upon the admission into the Union of any new State? It may be conceded, that upon a view of the leading features of that constitution, Congress have assented to the proposition, that the Government of Ohio is Republican, but that the rest of the principles contained in it, not requiring the sanction of Congress, must rest for their validity upon their own intrinsic and respective merits; otherwise, all responsibility for their moral and political correctness becomes shifted from the people of Ohio; the whole instrument becomes the act of Congress; and consequently cannot be altered but by the assent of that body—a result which I feel confident your Excellency would reject.
It is made, by the constitution of the United States, the duty of Congress to guarantee to every new State a republican form of government. With a particular reference to this topic, I would admit the legal inference from the transaction to be, that Congress examined and were satisfied with the form of government adopted: they assented to it. But what legal necessity was imposed upon that body to examine further; to travel through all its detailed provisions—dissenting from what they did not approve, judicially declaring null that which of itself had no validity, and approving and giving validity to that they might think morally and politically correct? And if no such legal necessity existed for the act, why is such examination and assent presumed?
A reference to the proceedings of Congress, however, will show that the particular provision in the constitution of Ohio, to which allusion is made, did not pass totally unobserved. The constitution of Ohio was referred to a very respectable committee of the House of Representatives. That committee made a long report upon it, which, so far as it regarded the suggested contingent alteration of boundaries, was accepted by that body, and the sentiment contained in the report, and so accepted was, that as the suggested alteration was not submitted in the shape of a distinct proposition by any competent authority for approval, or disapproval, it was not necessary nor expedient for Congress then to act upon it at all; thus expressly excluding the inference contended for by the authorities of Ohio. (See report of Com. 2d Session, 7th Con. page 327—346.)
And I beg leave further to solicit your Excellency's attention to the important fact, that the claim set up by Ohio is opposed by one uniform course of congressional legislation, commencing with the ordinance, of 1787, and extending to a period long subsequent to the admission of the State of Ohio.
The ordinance of Congress evidently contemplates a line due east from the south extreme of Lake Michigan, as the true and immutable boundary of the State, to be formed in the eastern division of the North-Western Territory. The act of 1802 expressly es-
