proposed was, a declaratory expression of Congress, sanctioning the survey of the northern boundary of that State, made agreeably to an act of Congress authorizing "the President of the United States to ascertain and designate the northern boundary of the State of Indiana." That boundary, said Mr. H., is fully and certainly described in the act of April, 1816,authorizing the people of the Indiana Territory to form for themselves a constitution and State Government. In that act, the northern boundary was declared to be "an east and west line drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan," until the same shall intersect the meridian line which forms the western boundary of the State of Ohio. The convention which formed the constitution of the State of Indiana, on the subject of boundary, pursued the letter of the law referred to, and incorporated the same language in the constitution of that State. The 17th section of the 11th article, said Mr. H., reads as follows:

"In order that the boundaries of the State of Indiana may more clearly be known and established, it is hereby ordained and declared that the following shall be, and for ever remain, the boundaries of the said State, to wit: bounded on the east by the meridian line which forms the western boundary of the State of Ohio; on the south by the Ohio river, from the mouth of the Great Miami river to the mouth of the river Wabash; on the west by a line drawn along the middle of the Wabash river, from its mouth to a point where a due north line, drawn from the town of Vincennes, would last touch the northwestern shore of the said Wabash river; and from thence, by a due north line, until the same shall intersect an east and west line, drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of lake Michigan; on the north by the said east and west line, until the same shall intersect the first-mentioned meridian line which forms the western boundary of the State of Ohio."

The resolution admitting the State of Indiana into the Union, approved 11th December, 1816, declares that the people of the said Territory, in pursuance of the act before recited, did, on the 29th June, in that year, form for themselves a constitution and State Government, which constitution and State Government is republican, and in conformity with the ordinance of 1787. By that resolution the State of Indiana, with the boundaries prescribed for her in the law of 1816, and the boundaries incorporated into her constitution, was admitted into the Union" on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever." The northern boundary, then, is, as I believe, as certainly fixed and established as the southern boundary; and I regret, said Mr. H., that doubts should have existed on the subject. I disclaim all doubts, and dissent from all opinions, that the question of boundary between Indiana and Michigan is an open question, and unsettled. But I have not yet given, said Mr. H., the whole congressional history of this matter. The northern boundary, though well defined, had not, in 1827, been run and marked agreeably to the constitution of the State; and, by act of Congress of the 2d March, 1827, the President of the United was authorized "to ascertain and designate the northern boundary of the State of Indiana." This service was committed to the surveyor general of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, who detailed one of his most scientific deputies to perform the work, a report of which was duly returned to the General Land Office, and is now before the Senate. The amendment which I offer declares that the line thus surveyed, marked, and designated, shall ever hereafter be deemed and taken as the line mentioned in the constitution of the State of Indiana, drawn due east and west, through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. It is intended to estop Michigan at a future day from saying or alleging

[JAN. 6, 1835.

that the line had not been correctly ascertained, and to put for ever at rest questions of jurisdiction along the boundary. Michigan, indeed, claims to come south to an east and west line drawn through the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, and denies that the acts of Congress, providing for the admission of the States of Indiana and Illinois into the Union, ought to have any influence whatever in establishing the construction of the 5th article of the ordinance of 1787, because those acts were passed before Michigan was represented in Congress, and before that Territory had a Legislative Council, or any other means through which the people there could call the attention of Congress to the fact that those acts were infringements on their rights. The Delegate from that Territory has further been pleased to say, that "the true northern boundary of the States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, is a line drawn due east and west, through the southern extreme of Lake Michigan; and all acts and parts of acts of Congress, or of either of those States, so far as they do or may conflict with this boundary, are, and must be, null and void." And what is this ordinance which gives these rights to Michigan, and authorizes this tone in her Delegate and Legislative Council? It simply provides that the boundaries of the three States based on the Ohio river, and which were originally intended to run northwardly to the territorial line of the United States, should "be subject so far to be altered, that, if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two States in that part of the said Territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southern bend or extreme of Lake Michigan." Now, what disinterested man, on reading this ordinance, would come to the conclusion that Michigan had rights which set the legislation of Congress at defiance, and prohibited the location of the boundaries of any or all of those States north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan. Congress is indeed prohibited from coming, with the northern boundaries of these three States, south of this east and west line, but she may go as far north of that line as shall be deemed expedient, even to the boundary of the United States. Congress has not yet established more than three States, and may yet exercise her pleasure on the subject. A law of Congress still exists, making it obligatory on Ohio, if such shall be the pleasure of Congress, to attach to that State all the territory north of her; and this understanding with the States of Indiana and Illinois, would yet merge Michigan, with all her pretensions, in the three States originally contemplated; more than which number Congress has not yet declared it expedient to form. Michigan has only been formed into a Territory for the purpose of temporary government.

