H. OF R.] Territorial Government of Wisconsin. claim, a quit-claim deed, that the dispute may be terminated. If two men own plantations adjoining each other, and one of them claims forty rood over the true boundary line between them; this does not destroy the other one's title. It may affect the value of his land; it may prevent him from making improvements; it may be an injury to him; and he might be very anxious to have a relinquishment of the claim. But, when he gets a quit-claim from his neighbor, his title is really no better than it was before. This is exactly the situation of our three States; and the pretensions set up against our rights now, upon this floor, show the importance of having the question finally settled. We ask Congress to recognise our title; not because we think it defective, but because others say it is so. The gentleman read a part of the ordinance of 1787, which deserves his consideration, and that of every other gentleman who wishes to fully understand this matter. One stipulation read by him was, that the ordinance might be altered by "common consent of the people northwest of the Ohio, and the other States of the Union." Now, what is the meaning of those words "common consent?" No one understands the force of language better than the honorable gentleman himself. Will he, or will any one, contend that the phrase means that the consent of every individual northwest of the Ohio must be obtained? Surely no one will contend for such an absurdity. It means, simply, the consent of a majority. Well, we have that. Here are the three States, comprehending an overwhelming majority of the people of that country included in the compact, consenting on one side. On the other side is Congress, representing the remaining States and the Territory of Michigan, (for they appeal to Congress for protection,) giving their consent to an alteration of the boundary. How can any individual object to the repeal, when the very case provided for has occurred? You alter the ordinance, as it declares you may alter it. Sir, this disposes of the whole controversy. For, if it be agreed on all hands that the compact can be altered by common consent; that there are but two parties to it; and that one party is here asking an alteration; then it only remains for the other (Congress) to give their consent, in order to have it done. It is no longer a question about unalterable lines and compacts, but a question of consent, on the part of this House, to what is just and proper in itself, and consistent with our former legislation. Mr. BINNEY said that he felt reluctant to detain the committee, at so late an hour, with any remarks of his upon the question of boundary, on which the debate had for some time turned; but he regarded that question as one of the very first moment, not only to the States immediately concerned, but to the Union; and he therefore thought that a few minutes more might be profitably given to it. As a member of the committee to whom had been referred the bill from the Senate establishing the boundary line of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, it had been his duty to examine this question, and he had examined it not only with all the attention that was due to a question of such a nature, and with such consequences depending upon it, but with the benefit of able and elaborate arguments, both oral and written, by the Delegate from Michigan, [Mr. LYON,] and by one of the Representatives from Ohio, [Mr. VINTON,] and although he had gone into the examination without the slightest perceptible bias towards either conclusion, he felt it his duty to say that his inquiries had resulted in a firm conviction that the ordinance of 1787 did not offer any impediment whatever to the establishment of the northern boundary line of Ohio as the bill from the Senate had established it, and as the people of that State in their constitution had declared that, in a certain contingency, it should, with the assent of Congress, be [FER. 9, 1835. established; namely, by a direct line running from the southern extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of Maumee bay. This opinion, deliberately formed after patient and impartial inquiry, he was prepared to defend whenever the question of that boundary should be directly presented, though always, he hoped, with becoming respect for the opinions of those who might differ from him. He had no conceivable interest in the decision of the question one way or the other, except that which he had in common with every citizen in the country, all of whom must be interested in its | being settled by the application of the just authority of Congress, and in such a way as to secure the peace and prosperity of the States immediately concerned. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Illinois, though it involved most of the principles, did not (Mr. B. said) bring up the whole question of the northern boundary of Ohio, and therefore he would not particularly enter into it at the present time; but he deemed it proper, for the purpose of avoiding misapprehension, now to say that he did not mean to discuss it upon the hypothesis of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. HAMER,] that the ordinance of 1787 was an ordinary act of legislation, as susceptible of alteration as any other act of Congress. He must say that the present inclination of his mind was to regard it otherwise; and, at all events, it was his intention to give to those who denied the authority of Congress to comprehend within the limits of Ohio any territory north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly extremity of Lake Michigan, the benefit of the concession that the ordinance of 1787 was a compact, and an obligatory compact, restricting the power of Congress to the whole extent of its fair meaning. The question, nevertheless, arose, and must be decided by the ordinary rules of interpretation, what was that meaning, And what was the authority of Congress according to it? and, until that meaning should be shown to restrain Congress from passing the bill which had come from the Senate, it seemed to him to be a little premature to talk of the public faith, or