission be the same? Certainly not, be- the place of the one before the Senate. A very strained cause it would not be the same body of people that were effort had been made to raise the question into a magniasking admission. Nor could a constitution made for tude and importance which did not belong to it. It was Maryland cover Delaware. Yet, by admitting Michigan, simply one of fact, unless we were disposed to unsettle you propose to cover with the constitution a great addi- every thing which had been determined at the last sestional territory. Can it be done? Only by doing vio- sion, and trace the history of society from its earliest lence to constitutional principle, and, I will add, to com- stages to the irregular oganization of the Territory of mon sense. I do not know that gentlemen can satisfy | Michigan. As one of the committee, he had not done themselves by saying that the difficulty is immaterial. Is this, nor should he do it now. He had confined himself it the same body of people who applied last year? None to the fact, whether the people of Michigan had acceptof them were beyond the lake, and part now to be ex- ed the terms we had proposed to them. On this subject, cluded were in Ohio and Indiana. This constitution he had examined the evidence, weighed it, and come to neither covers nor asserts jurisdiction over the Territory a conclusion. He had the kind and quantity of testimonow proposed to be admitted. Are you not, then, about ny which he would require to convince him on any simito admit a State without a constitution? I beg gentle- lar occasion. It had not, to be sure, as had been remen to consider this objection. I do not really see how quired by the Senator from Carolina, the technical this is to be argued down. How is it to be grappled formalities that would entitle it to admission "in a juswith? And how is the constitution now offered to be tice's court." They had not the witnesses, book in hand, the constitution of that Territory which you propose to to prove the handwriting of the note or the signature to admit as a State? I am told that the population is not the bond. And who ever heard of such evidence being renumerous. Be it so. How does that alter the question? quired as the foundation of legislation? Nations did not I will now ask the attention of Senators to another point, legislate on the technical evidence required by a justice's and I refer to it without the remotest feeling or thought court. They acted on such probabilities as produced of unkindness towards those who have been elected Sen- moral conviction of the existence of a fact. We legisators from Michigan; on the contrary, it will give me late every day on printed papers, without seeing the origreat happiness to be associated with them. But sup-ginals; on certificates, not under oath; on publications pose the argument to be true, that under the ordinance of and letters; and even sometimes the most important le1787 the people of the peninsula could not create them- gislation was based on public rumor; public evidence selves into a State, what does your constitution provide? being sufficient, in many cases, for public purposes. It requires that the Senators in this hall shall all be elected The great object was to be convinced, without regard by the State Legislatures. No other process is provi- to technicalities in the means of conviction, which were ded. Now, I ask, was Michigan a State at the time she well enough in "justices' courts," but could not be reexercised the power of appointing these gentlemen? quired in the business of legislation, where the very notoYou did virtually say by your law that there was no riety of every proceeding rendered imposition less probState then. You did not even undertake to waive the objection on this ground. You said that Michigan had no power to fix her own boundaries, and that she should not have the boundary she had fixed upon, and that the body which had elected their Senators could not, with those boundaries, be received as a State. This is an irregularity that you cannot waive. You cannot legislate members into this body. The constitution is imperative, and there is no such thing as compromising this objection. Now you propose to readmit Michigan, and who will come here as her Senators? Will it not be the very individuals who are thus elected? And the same objection will apply to the member of the other House. The constitution requires that those who vote for members of Congress shall be those who vote for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature. But Michigan, being no State, has no State Legislature; and how is she constitutionally to get members of Congress? I have sworn to support the constitution of the United States. I can. not break that oath from feelings of friendship. I had rather that my friends should suffer, and that the admission of Michigan should be postponed. Mr. KING, of Georgia, said he had hoped that opposition to the bill would have ceased, as was usual, on the second reading. Although he was one of the committee that had been so severely rebuked for reporting the bill, so much time had been consumed with it, that he had determined to say nothing on the subject. As there was an obstinate determination to continue it, he would say a few words to justify the opinion to which he was committed by consenting to the report. He would not inVOL. XIII.