Constantine republican. [volume] (Constantine, Mich.) 1836-1838, 1836-07-13
From tine Detroit Daily Free Press
THE BOUNDARY QUESTION.

The state Of the boundary question has become
entirely changed. Up to the present time, or to
the passage Of the late law upon the subject, the
disputed Territory has belonged to Michigan by
virtue of the ordinance, and law OF the United
States. The State of Ohio claimed it, and en-
deavored to extend and exercise her jurisdiction
over il. But Michigan, in pursuance OF her
rights and her duty resisted the attempted usur-
patton. The Government of the United States
sustained the course of Michigan in her resist
ance to the forcible occupation OF her territory,
attempted by Ohio. The president is bound by
his oath to see that she laws of the United States
are faithfully executed, and he announced his de-
termination at the period of the collision, to Sc:
cure to Michigan the possession of the disputed
territory as provided for by the act of 1905, es-
tablishing her territorial government, unit" her
BOUNDARY should be altered by congress.
Despairing after this announcement of tie
president, of ever obtaining possession of the dis
puted territory on the pretences under which she
claimed it, Ohio made application to congress
for the passage of a law, giving to her the coun-
trv in dispute. The people of Michigan met OHIO
in that tribunal to which she had appealed, and
denied its jurisdiction of the question. We con-
tended.that congress- in establishing the terrific
rial government, by the act OF loO5, precluded II.
self from further legislation ON the SUBJECT ana
vested Michigan with boundary rights, which
could not be taken from her.
But we were overruled in the positions which
we assumed Congress decided that 1t had Juris
diction over the question in dispute, and would
proceed TO exercise it, Committees were appoint
ed in both Houses to investigate the subject, an'
the respective delegations of Michigan and Ohio
appeared before them to vindicate and contend 10
the rights of their constituents. The committee
examined the allegations and the proof, and Tn
examination resulted in a judgment against Mich
igan.
The question now presented is, whether IL !
best for Michigan to resist the execution OF Tn
judgment, which the government OF the unto
States has thus pronounced against her.
The two bills, each of which contains Jude
ment against Michigan, gives the disputed terri
tory to Ohio, at any rate, whether we compi
S unoSr 81 aitslqses dmjssSg snd pH' M
as Ohio now has the right, she will unquestion'
bly take immediate possession OF the territory
and extend the whole machinery of her State g
vernmcnt over it. The law which confers it vi
on her is statute of the United States, and tn
president is bound to see it faithfully execute'
The same oath that has required him heretofol
to aid Michigan in maintaining her laws over
, now imposes before him the unavoidable duty
sustaining Ohio to the dspossession of Michigan
!. II must be remembered that as Ohio takes posses
ion of the disputed tract under an act OF congress
if we oppose the extension OF her Jurisdictio
over IT, we incur the high penalties OF resistant
to law Of the United States.