Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1840-06-30
VOLUME | NUMBER 3

by common consent.
2. In answer TO the second question, we
do not know of any act or acts of Congress-
which can be deemed to partake Of the cha
racter of depriving Michigan of the terri
tory in question, prior 10 the acts of the
18th and 23d of June, 1886. The act Of
Congress of April 80, 1902, for the adj
mission of Ohio into the Union, and the
act of Congress of January Is, 1905,
erecting the territory Of Michigan, and the
act Of Congress Of May 90, 1912, for sur
veying the northern boundary line Of Ohio,
expressly recognized the Michigan line;
and though the act Of Congress of April
10, 1916, for admitting Indiana into the
Union, shifted the east and west line drawn
through the southcrly bend or extreme of
lake Michigan, TO an cast and west line
ten miles north Of the other, yet the terri
tory affected by that alteration Of the line
is not part Of the territory now in dispute
The alteration was made with the consent
of Indiana, declared by her conventions nd
the territorial government Of Michigan ne
yer questioned it. 1t passed by common
consent.
The act Of Congress Of the 18th June,
1886, was passed after Michigan had met
in state convention and adopted consti-
tuition for herself as separate state, and
it recognised her territory as established
by the act Of Congress Of January IL,
1905. 1t was an act preparatory to the
admission of Michigan into the Union, and
made also, as its title purported, to establish
the northern boundary of the State of Ohio
1t declared that the northern boundary line
of Ohio should be a direct line drawn from
the southern extremity Of Lake Michigan
to the most northerly cape of Miami bay,
&c. This was undoubtedly a change to
the prejudice of Michigan, of the line es-
tablished by the ordinance Of 1857, and
recognised in the subsequent acts of Con-
gress. But the statute further provided
for the consent Of Michigan TO the altera-
ton, by making her consent TO that alto
ration an express condition Of her ad-
mission into the Union, and which con-
sent was required to be solemnly given
by a convention of the people Of Michi-
gan. This condition, precedent, VIC are Of
opinion,was unduly attached to the adms-
sion Of that State for the articles of COM
pact in the ordinance Of 1887 gave that
| State a right to be admitted into the Un-
ion whenever she had obtained the requi..
site number Of inhabitants. The necossi-
ty Of the consent Of Michigan to the al :
iteration Of the boundary line thus unduly
required, was evidence of the sense OF
| Congress that the alteration would not res
upon any secure foundation without it
But the subsequent act of the Odd June
1887, without reference to any conscn t
n IN fbo. A.
northern boundary of the State of Ohio,
should be established and extend to q di -
rect line running from the southern OK =
tremity of Lake Michigan to the mos t.
northerly cape Of the Miami bay, &C.
This was putting an end TO the questio n
at once, without waiting for the consert
Of Michigan to be given as required by the
preceding act; and, in our opinion, thos @
two acts did unauthorizedly, and in breach
of the original compact of 1877, deprive
Michigan Of her right to the territory in
question.
3. But, in answer to the third question,
and which will involve in it an answer TO
the remaining questions, for they all de-
pend on the same principle, we arc of
opinion that the State and people Of Michi-
gan are bound by the consent given by
the convention of the 18th December, 1886,
to the alteration Of their southern boun-
dairy line, and by their subsequent recog-
milton of their lawful admission into the
Union under that consent, and the act of
Congress of January 26th 1887, made in
pursuance Of il. The lawfuness of the
convention which gave that consent is not
now to be drawn In question. The State
and the Congress Of the United States
have equally assumed its act TO be valid,
and acted under it; nor can it be admit
ted for u moment that the second conyen-
ton acted under durcss and not freely
1t was a matter resting in their sound
discretion, whether the convention would
submit TO their entrance into the Union
upon the conditions annexed. The State
OF Michigan is now stopped by conside-
rations of honor and dignity, and by her
own solemn acts and recognitions, from
denying the validity Of her admission into
the Union, and from calling in question at
this day the binding force of the terms
upon which she consented to become Il
member of the Union. The alteration in
the north boundary line Of Ohio has now
been made by the common consent re-
quired in and by the ordinance of 1857
and, in our opinion, Michigan has no rem
edy left her, that is known to the constitu-
ton and laws of the land, by which she
can lawfully disturb the boundary line as
now settled. JAMES KENT,
DAVID p. OGDEN.
New YoRK, September 6, 1898.