-21 able. North Carolina, he said, had been referred to. Well, it was possible that a majority of the people of North Carolina had never expressly consented to come into the Union. He ventured to say that no strictly technical evidence that a majority voted was required on her admission, such as would have passed a court of justice. And North Carolina might undertake to prove hereafter that a majority never consented, though she had never made any objection, and had long received the benefits and performed the duties of a member of the Union. But this was very improbable. The same possibility existed in the case of Michigan. Though the most important subject ever agitated among the people had been fully agitated in every part of that State; though public elections were held in every county but two; though it was well known what was the subject of the convention; though it was well known that its only object was to reverse the decision of a previous convention, on a subject which they ranked among the dearest of their interests; although these delegates publicly met, publicly deliberated, and publicly decided unanimously on the subject on which they were called to deliberate, and publicly went home among their constituents, from whom we have heard not one syllable of complaint, either by letter, public meeting, legislative remonstrance, or even a newspaper paragraph; although we knew all these things to have taken place by the proofs before us, and not brought into doubt by a single whisper of evidence on the other side, yet it may be possible that the majority of the people disapprove the proceedings of this conven SENATE.] Admission of Michigan. tion; but it was one of the most improbable things that ever happened in the course of human events. He could not be influenced by possibilities so remote, and was therefore satisfied that the people of Michigan had consented to the terms proposed to them by Congress, to agree to a boundary and come into the Union. But some gentlemen, admitting this, insisted that the proceeding was revolutionary; that to allow the people, in primary assemblies, "to set themselves up above the legislative authority," (to use their own language,) struck at the very foundation of our institutions. This was strange doctrine at the present day. It was the doctrine of the house of Stuart, and of Bourbon of Austria, and of Brandenburg. It was the doctrine of the holy alliance. It was the doctrine of despotism. It was a doctrine long since exploded, he had thought, by all free Governments, particularly by our own; and if he thought there were any material portion of the people of the United States who entertained such doctrines, he should feel as much real alarm as gentlemen had imagin ed they felt at the proposition of the committee. The whole of our institutions, both State and Federal, were based on this "monstrous principle," and had no other right to rest on. The debate had been a most extraordinary one. Gentlemen had conjured up frightful pictures, and then got frightened at the works of their own imaginations. The Senator from Ohio had stated himself to be a plain matter-of-fact man. He certainly would not question the veracity of his friend as a man of truth; but if he would allow him to call his errors misapprehensions or mistakes, he would join issue with him on his statement that he was "a plain matter-of-fact man." He (Mr. K.) had | never known so many rhetorical flourishes, flights of fancy, irrelevant references, and false analogies, brought into any discussion upon any grave and important question. Something like the visions of Constantine were revived. Armies were seen marching and countermarching in the air, belted with "Bowie knives and duelling pistols." Terrific scenes of liberty trampled under foot, bugles, bayonets, bombs, and blunderbusses, haunted the minds of gentlemen, as the sure consequences of the proposed measure. After these, and many such fancies, (said Mr. K.,) which gentlemen have connected with this measure, they prove it all by what they call coming to the point, with a grave proposition and that is, "if we establish the principle, say they, that the Federal Government can call a convention in one of the States in this Union, liberty is lost, the constitution is gone." Despotism, they think, will stalk unopposed over the land, and all State rights will vanish like a sprite. One who had heard all this waste of eloquence on this proposition, and who knew nothing of the matter, would naturally suppose that some such proposition was fairly the subject of discussion. But, so far from this, nothing even like it had been proposed or maintained. Congress had not called any convention in one of the States of the Union, or even in Michigan, who was not in the Union. The plain truth was, that Michigan had been a Territory, and founded a constitution and State Government, somewhat irregularly, and applied for admission into the Union. Congress, after much debate, agreed to waive all previous irregularity, and allow Michigan to be a separate and independent community. But, at the same time, we virtually said to Michigan, that, under the constitution she had formed, her boundaries were uncertain and equivocal; that she would probably insist on boundaries that would include territory of which we had a right to form another State, or had already transferred to others. We did not wish to bring a quarrel into the confederacy, by her admission with unsettled boundaries, and therefore we could not admit her until her people, in convention, should agree to a boundary [JAN. 5, 1837. proposed. This was the whole affair. A very simple matter, when plainly stated and fairly debated. There was no "call" of a convention by Congress, in a State of the Union, or any where else. There was no law to be enforced, or disobedience to be punished. No federal officer was to be sent by an executive despot to hang up the refractory. It was only a proposition made to Mich. igan, in answer to one made by her, which, if she accepted, she was to come into the Union, and if not, she remained out of it. The awful consequences existed only in the imaginations of gentlemen who exerted themselves to give a fictitious importance to this bill. But (continued Mr. K) gentlemen ask, why did Congress refer this matter to the people of Michigan, and what right had the people to act without the anthority of the Legislature? Why, just because Congress knew, after looking at the constitution of Michigan, that