of sustaining the pledged faith of the nation. If Congress had the power, by the ordinance of 1787, to include within the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, respectively, any portion of the territory north of the east and west line referred to, then the case of public faith, or of pledged faith, did not arise; and to put forward the objection of public faith, without a previous interpretation of the ordinance, was, therefore, to beg the question altogether. For himself, (Mr. B. said,) he did not regard the east and west line referred to in the ordinance as being, by any rule of construction whatever, a necessary boundary line between the lower States on the Ohio river, and the one or two States which Congress had authority to form in the northern part of what was called the Northwestern Territory. It was not called a boundary line in any part of the fifth article. It wanted the usual and almost necessary characters of a boundary, since it had neither beginning nor ending, but was a mere parallel of lati tude. It had never been regarded as a boundary line in a single act of Congress, not even in the act erecting the Territory of Michigan: for here also there was a misapprehension, which it was easy to correct. It was only partially a boundary in regard to that Territory; whereas, if the ordinance made the line a necessary boundary, it should have been wholly so, even to the exclusion from Ohio of parts of three of her counties on Lake Erie, which confessedly were north of that east and west line, and which, nevertheless, the Territory of Michigan had no pretensions whatever to include within her boundaries. If it was a necessary boundary line, the ordinance was an act of the most extraordinary legisla tion that the history of Congress presented; for, whatev er might be the motives to the contrary, and there were FEB. 10, 1835.] Election of Printer to the House. [H. OF R. no conceivable motives that were not opposed to it, it pose that the State of Illinois would surrender to Wisconfined the States of Indiana and Illinois to the very consin a most valuable part of her territory and popedge of Lake Michigan, denying to both of them author- ulation, placed under the control of her laws by the act ity to build a pier into it, for the accommodation of which admitted her into the Union. If gentlemen argutheir own shores, and the right of executing processed that Congress had no right to extend that State so far upon any one who could step into its waters. The his- north, being restrained by the ordinance, the answer tory of the ordinance was opposed to such a construc- was, that Congress had full power to give to the Territion; and, to adopt it, would be to hold that the imper-tory of Wisconsin what boundaries they thought fit, and fect knowledge of the country, the very ground on which Congress recommended Virginia so to revise her cession, as to empower them to divide the territory as the situation of the country and future circumstances might require, was utterly disregarded in the ordinance, and all future knowledge made unavailing, by the establishment of an impassable boundary, the worst, too, that could in any event be adopted. that it was against the plainest suggestions of wisdom to give it a boundary which should lead to a conflict with a State whose boundaries had been previously fixed by Congress. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. GAMBLE] had no doubt that Congress had fixed the boundaries of Illinois lawfully, and according to her authority under the ordinance, and therefore was of opinion that there was no necessity for the proposed amendment. If every body thought with him, his conclusion might be a safe one; but other gentlemen thought otherwise, and therefore it was not safe. Congress ought, to the extent of her power, to stop these contests, which were beginning to disturb the peace and security of that section of the Union. They had, in this instance, the undoubted power, and should exercise it. They had it, in his opinion, in relation to Ohio and Michigan also, and for the same reason ought to exercise it. If they deemed it expedient that Ohio should have the boundary established by the bill from the Senate, they ought to establish it, even if they doubted their power under the ordinance; for if they should transcend their power, the judicial authority of the Union would be competent to redress the injury to Michigan when she should be admitted into the Union. The question would be then a purely judicial question. But if Congress refused to establish it, under an erroneous doubt of their power, Ohio might inevitably lose the territory, though the arguments of her Representative were right, and Michigan gain it, though her's were all wrong. The difference in the number of Representatives on this floor, by whom the interests of the con The east and west line referred to was not, in his judgment, prescribed as a boundary line at all, between the contingent State or States in the north, and three States below; nor was it introduced even as a limitation of the power of Congress, for the sake of persons above, for there were none then to be considered; nor of States above, for they were contingent, and barely possible; but it was a limitation, introduced, as he conceived, for the protection of the States below, and to prevent, under any circumstances, a further diminution of the territory originally allotted to them. The ordinance intended to give Congress the discretionary power of forming one or two States in any part of the territory north of that line, and to restrain them from abridging the territory of the three States established by the ordinance, by coming to any extent whatever south of it. The northern territory, down to that line, was wholly open to the power of Congress to erect one or two States in any part of it; and so much of the southern territory as came up to the same limit was wholly withdrawn from their power. Congress might, consequently, at their discretion, refrain from coming down to the line in the formation of a new State or States, while under no circum-tending parties were guarded, ought in no way to affect stances could they pass