1

throughout the wide region of the United States as one of the chief motives that led to the formation of the Federal Government, and one of the choicest blessings flowing from its establishment, he feels it to be an imperative duty to exert his friendly influence with both the parties to the controversy under consideration, so to enforce their respective rights as to avoid a resort to violence upon either side. Without adverting to the numerous and cogent motives by which such a course is recommended, and which the undersigned have had the honor to express in verbal conferences hitherto, it becomes their duty to inform his Excellency that a case has occarred, to the consideration of which they are directed to call his attention, by the express letter of their instructions.

The Territorial law of Michigan, approved on the 12th of February, 1835, entitled "An act to prevent the exercise of a foreign jurisdiction within the limits of the Territory of Michigan," like all other acts of the Legislative Council, must be subject to the revisal of Congress, although valid until dissent has been pronounced. But as it is a criminal law, the power of the Governor has been thought competent to dispense with its operation, either in whole or in part, without interfering with the exercise of the judicial power of the courts. The undersigned are profoundly sensible that there exists no controlling power in the country, either under the Federal or any State Government, to dictate to the tribunals of justice the course to be pursued. The stream which flows from the independent exercise of judicial functions must be permitted to hold its course, unchecked by influence or unbiassed by power. Nevertheless it is respectfully submitted to his Excellency whether there cannot be found within the scope of his powers, a mode of dispensing with the rigorous punishments of a criminal law, without clashing with any co-ordinate authority, or violating the spirit of our institutions; and if so, whether it is not expedient to pursue that course in the case to which, as they have just, said, they wish to call his attention.

At the moment of writing this note, indictments exist in the court now in session in this place, against several of the inhabitants of the disputed territory for a violation of the Territorial act of February 12, 1835, and it is understood that the process of the court is about to be served with a strong arm. It becomes the duty of the undersigned therefore to make known to his Excellency the wish of the Federal Government, that under no state of excitement should resort be had to force under this Territorial law, until an opportunity shall be afforded to Congress to consider if that act requires to be disapproved. It is the President's expectation that the subject of the boundary line between Michigan and Ohio will be finally disposed of by Congress at their next session; or if not, that the establishment of a State Government in Michigan will soon place the Territory upon the proper footing of equality with the State, and bring the subject of dispute between them within the provisions of the constitution of the United States. In making this communication, the undersigned believe that, they have not departed from the attitude which, in the spirit of their instructions, they have assumed, viz: that of being the friends of both parties, whose rights, interest and honor are equally cherished by the President; and they confidently trust that no step which they may have taken will be found adverse to such an impartial position.

They beg leave, in conclusion, to acknowledge the friendliness with

which they have been received by his Excellency, and to request him to accept the assurances of their high consideration and esteem,

MONROE, April 10, 1835.

His Excellency STEVENS T. MASON,

Acting Governor of Michigan.

RICHARD RUSH,

BENJ. C. HOWARD.

TOLEDO, May 1, 1835.

DEAR SIR: We have just received your favor of this date, and regret to learn that his Excellency Governor Lucas, contemplates setting out for Columbus as soon as to-morrow: Col. Howard has been confined to his bed by indisposition, since last evening, and has only just left it; but, if he should be sufficiently recovered, we will both of us have the honor of waiting on the Governor at Port Miami, as soon after breakfast to-morrow, as we can reach it. Should he, unfortunately, be too unwell, I will go alone.

I remain, dear sir, very respectfully,
Your friend and servant,
RICHARD RUSH.

General BELL.

An interview between Governor Lucas and Richard Rush and Col. Howard, United States Commissioners.

1st. The Commissioners of Ohio, to mark the line without molestation or hindrance by any process of a public character, or by troops, or in any other manner. Should individuals incline to bring actions of trespass against them, all reasonable efforts to be made to dissuade them from this

course.

2d. Should the inhabitants of the disputed territory be willing, for the sake of present peace, to submit to legal process, issuing from the courts of Ohio and Michigan, it is understood that the executive authorities will intimate to the prosecuting officers,' their wish that all indictments or recognizances, founded upon the Territorial act of 12th February, and the act of Ohio of the 23d February, shall be continued from term to term, until the termination of the next session of Congress; and, in case the - question of jurisdiction shall, by that time, be decided, either by Congress, or the Supreme Court, all such indictments, on both sides, shall be quashed. Every reasonable facility to be afforded towards bringing the question before the Judiciary.

PORT MIAMI, May 2, 1835.

MONROE, April 10, 1835.

The undersigned has had the honor to receive the note of Messrs. Rush and Howard, communicating to him the sentiments which they were instructed by the President to express in relation to the controversy now pending between Michigan Territory, a Territory of the United States, and the State of Ohio. In acknowledging the receipt of their note, he is prompted by a sense of duty to himself, as well as by the duty which is incumbent

on him as a subordinate officer of the Government, responsible to the President for his official acts, briefly, though respectfully, to state the views he entertains of a part of their communication.

