In the House of Representatives the application was equally successful. The Committee on the Judiciary, in an elaborate report, reviewed the objections, and, among other things, said:—
“That the people of Michigan have without due authority formed a State Government; but, nevertheless, that Congress has power to waive any objection which might on that account be entertained to the ratification of the Constitution which they have adopted, and to admit their Senators and Representatives to take their seats in the Congress of the United States.”[109]
The House sustained this view by a vote of 153 yeas to 45 nays. In this large majority, by which the title of Michigan was then recognized, will be found the name of Franklin Pierce, at that time a Representative from New Hampshire.
But the case was not ended. The fiercest trial and the greatest irregularity remained. The Act providing for the admission of the new State contained a modification of its boundaries, and proceeded to require, as a fundamental condition, that these should “receive the assent of a Convention of delegates elected by the people of the said State, for the sole purpose of giving the assent herein required.”[110] Such a Convention, duly elected under call from the Legislature, met in pursuance of law, and, after consideration, declined to come into the Union on the condition proposed. The action of this Convention was not universally satisfactory; and in order to effect admission into the Union, another Convention was called, professedly by the people in their sovereign capacity, without authority from State or Territorial Legislature,—nay, Sir, borrowing the language of the present President, “against authorities duly constituted by Act of Congress,” at least as much as the recent Convention in Kansas. The irregularity of this Convention was increased by the circumstance that two of the oldest counties of the State, comprising a population of some 25,000 souls, refused to take part in it, even to the extent of not opening the polls for the election of delegates, claiming that it was held without warrant of law, and in defiance of the legal Convention. This popular Convention, though wanting popular support coextensive with the State, yet proceeded, by formal act, to give the assent of the people of Michigan to the fundamental condition proposed by Congress.
The proceedings of the two Conventions were transmitted to President Jackson, who, by message, 27th December, 1836, laid them both before Congress, indicating very clearly his desire to ascertain the will of the people, without regard to form. The origin of the popular Convention he thus describes:—
“This latter Convention was not held or elected by virtue of any Act of the Territorial or State Legislature. It originated from the People themselves, and was chosen by them in pursuance of resolutions adopted in primary assemblies held in the respective counties.”[111]
And the President then declares, that, had these proceedings come to him during the recess of Congress, he should have felt it his duty, on being satisfied that they emanated from a Convention of delegates elected in point of fact by the People of the State, to issue his proclamation for the admission of the State.
The Committee on the Judiciary in the Senate, of which Felix Grundy was Chairman, after inquiry, recognized the competency of the popular Convention, as “elected by the People of the State of Michigan,” and reported a bill, responsive to their acceptance of the proposed condition, for the admission of the State without further terms.[112] Then, Sir, appeared the very objections now directed against Kansas. It was complained, that the movement for immediate admission was the work of “a minority,” and that “a great majority of the State feel otherwise.”[113] And a leading Senator, of great ability and integrity, Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, broke forth in catechism which would do for the present hour. He exclaimed:—
“What evidence had the Senate of the organization of the Convention? of the organization of the popular assemblies who appointed their delegates to that Convention? None on earth. Who they were that met and voted we had no information. Who gave the notice? And for what did the People receive that notice? To meet and elect? What evidence was there that the Convention acted according to law? Were the delegates sworn? And if so, they were extrajudicial oaths, and not binding upon them.… Were the votes counted? In fact, it was not a proceeding under the forms of law, for they were totally disregarded.”[114]
And the same able Senator, on another occasion, after exposing the imperfect evidence with regard to the action of the Convention, existing only in letters and in an article from a Detroit newspaper, again exclaimed:—