it. It was a limit to the exercise of discretion or power by Congress in that part of the territory where discretion was given; but not a necessary bounding to the States north or south. All this would be made more apparent, upon a full examination of the ordinance; and it was the construction that had been carried out into every act of Congress, from that day to the present. The amendment proposed by the gentleman from IIlinois was, in his opinion, not only proper, but indispensable. The bill establishing the Territory of Wisconsin was so drawn, by accident or design, as to leave the northern boundary of Illinois open to contest by that Territory, and to expose Indiana also to future contest for her northern boundary with Michigan, when she should become a State, notwithstanding acts of Congress had fixed those boundaries in a manner the most precise and certain. The northern boundary of Illinois, by the act of 18th April, 1818, was the parallel of forty-two degrees thirty minutes north, from the middle of Lake Michigan west to the Mississippi river. The northern boundary of Indiana was, by the act of 19th April, 1816, an east and west line drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. The bill in committee was so drawn as to say nothing of the precise latitude of the one, or the distance in miles of the other, from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. It spoke of the southern limits of Wisconsin in precisely that way which would give to her inhabitants a pretext for raising the question whether the east and west line of the ordinance, or the line in the act of Congress, was thet rue boundary, and thus of embroiling the State of Illinois in a civil war for the maintenance of territory and jurisdiction. No one could sup the question. The House would judge for all, and should preserve the peace of all, to the extent of its power. It should do this, notwithstanding the warmest obtestations to the House to sustain the pledged faith of the nation. When it should be established that the faith of the nation restrained the action of Congress, he would be the last man in the House to disregard the restraint. He, however, held himself ready, whenever the occasion should present, to give his reasons for the opinion he held, that the faith of the nation in no way whatever prevented Congress from doing what the bill from the Senate proposed to do for the establishing of the boundary of Ohio. Mr. MASON concurred in the view taken by Mr. ADAMS; remarked on the importance of the question, and opposed the amendment, as going to pronounce sentence prematurely on a matter which ought at present to be left open. Mr. ALLEN, of Ohio, replied, with warmth, to the remarks of Mr. ADAMS; and, after intimating that the assent by Virginia to the federal constitution, subsequent to the compact of '87, had virtually changed the obligations of that instrument, concluded, as the question could not then be fully argued, by moving that the committee rise; but withdrew his motion to allow some brief explanations by Messrs. HAMER and ADAMS. On motion of Mr. MAY, the committee rose, and reported the bills to the House, with the exception of the bill establishing the Territory of Wisconsin. The House then adjourned. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10. ELECTION OF PRINTER TO THE HOUSE. MCKINLEY, as amended by Mr. SUTHERLAND, then came up as the unfinished morning business: "Resolved, That the House will, on Thursday next, proceed to the election of printer to the House of Representatives of the next Congress, by viva voce." Mr. EVANS moved the following amendment: Strike out viva voce, and insert "under the authority of the joint resolution approved March 3, 1819." The amendment having been read, Mr. EVANS said it seemed obvious to him that, if the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Alabama ought to pass at all, it should pass in the shape Mr. E. proposed. If not, he would inquire of the honorable mover, by and under what authority the House could undertake to go into the election of printer at all for the next Congress? There was none except that derived from the resolution of 1819, as amended by the joint resolution of the 5th February, 1829. Now, the very introduction of the resolution by the honorable member from Alabama recognised the force of those resolutions. It was by virtue of those two joint resolutions alone that one Congress had the right to appoint a printer for the succeeding one; and the phraseology proposed by Mr. E. was the only phraseology that could consistently be used. He begged leave, also, to remind the House that such was the phraseology adopted ever since the former joint resolution was adopted. The motion had always been made and agreed to, that on such a day the House would proceed to the election of a printer under the authority of the joint resolution of the 3d March, 1819; and, to entitle the House to do so on the present occasion, the same phraseology must be made use of. Gentlemen had said on a former occasion, when this subject came up incidentally for consideration, that the resolution of 1819 was temporary in its nature, and limited to two years. As an answer to that, he could only say that it was never considered so, neither by the then nor by the succeeding Congresses, each of whom regarded it as binding upon themselves and upon the succeeding Congress. Even so lately as 1829, the journals of the House show this; wherein it was stated that the House proceeded to the election of printer in obedience to the joint resolution of 1819, and this was the phraseology for several years after the adoption of that resolution. Then, if that resolution be in force, and had not been repealed, we derived the only authority we had to choose a printer for the next session from these two resolutions. Then, as to the mode of election, what was the language of the resolution? That the appointment of printer should be made by ballot. Now, the gentleman's resolution proposed to dispense with that provision; but Mr. E. thought one portion of the resolution was as obligatory as another; and that, as the authority under which the appointment was made was derived