Michigan is indebted to the States south of her for the territory which gives her existence. The chief portion of this territory, in peninsular Michigan, has been taken from Indiana; and of all the States already formed, or to be formed, in the old Northwestern Territory, Indiana has most reason to complain. In geographical extent, she is less than any other State west of the mountains, and will have little more than half the territory with which Michigan expects to be admitted into the Union; and the State west of Michigan, running north to Lake Superior, and the Lake of the Woods, and west to the Mississippi, will be as large as the three States already formed; so that, in point of size, Michigan has nothing of which to complain. One object which Indiana had in going north of the east and west line, so often mentioned, was, that she might include the mouth of the St. Joseph river, and have a harbor there on the lake. In that she has been defeated. Her northern boundary is near thirty miles south of that harbor; and it would be a proposition at this moment, in my opinion,

JAN. 7, 1835.]

entirely reasonable, that her boundary should be thrown so far north as to include Newburyport, and thence to run due east to the meridian which forms her eastern boundary. This proposition, however, I do not make. Indiana will be satisfied with her present boundary, and with her single harbor at the mouth of Trail creek; but this harbor she will expect Congress to improve. It will be of great value to that portion of the State. She will hope, too, to remain in quiet and peaceable possession of her own territory; and with this object in view, (said Mr. H.,) I propose the following amendment as a second section of the bill:

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the boundary line, surveyed, marked, and designated, agreeably to "An act to authorize the President of the United States to ascertain and designate the northern boundary of the State of Indiana, approved March 2, 1827," shall be deemed and taken as the east and west line mentioned in the constitution of the State of Indiana, drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, and shalllbe, and for ever remain, the northern boundary of said State.

The amendment was adopted.

Several other slight amendments to the bill were offered and adopted.

Mr. EWING stated that nearly all the inhabitants of the disputed district had signed a memorial to Congress, asking to be attached to the State of Ohio.

The bill, with the amendments, was reported to the Senate.

Mr. TYLER said he had received information from the Representative from Michigan, which induced him to doubt the justice of the measure proposed by the bill. He had been informed that the object of Ohio was to get a place of depot at the termination of her canal, which was not needed, as the Maumee river, now with in her boundaries, was sufficiently navigable. That the boundaries of Ohio were precisely fixed by the act of the admission by which the disputed tract was not included. The first inclination of Mr. T. was to take the side of

the weaker party, and he was unwilling that injustice should be done to Michigan.

Mr. EWING denied the correctness of the statements

which had been made to Mr. TYLER, and asked why the Delegate from Michigan had not before made these objections, since the subject had been so long before Congress? Mr. E. made some statements which went to show that the disputed tract had already been virtually recognised by Congress as belonging to Ohio. The various amendments were adopted by the Senate, and the bill was then ordered to a third reading. The Senate then adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, JAN. 7.

ORATION OF MR. ADAMS.

Mr. CLAY rose to perform a duty which was assigned to him, as chairman of the joint committee on the subject of honoring the memory of Lafayette. He stated that the thanks of the two Houses had been presented to Mr. ADAMS, by order of Congress, his reply

to which had been received. The committee had also

addressed a letter to Mr. ADAMS, requesting a copy of his oration for publication. The reply to that letter, assenting to the wish of Congress thus communicated, was now before him; and he should move to lay these papers on the table. It was now his duty, and he felt some embarrassment in its performance, to move the printing of the oration. If he were to be guided by his opinion of the great talents of the orator, and the extraordinary merit of the oration, he felt that he should be unable to specify any number. But it was necessary to fix on some number. As the House had ordered VOL. XI.--8

[SENATE.

50,000 copies, it would hardly be necessary for the Senate to order as many. In the proportion of the Senate to the House of Representatives, he thought that about 10,000 would be the proper number. He would there. fore propose that number, although he should be entirely satisfied with a greater or less number, as the Senate might determine. He concluded with moving that 10,000 copies be printed. The motion was agreed to.

IMPROVEMENT OF THE WABASH.

The bill for the improvement of the Wabash river of its passage, was taken up and read a third time. On the question

Mr. CLAY said that he could not allow the question to be put without a passing notice of the principles contained in the message of the President, returning the bill passed at the last session, making an appropriation for the improvement of the Wabash. He hoped this bill would pass, and experience from the President a kinder fate than the bill of the last session.

merce.

