Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1840-06-30
Opinion Of James Kent and Dauid b.
Ogden.

Ogden.
The undersigned counsel to whom his
Excellency the Governor of the State Of
Michigan submitted concurrent reso-
luton of the Legislature Of that State of
the 9th of April last, by which he was re-
quested TO obtain the opinion Of counsel
touching the legal right Of the State to the
tract of land on its southern border, COM
monty called the disputed ground. and the
best mode of prosecuting the claim of the
State thereto, respectfully report:
That they have carefully and diligently
examined and considered the case, and
with all the anxiety to obtain the truth that
the gravity of the questions and the dgni-
ty of the application excited.
They have seen and examined the fol-
lowing documents, which have either q di-
rect or remote bearing upon the points SUBJ
mtted.
The ordinance Of Congress of July IS,
1887.
The act of Congress Of April 30, 1902,
CHI. 40
The constitution Of Ohio, of 1902.
The act Of Congress, Of February 10,
1908.
The act of Congress of January H.,
1905, CHI &C.
The act of Congress Of May 20, 1912,
CHI. SO.
The act Of Congress of April 10, 1916,
CHI. 81.
The constitution of Indiana Of June 90
1916.
The act Of Congress Of April Is, 1918,
CHI. CO.
The act Of Congress Of March 2, 1927,
oh. 81.
The constitution Of Michigan Of May IL,
1885.
The act of Congress Of June Is, 1886,
CHI. 90.
The act Of Congress OF June 25, 1886,
CHI. III.
The act of the Legislature Of Michigan
of July 25, 1886.
The first convention Of the people Of
Michigan, of September &c, 1886.
The second convention of December Is
1886.
The act Of Congress Of January 90,
1887.
In communicating 10 counsel the concur
rent resolutions Of the Legislature of Mich
igan, his eXcellcncy the Governor, stated
the following points as being those which
were deemed to embrace the entire merits
OF the question at issue:
l. Had Michigan just and legal claim,
under the ordinance Of 1887, 10 the terrific
ry in dispute?
2. Was the subsequent action Of the Con-
gross of the United States depriving her of
| that territory, authorized and constitutional?
3. What is the binding force and effect
of the assent Of the people Of Michigan TO
the conditions Of the act Of Congress, pro-
viding for the admission Of the State into
the Federal Union?
4. Was the assent Of that convention
the "common consent" required by the or
dinance of 1897, for the alteration of the
southern boundary Of the State Of Michi-
gan, as established by the act Of 1902
5. Is the right Of Michigan 10 the con-
tested territory precluded either by the ac-
ton Of Congress or the assent Of her own
people.
6. If not, what is her remedy for regain
ing t1e jurisdiction over the territory; the
power of the Supreme Court of the United
States over the subject; and the proper
mode of bringing the question before that
tribunal?
l. In answer to the first question, we are
of opinion that the people Of the territory
of Michigan had just ndlegal claim, I'M
der the ordinance of 1887, to the territory
in dispute.
That ordinance established certain arii-
Giles of compact between the original states
and the people and states, in the territory
Of the United States northwest Of the river
Ohio, which were to remain forever unal-
terable unless by common consent; and, in
and by one Of these articles, the boundaries
of the states within the territories were TO
become fixed and established; and the cas-
tern state (now Ohio had its boundaries
declared, and which were, on the north,
the territorial line between the United States
and Canada. But the boundaries of that
and the other two western states were SUBJ
iect 10 be so far altered that, if Congress
should find it expedient, they should have
authority to form one or two states in that
part of the said territory which lay north
of an east and west line drawn through the
southerly bend or extreme Of lakeMichigan
Here was a clear stipulation that an east
and west line drawn through the southery
bend or extreme of lake Michigan was 10
be the boundary line between the three
States, land Of which the eastern state or