the Legislature had no more power to act than it had to change the succession of the seasons, or abolish the community which it was organized to represent. If Mich igan were a State, and not in the Union, this consent involved an important change in her organic law, be sides a change of boundary; for, by consenting to the condition we had proposed, her people parted with all the important rights of sovereignty which were surrendered to the General Government by each of the States. An organic law could only be changed by the people in an elementary state of society, above the constitution, unless the constitution provided for the change. A free constitution was only a political power of attorney, containing the principles on which the Government should be administered, conferring powers for the purposes named in it, until revoked by the constituent authority. The Legislature had to look for their powers in the constitution, and could not go beyond them. But to say the people, in their high sovereign capacity, had no power to change or modify, or even abolish, their constitution, when not restrained by the federal constitution, was equivalent to saying that a merchant could not revoke a power of attorney given for commercial purposes. Even where the constitution contained a provision au thorizing the Legislature to call a convention, it might still be likened to a power of substitution in commercial persons, where both the original power and power of substitution were subject to the control of the principal. States, however, should never change their constitutions for light causes; but where a necessity existed, the right was unquestionable. It was a revolutionary right, as was every right to change a constitution of Government, however slight the change. It was, he said, no less a revolutionary right, when exercised peaceably, than when it was exercised by force, which only became necessary when the right was opposed. Mr. K. said the Legislature might call a convention when there was no express provision in the constitution to do so; but the convention derived no additional authority from the call; it was only recommendatory. But if the people met, as recommended, and acted upon their organic law, the subsequent ratification would sup. ply the the previous want of authority. In whatever way they might be convened, however, their acts were not irrevocable by themselves, but it was a striking fea. ture in the case of Michigan, that both the conventions seemed to have understood perfectly well that the Le. gislature had no right to intermeddle in the matter; and they accordingly both protested against it. This was a principle so palpable, that all classes and all parties seem to have understood it in that new State, however diffi cult it seemed to be for some gentlemen to understand it here. Mr. K. thought that the matter had been rightly referred to the people themselves, independent of the Legislature, as they alone were capable of making these important surrenders of sovereignty. JAN. 6, 1837.] Building for United States Courts at Philadelphia--Treasury Circular, &c. Mr. K. then briefly noticed some remarks of the Sen. ator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Davis,] who had stated that Michigan could not be a State, as, when she formed her constitution, she had no fixed boundaries. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. K. said, had insisted that a fixed boundary was inseparable with the idea of a State; and as the United States had claim at least to a part of the territory over which Michigan claimed jurisdiction when she framed her constitution, she could not be considered as a separate State. Mr. K. said it was perfectly true that a nation must have a territory over which it exercised jurisdiction; but an undisputed boundary was not essential to an independent State. A community might be independent, and very powerful too, whose boundaries were not well defined. Our own boundary was disputed in the Northeast; and who could state the precise boundaries of Russia? Yet Russia and the United States were none the less independent communities of people because their boundaries were not well settled. Mr. K. then adverted to the preamble to the bill, which had been so strongly objected to that some gentlemen were willing to vote for the bill if the preamble were stricken out. He said, as both Michigan and Ohio now wanted the restriction removed, and Michigan admitted without restriction, he would certainly have no objection, if no body else were concerned but Michigan and Ohio. If these States had any disinterested love of fighting, if he were to consult his own feelings, he would say, let them go at it and fight it out. But a community of States, he thought, should act on the same principle as a community of individuals. They should keep the peace among disorderly members. It would frequently gratify two bullies to settle a quarrel in the public streets, surrounded by a mob, but no well-organized community would permit such disorder. This squab ble between Michigan and Ohio, about a few acres of ground, might set the whole Union into a blaze, and possibly cost the Government millions of dollars to put it down. If the restriction were retained, he had no doubt Michigan would continue to observe it in good faith, and we should hear no more about it. We shoul, most likely, avoid the horrors of another Toledo campaign. He had, therefore, thought it best to retain the preamble, and not repeal the condition; and he hoped the bill would pass, and pass just as it was. The question was then taken on the passage of the bill, and it was passed, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Brown, Buchanan, Dana, Fulton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Nicholas, Niles, Page, Parker, Rives, Robinson, Sevier, Strange, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, Wall, White, Wright-25. NAYS--Messrs. Bayard, Calhoun, Clay, Crittenden, Davis, Kent, Moore, Prentiss, Southard, Swift-19. The