According to the President, the constitution does not authorize, or at least ought to be practically limited, to those improvements in our navigable waters which are calculated to advance the interests of our foreign comabove the highest port of entry. If this be the true He thinks no improvement ought to be made meaning of the constitution, our powers do not depend upon the terms or grants of the instrument itself, but upon our previous exercise of another power on a collateral subject. The effect would be to make the constitution a floating machine, impelled not by itself, but by the will of Congress exercised in the establishment of ports of entry.

And what would be the effect of this interpretation or execution of the constitution upon the interests of the interior of the country, by far the greatest portion of it? The great interior of the country would be repudiated, cut off from all the benefits of the constitution in one of its most beneficent provisions. Our internal commercethe commerce between the different States--would be

stript of all advantages from the exercise of a power which it is impossible to show does not equally comWe should prehend that with our foreign commerce. apply the power, generally, below tide-water; for ports of entry are generally confined to tide-water, where, from the bounty of nature, it is not essentially necessary; and we should refuse it where its exercise is demanded for the comfort and convenience of the people in the transportation of the products of their industry.

Against such a limited, partial, unequal, and unjust execution of the constitution of the United States, I enter my protest in the most solemn form in which it can be made. It is impossible that the people of this country can ever consent to such a construction of it. It is impossible that they can ever be satisfied with an arbitrary rule, presented, too, not by the Legislative authority, but put forward by Executive will. He had risen for the sole purpose of entering his protest; he should vote with pleasure for the bill.

bill, by yeas and nays, as follows: The question was then taken on the passage of the

YEAS-Messrs. Benton, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Kane, Kent, Knight, Linn, McKean, Naudain, Porter, Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Swift, Tipton, Tomlinson, Webster-23.

NAYS--Messrs. Bibb, Black, Buchanan, Calhoun, Grundy, Hill, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Leigh, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Preston, Shepley, Tallmadge, Tyler, White--17.

OHIO BOUNDARY LINE.

The bill to settle the boundary line of the State of

Ohio was read a third time; and, on the question being put, "shall this bill pass,'

Mr. SHEPLEY observed, he wished that some time might be allowed to place certain facts relating to this important measure beyond dispute. The Delegate from Michigan was desirous of being heard as to various allegations from the member from Ohio, which had, he thought, produced erroneous impressions. He mov ed that the rule be suspended which forbids any stranger appearing on the floor of the House, to admit of the Delegate from Michigan being heard at the bar of the Senate. The nineteenth rule of the House was then read by the Clerk.

Mr. EWING inquired if this motion was in order. He thought not, unless notice had been previously given.

Mr. CALHOUN said that the rule could not be suspended except by the unanimous consent of the House. He moved that the motion be laid on the table, and take the regular course.

Mr. KING, of Alabama, remarked that, at the last session, the Senator from South Carolina was quite outrageous when it was said that the Senate could not suspend its rules at pleasure; they were frequently suspended; whereas, now we are told they cannot be sus pended except by unanimous consent.

Mr. CALHOUN conversed in an under tone with Mr. KING, but none of his remarks reached the reporter. Mr. BIBB said he would determinately resist the introduction of any stranger whatever on the floor of the

Senate.

Mr. CLAYTON said that the Delegate for Michigan had been heard for two days successively on this subject before the committee. He had then laid before them all his arguments and statements, and—

The VICE PRESIDENT spoke to order: he begged to remind the honorable Senator that the question before the House was to suspend the 19th rule of the Senate. Mr. CLAYTON explained. He would not object to receiving more light on the subject.

Mr. POINDEXTER thought that, considering the peculiar situation of the quasi representative of Michigan, and that here was a question of the partition of that Territory, a question of the utmost importance to his constituents, indulgence might be extended on this occasion, and the benefit to be derived from his information might be received. He therefore suggested that the bill be suspended for one week, and the Delegate be permitted to submit his statements in writing. He moved that, from these motives, the bill be laid on the table, and called up next week.