from the resolution alone, the mode must be in the manner therein laid down, and could not be set aside. It had been alleged that the resolution of 1819 was virtually repealed or rescinded by that of 1829; but how could that be? The latter repealed only so much of the former as was inconsistent with it; and what was that? Why, it limited the time to within thirty days of the termination of the session, and required a majority instead of a plurality of votes. These were the only alterations, and, in all other particulars, the resolution of 1819 stood unrepealed. The nature of the contract, the prices to be paid, and the mode of appointment, were unaffected. The next question that came up for consideration was, whether the printer was an officer of the House or not. Mr. E. would not go into this at any length; but it was enough for the justification of his own vote to [FEB. 10, 1835. say that he did not consider the printer an officer, within the meaning of that clause in the constitution giving each House the right to appoint its officers, no more than the person who supplied the House with stationary, or fuel, or furniture. In Mr. E's judgment it stood upon the same principle. Still, he thought, with the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. ROBERTSON,] that there was much propriety in leaving to each House to select its own printer, if it was practicable. But this could not be done; for we had the lesson of experience to show its impracticability. In the report made to the House on the 3d of March, 1819, the inconvenience of that mode was closely and ably examined, and it was shown, by the experience of former years, that the work was badly executed, and often delayed so long beyond the proper time as to be useless when completed. Mr. E. read an extract from the report in question, and showed that it would be impossi ble to be furnished with the requisite materials, types, presses, &c., unless he was enabled to provide for them beforehand, by having been elected the printer to the ensuing Congress. He also adduced one fact to show the inconvenience of the mode proposed by Mr. ROBERTSON-that a document, providing for the organization of the War Department, had been delayed upwards of a year in the printing office, till the army itself became almost in a state of disorganization. He would have had no objection that the subject should have been committed to a select committee, as proposed some time since by a gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. PEYTON;] and if any better mode than the present or the former one could be devised, Mr. E. would cheer fully support it. But let it be examined by competent persons, conversant with printing and public business. He thought they would be incurring great hazard by repealing the joint resolution, or altering the present mode in any way, at this late hour. At present, he believed the existing mode the best; at all events, he was not assured that a better could be devised. There were no complaints made. The prices were sufficiently low, and the work was promptly executed. At the second session of the nineteenth Congress, a printer, who had formerly had the contract, sent a memorial to the House, offering to do the work for fifteen per cent. under the existing tariff of prices; but Congress was satisfied, and refused to disturb the resolution fixing them. These, then, were the reasons why he thought the resolution should be amended as be had proposed. In relation to the question of viva voce voting, Mr. E. was decidedly opposed to it in this case, because he thought they had no right to adopt it, and because he was opposed to it in every election for officers of that House, and on most other occasions. He knew it was a contested question, and he had intended to have submitted some remarks on the subject when the resolution of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. REYNOLDS] was under consideration. He should now make but a few remarks on the subject. It had been advocated there on the ground of the responsibility of members to their constituents, who, it was contended, ought to know the opinions and sentiments of their Representatives; but, he would ask, how were a man's opinions and sentiments to be known by his vote for officers of that House? Had not the people opportunities enough, and better oppor tunities, of knowing the sentiments of their Representatives? In his judgment, they were to be best judged by the public policy they advocated and pursued, and not by such votes as those. Of what possible consequence could it be to the people of this country to know how their Representatives voted for A, B, or C, as an officer of the House? Besides, Mr. E. was opposed to it, as breaking down the independence of private judgment, and the right of opinion in individual members of the | House, and making them, or tending to make them, subservient elsewhere. He was much struck with a remark made by a gentleman from Georgia, who said he thought the ballot very proper for the people, because they were accountable to no one. Mr. E. would undertake to say that the principle of the ballot was never established on that ground. It always stood on the ground of personal independence; and such a reason as that assigned by the gentleman, he ventured to say, never entered into the head of any legislator. Every reason, every argument, went to show that it was established to secure the right of private judgment and independence. As to responsibility to constituents, Mr. E. admitted it as fully as any one, and respected their wishes and public opinion as much as any one; but there was a very great difference as to what constituted public opinion. It should be a calm, intelligent, deliberate judgment; not opinions got up and forced into circulation by the intrigues of designing persons. A gentleman from New York used a great many phrases about the duties of the Representative; that he was nothing more than the minion of the people, and talked about the creature and the creator; the principal and the agent. Why none of these phrases Mr. CROCKETT here called for the orders of the day. Mr. McKINLEY asked for the yeas and nays; but they were not