Senate then adjourned. FRIDAY, JANUARY 6. [SENATE. to me that there is not a more suitable place where to commence than Philadelphia. Mr. CALHOUN called for the reading of the memorial; and it having been read, Mr. C. said he had no objection to its being referred to the Committee on the Ju. diciary; but he hoped they would pause and weigh the question a long time before they would give their assent to our commencing a penitentiary system of the United States. There was patronage enough exercised by the General Government already-its powers were great and extensive, without their being introduced into a State. He objected to a State and General Government acting together. He merely threw out these suggestions to the committee, in the hope that they would pause a long time before they would give their sanction to the commencement of the proposed system. Mr. GRUNDY said he did not object to the reference of the memorial to the committee of which he was a member. But as to pausing a long time on the subject, he had made up his mind, and he would say that, so far as he could judge of the disposition of his colleagues, they would not pause for any length of time; for the committee would report in a few days, not only on the subject of penitentiaries, but on court-houses also. Mr. BUCHANAN remarked that he was sorry to hear that the chairman of the Judiciary committee had made up his mind on the subject. It appeared to him (Mr. B.) that at some period, not very remote, it would be necessary for the Government of the United States to erect penitentiaries. How could it be avoided? As long as the Government of the United States are a Government executing their own laws, and punishing offenders against them, they must make some provisions for their punishment. The States, without entertaining any hos. tility to the Government of this Union, might find it very inconvenient to accommodate the prisoners sentenced by virtue of the laws of the United States. What was to be done? Were they to be set at liberty? Were they not to receive the punishment inflicted by the laws? He could not suppose that any State would not show a proper comity to the United States courts. But suppose it should happen that they were unable or unwilling to do this, in what a situation would the Government be placed? He could not, he confessed, see in this thing any interference with the rights or the liberties of the States. He had no idea that his calling the attention of the Judiciary Committee to the subject would have caused the least debate, or he would not have done it. The petition was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. TREASURY CIRCULAR. On motion of Mr. CLAY, (Mr. EWING, of Ohio, having been called home by sickness in his family,) the Senate proceeded to the further consideration of the joint resolution repealing the Treasury order of July last, &c. The question being on the substitute offered by Mr. RIVES, for refusing, by the United States, the paper of such banks as should issue bills under certain BUILDING FOR UNITED STATES COURTS AT specified denominations- Mr. BUCHANAN presented the memorial of sundry citizens of Philadelphia, praying that an appropriation may be made for the erection of a suitable building for the accommodation of the courts of the United States, and also for the erection of a penitentiary at that city. Mr. B. said, in presenting the petition, I recommend it to the consideration of the Judiciary Committee. I can say we have brought the penitentiary system in Pennsylvania to perfection. Our plan has become a model, not only in many parts of this country, but in Europe. And as it will be necessary, at no remote time, for the United States to erect penitentiaries, it appears Mr. SOUTHARD addressed the Senate on the subject at large, in continuation and conclusion of his former reremarks on the subject, as given entire in preceding pages. THE MINT BILL. On motion of Mr. WRIGHT, when Mr. SOUTHARD had concluded his remarks, this subject and all the other previous orders were postponed, and the Senate preceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill from the House of Representatives supplement. ary to the act for establishing a mint and regulating the coins of the United States. The amendment proposed by the Committee on Fi SENATE.] Treasury Circular. nance, extending the limit of wastage allowed to the chief coiner, from one one-thousandth part to one and a half one-thousandth part, was adopted, and the bill, so amended, was reported to the Senate. Mr. WRIGHT entered into various explanatory details, showing some small changes contemplated by the bill. After which, the bill was ordered to lie upon the table, but subsequently was taken up, and ordered to a third reading. After transacting some other business, the Senate spent a short time in executive business. The Senate then adjourned. MONDAY, JANUARY 9. The CHAIR presented the credentials of the Hon. SAMUEL PRENTISs, re-elected Senator for six additional years, from the State of Vermont. Also, the credentials of Hon. WILLIAM C. PRESTON, re-elected Senator from the State of South Carolina. TREASURY CIRCULAR. On motion of Mr. CLAY, the previous orders were postponed, and the Senate proceeded to the further consideration of the joint resolution rescinding the Treasury order of July, 1836. The question being on Mr. RIVES's substitute, Mr. STRANGE rose and addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. President: It was not my purpose to have addres sed the Senate to-day, but as some gentlemen, who desire to be heard on this question, have deferred their preparation from an expectation that I would occupy the floor, I am unwilling that inconvenience should result to a member of this body from any misconception arising from intimations I may have given. Therefore, although not prepared to my own satisfaction, I