Mr. EWING observed, all the facts that could be adduced on this subject had been collected two winters ago: if any gentleman wanted information, he might find it in the printed documents, if he would take the trouble to read them. If the object of the motion was to obtain more light on the subject, he would not object to it; but if procrastination was the object, he would never consent to lay the bill on the table. For many winters past the bill had been brought up, and, on the pretence of bringing forward new facts, had been delayed and lost. There were no new questions that could be raised; there were no new facts of evidence to be adduced. It is true there were such little questions as to the exact depth of certain waters, and such like; but these were questions in statement, not in evidence. If gentlemen are disposed to occupy the time of the House with bringing forward such statements, I am satisfied; the subject has been discussed again and again; but if it is wished to go over these discussions once more, I am satisfied; but, sir, (observed Mr. E.,) one thing I say, that if delay should thus be gained, it will be fatal to the bill, and all our labor will be in vain.

[JAN. 7, 1835.

Mr. SHEPLEY said the bill could not be lost by assenting to the motion for a few days to gain more information. It was an important question, that of annexing a large increase of territory to Ohio. He understood there were very important matters of fact in dispute, and not mere statements. He understood a map was now in preparation in New York, which the Delegate desired to lay before the members. By this it would be seen that some serious errors had been made in the views taken from former maps.

Mr. CLAYTON observed, if gentlemen would only take the trouble to turn over their own files of papers, they would find thirty printed pages of arguments and statements brought forward by the Delegate of Michigan. For four entire hours he himself had heard that Delegate establishing and urging his arguments before the committee! The mass of evidence on this subject occupied more than eighty-four pages of printed

matter.

Now, as relates to maps, he would beg to observe, that examining and comparing different maps would never settle this question. He believed that Captain Hutchins's map of 1778 was correct; he was appointed geographer to Congress, which is the same office now known as surveyor general; he made a correct map of the Territory. But it was not in evidence that the ordinance was made with reference to this map. The point claimed by Ohio is a line which, striking Miami bay, shall cut Cedar Isle exactly in two; that is the spot Ohio claims for her boundary, and it will be made by a line running due east and west through Lake Michigan. Now, if gentlemen will not give this, they will, if they refer to the maps, find that more than this, more than Ohio claims, will be given by a different line. The only effect upon the decision which maps will have, will be to show that Ohio is entitled to more territory than she is now contending for. This is not properly a question between Ohio and Michigan, but between the United States and Ohio. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TYLER] yesterday remarked that he felt disposed to vote for the weaker party. Ohio, then, is the weaker party. It is indispensably necessary to her that she should have the line established, so as not to ruin her canal, by which the waters of Ohio and Miami will be connected together. Now, if this bill does not pass, the effect will be to deprive her of jurisdiction over a great part of her own improvement; and is it fair and just that Ohio should build the house, and, after all her expense and trouble, Michigan should keep the key?

Mr. SHEPLEY still pressed for delay. The person who drew up the ordinance was yet alive, and he thought the intentions of that instrument might be better known by consulting him.

Mr. EWING ridiculed the idea of gaining delay by waiting to consult old Nathan Dane. The convention by which Ohio became a member of the Union inserted a provision that if the boundary line, as described, did not pass exactly through Cedar Isle, in Miami bay, then that line should be the boundary which did pass through that island. With this condition, and under this proviso, Ohio came into the Union, and it must be fulfilled; it cannot, by any principle of law or equity, be set aside; Ohio claims it-it is of vital importance to her. What led to the insertion of this proviso, was the suspicion of a mistake in the maps, suggested by an Indian trapper who had been beaver hunting about the lake. For fifteen years, memorials and counter memorials have been presented on this subject; the passage of the bill has been repeatedly ruined by delays, and now, at last, the gentleman from Maine is desirous of laying the bill on the table, because, forsooth, he thinks he can procure, in ten days time, such information as it has taken fifteen years to gather together and accumulate!

JAN. 8, 1835.]

Mr. LEIGH made some remarks deprecating further delay.

Mr. BIBB, adverting to the disputed boundary of Maine, strongly deprecated the creation of a similar controversy between two States of the Union; therefore, before Michigan is admitted as a State, this question ought to be settled, and future and endless litigations be prevented.

Mr. POINDEXTER pressed for time to gain further information; not to throw obstacles in the way of the bill, but that the question may be settled more satisfactorily. Mr. EWING asked whether the object was to delay the bill, or merely to prevent the Delegate from Michigan from addressing the Senate?

Mr. POINDEXTER said his object was simply that the views of the Delegate from Michigan might be prop. erly stated. He had no seat on the floor of the Senate, and wished for an opportunity of presenting his views, either at the bar of the Senate or in writing; it was unimportant which. Mr. P. wished to postpone the bill for a few days only for this purpose. It might be acted upon on Monday next.

