Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1840-07-07

| MON CONSENT. but the 1aCt lnal COu-
gress, in the final settlement Of the Ohio
and Michigan question, admitted the right
of the latter to the country she claimed, IS
pointed to us evidence that our claim also
must be admitted. Is there rot, however,
| an important difference between the two
cases? 1t must be recollected that up to
! the 25th Of June, 1896, after Michigan had
met in Convention and adopted Constitu
| ton for herself as an Independent State,
no act of Congress, as in the case of Wis
| consin, had been passed which could be
deemed TO portake of the character Of de-
priving Michigan Of any part Of the
| territory to which she was entitled under
J the Ordinance. On the contrary, in the
act admitting Ohio, in the act erecting the
Tel rtory of Michigan, and in the act for
surveying the northern boundary of Ohio,
the Ordinance line of Michigan was &c
press7y recognized; and in the act of June,
1886, providing for her admission into the
Union under certain conditions, it was not
pretended that her boundary could be alter
ed without her consent. With regard to
Wisconsin, the law for the admission of
Illinois deprived her Of a portion of her
law in her southern boundary, it is con-
tended, all the consent which is necessary
under the compact has been given. The
case, then, Of Wisconsin and Michigan is
not paralel-,he only parallel is in the
! case Of Michigan and Indiana; and here,
in accordance with the views before pre-
scented founded upon the opinion Of Kent
and Ogden, there is nothing in our favor.
We do not wish to be understood as taking
the ground distinctly that our claim TO the
country in dispute is not a valid one. We
have briefly given some reflections that a.
rose in our mind upon slight invcstiga-
ten Of the subject. A discriminating pub
lie will decide whether they are entitled to
any weight"
With regard to the matter Of con-
ScRt, We have not the material at hand to
enable us to go into a full argument on the
subject, but briefly, it appears to US, that,
under the circumstances, it has never, either
tactly or expressly been given, and that
therefore, the right remains as firm as the
solemn compact Of 1897, unimparcd, can
make it. The line is q common one, and
when Illinois was admitted into the Union,
Wisconsin can hardly be considered as ha-
wing an existence. The territory Of Mich
igan embraced her boundaries, and the de-
legate Of Michigan, was the representative
Of the population Of Wisconsin,, in Congress.
and it is not surprising, as little as Wiscon-
sin was then known, her representative re-
mote from both her territory and people,
knowing little and perhaps caring less for
her wants and wishes, that she should not
be heard in Congress Directing - the in
fraction Of her rights, particularly when
that infraction was supported by power
! full interest. The consent Of Indiana to a
change Of her boundaries, was given in au-
thorizod convention of her people, SO Was
the consent of Michigan to the claim of
Ohio: but has ever any such consent been
given Try the people Of Wisconsin; did they
ever, either in convention or otherwise, as
sent to the claim Of Illinois; and is it not
pretty good evidence, now that she haseX-
istence as a territory, and a voice, and does
object to the claim that she did not intend
when she could not speak, that her silence
should be construed into consent. 1t is an
odagc, to be sure, tina: silence gives con-
sent, but there are exceptions TO this, and
a very prominent one is, where the par
~ interested or addressed, cannot speak,
and we DO not think that Congress ever in
tended that this consent could be impIied;
it is matter Of too much moment to rest
upon presumption, and it is only by cypress
consent that it can be contended as having
positively been made. There is no neces-
sity for arguing or even mentioning the
thousand incidental matters connected with
this question:; it is simply one Of right,
which can be reduced to very small COM
pass and made plain in very few words.
The ordinance of 1857 declares that the
boundary shall be a line drawn through the
southern bend or extreme Of lake Michigan,
which line shall be unaIterable, unless by
common consent I here is not now nor
has there been any power in existence ha-
wing the authority 10 alter or annul this
provision, it could only be done by the COM
mon consent Of the parties, yet it has been
| altered, and can any person show where,
| in anv instance. the consent Of Wisconsin.