ordered. The call for the orders of the day prevailed: Ayes 121. Mr. LOVE, agreeably to previous notice, moved that all the orders of the day be postponed in order to take up for consideration the "bill to establish the Northwestern Territory." Mr. POLK reminded the House that he had given notice of his intention this day to call up the bill regulating the public deposites in the local banks, and the bill relating to the United States Bank. Mr. LOVE said the subjects referred to by the gentleman from Tennessee had occupied the House four or five months at the last session, and was of less interest to the nation than the bill to establish the Northwestern Territory, which he now proposed to call up. Unless that bill could be considered now, it would be useless to take it up at all at the present session. Mr. DUNLAP hoped, he said, that the House would not agree to the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee. A bill of great interest to his constituents was made the order of the day for the 17th December, and had not yet been taken up. Mr. POLK hoped, he said, that the House would not longer delay to act on the bills which he had proposed to take up this day. One of those bills provided for the transfer of the loan office books from the Bank of the United States to the Government. The evidences of the payments made were in the bank, and it was the object of the bill to remove them to the public archives, and with them the small balance not yet called for. The passage of this bill was indispensable; and equally indispensable was the passage of the bill regulating the deposite of the public money in the local banks. These bills were of great national interest, and he thought they could be disposed of without much debate. He appealed to gentlemen to take up and dispose of these bills, in which the whole country was concerned, promising his aid, afterwards, in the transaction of the local business in which gentlemen were interested. The question being taken, the motion of Mr. Love was rejected. Mr. POLK then moved to postpone all the orders preceding bills No. 563, 564, 565, and 625, in order to take up those bills. Mr. MERCER suggested that the table was loaded with bills, and that there was always more time lost in struggling for the precedence of bills, at the close of a VOL. XI.-80 [H. OF R. session, than would suffice for the transaction of the business in its regular order. Mr. JONES, of Georgia, asked whether the navy bill was not the next bill in regular order. The SPEAKER stated that, after the business on the Speaker's table, in which were included bills and communications from the Departments, the bill first in order would be the bill regulating the pay of the navy. Mr. JONES expressed a wish that the navy bill might be acted on. Mr. McKIM asked the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone the orders, and they were ordered. The question being then taken on the motion, it was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 107, nays 95. DEPOSITE BANKS. On motion of Mr. POLK, the House then proceeded to the consideration of the bill regulating the deposites of the United States in certain local banks. The bill having been read, Mr. POLK addressed the House in explanation of its provisions, and in favor of its passage. The bill which has been read, said Mr. P., is substantially that which passed the House at the last session of Congress, but failed in the Senate. Upon a careful review of the provisions of the bill of the last year, the committee found but few points, in their judgment, requiring change or amendment. These will be presently stated. After the full discussions of the last year, the subject to which the bill relates, and the objects proposed to be attained by it, must be familiar to every gentleman, and it will only be necessary on this occasion to present a few prominent facts, with the conclusions to which they necessarily give rise, to satisfy not only the House but the country, that the present financial system is no longer to be regarded as an experiment. Through the agency of State banks, the fiscal operations of Government have, during the past year, been eminently successful. The collection of the public revenue, and the transfer of funds to distant points for disbursement, have been made by the deposite banks-promptly, efficiently, and without charge to the public. Nothing has been lost to the Treasury, and no part of the public service has suffered inconvenience by the employment of these agents. All this has been done, not only without the aid of the national bank, but against its power, and in defiance of its efforts to cripple their operations, to distress the community, and embarrass the Treasury. Connected with this, the state of the general currency is found to be in as sound a state as at any former period. The fiscal operations of the Government had been conducted, during the past year, as they had been previous to the existence of the present Bank of the United States, by means of arrangements made with the local banks, in pursuance of the discretionary power created by the laws in the executive department. It was deemed proper, however, for Congress to limit and define this discretion as far as by law it could be done, as well as to provide additional guards and securities for the public money; and for that purpose the bill of the last session, as well as that now under consideration, had been brought forward. In the brief view which I propose to take, I shall not deem it either necessary or profitable to re-examine the grave questions which engaged our deliberations at the last session of Congress. These have been settled, not only by this House, but by public opinion. I proceed at once to consider the objections often made, and much relied on, against the employment of State banks as public depositories and fiscal agents. They are 1st. That they are unsafe depositories of the public money; and 2dly. That they are incompetent Treasury agents. Amount due on 10th November, 1834, from banks of de- 1819, [FEB. 10, 1835. 17,182 43 stopped payment prior to 1821, including their bills in 58,772 64 6,267 00 20,623 05 21,200 30 $908,891 61 1 |