Mr. EWING thought the Delegate did not wish to present his views in writing. He had already written long and much, and it was not possible that he should present any other fact on the argument than what he had done already. Mr. E. did not understand that the Delegate asked for time, and a delay till Monday was likely to lead to further and long-protracted delay.

The motion to lay the bill on the table was decided in the negative.

The bill was passed; and, on motion of Mr. HENDRICKS, its title was altered so as to include the States of Indiana and Illinois.

VACANCIES IN COMMITTEES.

Mr. CLAY said that, in consequence of the resignation of Mr. SPRAGUE, there was a vacancy in the Committee of Foreign Relations, and he moved that the Senate proceed to fill the vacancy, which was agreed to; when, on balloting for the member, Mr. PoRTER was elected.

Mr. SILSBEE remarked that, by the same occurrence, there was a vacancy in the Committee on Commerce. He moved that the Senate proceed to fill the same, which was agreed to; when Mr. TOMLINSON WAS

chosen.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

The special order being called by the CHAIR, being the bill to provide for payment of claims for French spoliations prior to 1800

Mr. TALLMADGE hoped the question would not be taken at that time. He was authorized to state, on be. half of his colleague, that he was, to-day, diligently employed at home, in preparing himself to speak on this subject to-morrow, if it should be the pleasure of the Senate to hear him then.

Mr. WEBSTER said he did not feel authorized in postponing this question. He had heard suggestions from other quarters; and if the Senate postponed taking the question for one member, others would follow, and they might as well surrender the question at once. He felt himself bound to press the Senate on this subject. If there were none to take a part except the gentleman from New York, [Mr. WRIGHT,] he should certainly be willing to give him an opportunity of being heard; but he could not agree to any course which was likely to put off the action of the Senate beyond to-morrow. He hoped that if any other gentleman wished to speak on the subject, he would avail himself of this opportunity. It was now three or four weeks since the subject was introduced, and it was now time that it should be brought to a close.

[SENATE.

Mr. TALLMADGE intimated to the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, that he had not purposed to prevent any other gentleman from taking the floor at this time.

Mr. WEBSTER had every disposition to extend the utmost courtesy to the honorable Senator from New York, [Mr. WRIGHT;] but it was his wish that, to-morrow, the bill should be out of the Senate. If he understood that no other gentleman intended to speak, he should give way to the motion.

Mr. POINDEXTER said it was not his intention to take any part in the debate. If no one intended to offer any amendment to the bill, the gentleman from New York could as well deliver his sentiments on this subject after the bill was engrossed, on the question of its passage.

Mr. TALLMADGE believed that his colleague intended to make some objections to the principles of the

bill.

Mr. BIBB said that he had not satisfied himself on all the matters contained in the bill. He should like to look further into the merits of it, and to examine the grounds on which the claims rest; for he was under the impression that the bill was so worded as to include a certain description of cases which ought not to have been introduced. He would not say it was so, but that was the notion he at present entertained.

Mr. WEBSTER would be very unwilling to press the question to the inconvenience of any gentleman. This was a judicial question, strictly speaking, and it required caution, and the most scrupulous attention, to which all questions of this grave character were entitled. He should have been glad if the honorable gentleman from Kentucky had had an opportunity of looking into this subject, for he (Mr. W.) would have been glad to have heard his sentiments on it, as he was fully compe. tent to give an accurate opinion. To-morrow, he trusted, the bill would be ordered to be engrossed.

He then withdrew all opposition to the motion to postpone, when the bill was accordingly postponed until

to-morrow.

On motion of Mr. BENTON, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After being in executive session some time, The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 8.

FRENCH SPOLIATIONS.

The bill making compensation for French spoliations prior to 1800, being under consideration

Mr. WRIGHT rose and said he owed to the Senate the expression of his most respectful acknowledgments for the indulgence which had been extended to him in the postponement of this subject from yesterday to this day, and he felt the deepest regret that he was compelled to say, even after this indulgence, that he was but partially prepared to discuss the several topics presented for discussion. He had found these old claims surrounded by such a mass of matter which ought to be read and carefully examined, that, although the bill had been before the Senate a month, and although it was but just to himself to say that he had most industriously employed every hour he could spare from other imperious calls upon his time, he had been able to go through but a portion of the diplomatic correspondence and legislative documents necessary to a full understanding of the whole case. If, therefore, he should be found to take posi tions not authorized by the facts, or to come to conclusions unsustainable from the whole record, he hoped the Senate and the country would impute his mistakes, not to design, but to want of time to make himself more