will ask the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments. I could have voted upon the original resolutions of the Senator from Ohio sub silentio, because, in so doing, my vote would have explained itself; but in adopting the substitute of the Senator from Virginia, I shall be placed in an equivocal position before my constituents, and therefore think it necessary that certain explanatory comments should accompany my vote. I will not deny, that as thoughts flowed in upon my mind during the discussion of the original question, I occasionally felt disposed to give them utterance; but prudence, that cowardly and sometimes assassin virtue, destroyed each embryo purpose as soon as it was formed. But now she changes sides, and whispers me that it is due to myself, and those whom I have the honor in part to represent, to crave the indulgence of the Senate for a few moments. I am opposed to the original resolutions, because they proposed to rescind an executive order. I do not mean by this a mere verbal criticism, for I suppose the honorable Senator really meant what his resolution contained, and proposes to rescind or repeal an executive order by a vote of the National Legislature; and this, with due deference, I conceived to be a manifest solecism. The legislative, executive, and judicial departments of this Government are wisely separated by the constitution, and one cannot interfere with the province of another. The legislative prescribes rules for the executive and judiciary, but cannot itself perform any legislative or judicial function, except in the special cases set forth in the constitution. Congress may, if it be necessary and proper, command the Executive to repeal the Treasury order, but cannot itself repeal it. Congress passes laws for the government of every citizen, from the highest to the lowest, and at his own peril he yields or withholds obedience. As well, and even with more propriety, might the Supreme Court say it repeals an act of Con [JAN. 9, 1837. gress, when it pronounces it unconstitutional, and refuses to enforce it. And as well might Congress say it re peals a decision of the Supreme Court, when that decision, having opened its eyes to some defect in the existing law, induces it to prescribe a new rule for future action. Even when the decisions of the court are pal. pably repugnant to the existing law, Congress cannot repeal them. Congress may direct what decisions shall be made in future, but cannot repeal those already published. Neither can it repeal the decisions of the Executive. The Legislature prescribes rules for the gov ernment of both these departments, and to each of them it must be left to apply them; and each must, in the first instance, judge how far its own actions square with the rules prescribed, upon its own official responsibility. A direct declaration of repeal, therefore, must be altogether inoperative, and of course an absurdity. The truth is, this Treasury order is altogether an execut ve act, and can only be undone by executive authority. Congress may command its repeal, and doubtless the Executive would yield such command respectful obedience. But it strikes me there is something in the mode of this undertaking to effect the repeal of the Treasury order, not consistent with strict parliamentary propriety; at least, not altogether consistent with the professed purpose of those who desire its repeal. It is laid down in Jefferson's Manual, the highest authority acknowledged by us in such matters, that "When the House commands any thing, it is by order. But facts, principles, their own opinions and purposes, are expressed in the form of resolutions." Now, the resolutions before us, while they assume the name of resolutions, effect the office of orders, and to perform more, as I think I have before shown, than even an order would be competent to accomplish. But, again, I am opposed to the resolutions, because they propose to prescribe a rule, unnecessarily, as I conceive, in a matter where, from its nature, a large discretion is desirable, being highly convenient, and in no degree liable to dangerous use. I know it is the fashion of the day to suppose that the executive authority is the only one liable to abuse, or in any way likely to threaten the liberties of the country. Among the blessings, Mr. President, for which we of the present day are debtors to Heaven, there are none, politically speaking, for which we have more just reason to be grateful, than that the formation of our constitution has not been left to our own hands; that we have received it ready formed, in all its beautiful proportions, by men who seem to have been commissioned by Heaven for this very thing. Surrounded by an atmosphere just purified by the storms and convulsions of the Revolution, every one feeling more strongly than any other want that of an equal, wise, and impartial Government, they addressed them. selves to the task with no faculty biased by local or personal passions. They sought for truth with their visual organs purged from the mists of prejudice, and they found her. They listened to her inspired instruc tions, and penned the happy constitution under which we now live, the envy of other nations, and the pride of our own. They divided Government into three depart. ments, and prescribed the sphere in which each should move. Harmony and safety will ever attend its action, while each strictly observes the law of its creation. But it is difficult to say from which the most direful results are to be apprehended, should it with eccentric movement forsake its natural orbit, and invade those of its sister planets. Viewing this matter in the light of ex perience, we should be led to suppose that from the le gislative department there was the greatest reason for jealousy of usurpation, or invasion of the province of others. The most remarkable and desolating revolutions of which modern history furnishes an account are those |