Wisconsin herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1846-1849, 1847-01-23

river at the north. at or near the Win
ncbago rapids.-Wis. Argus.
REMARKS ofDAvIEL r. BURT, Of
Grant, on the,question Of striking
out The Pro6iSo Of the report Of the
committee on the Boundary, and
the amendment offered byl Mr..
H0!comb, TO change The north-icest
line. made Ia Convention, N0gena-
Der -.
Mr.. PpEs1DENr-The gentleman
from Waukesha, MIR. Parks asks tie
question, what did Michigan gain by
making an issue with Ohio; and what
can we expect TO gain by making an
issue with Illinois or Michigan by re-
tanning the proviso in the article now
under consideration. / rise TO answer
that question. And | intend also, TO
offer briefly what consider reasons
for retaining the proviso in the report.
What did Michigan gain by making
the issue with Ohiol Sir, she drove a
good bargain with Congress. She OBJ
tanned cession of much more valua-
bic and extensive territory. She OBJ
tanned five hundred thousand acres Of
land for internal improvements; twelve
salt springs, and six sections contigu-
Gus to the same seventy-two sections
for seminary lands; confirmation OF
every sixteenth section for common
schools; five per ccntuln upon the net
proceeds of the sales Of public lands,
and large amount OF arrearage of five
per ccntnm of sales made previous to
her admission, and the per diem and
mileage for her Senators and Repre-
sentatives during their whole atten-
dance before admission. These she
gained. But. sir, she gained more
She gained name, ever worthy OF the
American character, by her determin-
ed adherence TO her rights. She show
cd spirit of Independence viii to
repel and oppose. BY all 4 1 POWER she
possessed, wrongs, expressions, and
robbery; and by her course she gained
the respect aud confidence of a world.
She but contcndci for what the ordi-
nance Of 1857 secured to her, and
which act Congress should have re-
spceted as older and as sacred as the
Constitution itself. And Congress did
admit the equity and justice Of her
claim. but refused to sustain il, and on
ly on the ground of expedicncy. She
admitted it by the very grants she made
her as compensation for what she for
ced her 10 abandon.
How different such a course from
the poor, despicabIc, cringing, suppl
eating. and begging course proposed
by this amendment? We can, at least,
obtain as good and favorable terms as
did Michigan. | ask, then, why not
make the issue?
Gentlemen manifest great alarm and
fear. that, by reserving the right to
make an issue with Illinois in the SUI
preme court Of the United States, aud
pledging ourselves TO abide the decls-
ion in relation to territory in dispute,
we originate an objection to our adj
mission into the Union, which Con-
crcss will consider of sufficient magni-
Jude to reject us. Then, say, remain
ont Of the Union. Organize a state
Government, elect our Senators and
Representatives TO Congress, and with
a republican constitution in their
hands, rcscrying all our rights. take
their seats in Congress and demand
admission upon an "equal footing with
the original states" This, sir, we car
claim BY virtue of the ordinance O.
1887, which declares that at any time
"wiih 10000 free inhabitants, we car
form q Constitution and state govern
ment. be admitted" &c. Sir, an
4 for claiming the last inch Of territory
secured to US by the irrcvocab!e ordi-
nance of '87. Ny doctrine here is
"ffy tour and forty; or fight for the
whoie;" unless by a better arrange
ment we give our consent to submit
the question as presented in lie pro-
viso. which is now proposed 70 be
stricken out. Is not our claim 10 these
rights as good as WAS Michigan's, il
not better? Why, then not make and
assert il?
The gentleman from Milwaukee
(Mr. Tweedy) says he very much qucs-
tons our claim or right to the country
living north of "a line drawn from the
most southeTly bend or extreme oil
Lake Michigan, thence due west to
the Mississippi river" notwithstand-