The sentiments of the President, when he urges the necessity of forbearance by the opposing parties, and expresses a desire that acts of violence may not occur in enforcing the laws of this Territory, no one can more highly appreciate than the undersigned. But, in a Government where respect for the supremacy of the laws is the great moral obligation which controls and governs society, there are sometimes considerations which would even seem to justify and require a resort to measures which are not usually demanded in the ordinary administration of justice. The history of our country will furnish such instances, although it is with feelings of pride that the citizens of the United States can declare that those instances have been rare, and that when they have occurred, however great they may have been at first to the misguided intention of those originating them, the intelligence and patriotism of the American people have thus far preserved, unstained, the purity of our institutions, and have sustained the constitution and laws of the country.

The controversy between Ohio and Michigan is one of the cases alluded to. It is stated, "that as respect the rights of the parties, the President, as Chief Magistrate, wishes to express no opinion at the present moment, and all that he feels himself authorized to do at the present moment, is to appeal to the respective authorities of the Territory and State, to enforce their claims to the jurisdiction of the tract of land which both allege to be included within their boundaries, with such a spirit of moderation and forbearance that violent collisions may be avoided." With the unfeigned deference and respect which the undersigned should entertain for the sentiments expressed, he is compelled, however much he may regret it, to dissent from them. It is fully conceded that the President may well appeal to the authorities of Ohio, to enforce their claims to jurisdiction with mederation and forbearance, and it was hoped, and even expected, that the representation of the views of the Government through so high a source as that to which they have been entrusted, would have had the effect to have ended this controversy, brought on and now urged by that State. Michigan is guilty of no usurpation of authority. Under the opinion of the Attorney General, the legal adviser of the President, she is in the exercise of a jurisdiction which she has held for thirty years, and which that officer, when called upon by the President, declares to belong to her. His language is, "that, until the assent of Congress is given to the claim of Ohio, it must be considered as forming, legally, a part of the Territory of Michigan." Michigan is disturbed in the exercise of that jurisdiction; her officers of justice have already been resisted; and to maintain and assert her rights, it is respectfully asked, what does the Attorney General point out as the power of the President, when solicited to assist and protect her?

He says "it is only in obedience to the constitutional injunction to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that the President can be authorized or required to interfero in any of the matters growing out of this controversy." Are any acts of Congress now in force interfered with by the course pursued by the authorities of Michigan? None. Are any acts of Congress now in force interfered with by the course pursued by the authorities of Ohio? The Attorney General answers, that, in his opinion, "the acts which provide for the government and organization of

the Territory of Michigan may be thus affected." It is unnecessary to enumerate these laws, as you have the opinion before you. This officer further adds, that the obstruction, by unarmed individuals, either singly or in umbers, of the process and orders issued and made by the officers of Michigan, would probably be reached by the 22d section of the act of the 30th April, 1790, "for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States." An attempt by a military force, actually embodied, to suppress the jurisdiction of the Territorial officers, acting as they do under the laws of the United States, in the disputed tract, and to maintain therein the exclusive jurisdiction of Ohio, would expose the parties concerned, if the region in dispute be legally a part of the Territory of Michigan, to criminal prosecutions of a still more serious character. be disguised, that this prosecution would be for treason. He had previously given it as his opinion, that the tract does legally belong to Michigan. With this view of the case, can a compromise, involving both the rights and honor of the United States and Michigan, be made? Can it be asked or expected, that the jurisdiction of Ohio can be recognised to any extent whatever, or can that State be permitted, by the United States, to assume one jot or tittle of jurisdiction over the tract claimed by her, for one day or one hour, without considering themselves bound to repel it?

The undersigned, that his views may be fully understood, has thus given an outline of the unfortunate controversy, and of the duties required, and rights affected, by its prosecution. He now arrives at that which seems to be the main object of the note of Messrs. Rush and Howard.

In anticipation of an attempt on the part of Ohio to exercise a jurisdiction over the tract she claims, the Legislative Council of this Territory passed a law, on the 12th of February, 1835, making it a criminal offence punishable by fine and imprisonment, in any person who shall exercise, or attempt to exercise, any official functions, or shall officiate in any office or situation within any part of the present jurisdiction of the Territory, or within the limits of any of the counties therein, as now organized, by virtue of any commission not derived from the Territory or its laws, or under the Government of the United States; and, also, subjecting to like prosecution and punishment, any person residing within the limits of Michigan, who shall accept of any office or trust from any State or authority other than the Government of the United States or Territory of Michigan." It seems to be desired by those who have the administration of the General Government, that this law should not be enforced, and the undersigned considers himself called upon, as the Executive of the Territorial Government, to prevent its execution.

In answer to this, I must again refer to the opinion of the legal adviser of the President. In speaking of the act of the Council of February 12, 1835, he remarks: "It is true Congress have the power to annul any law of the Territory, but until so annulled, it will be obligatory on all persons within the limits of the Territory, unless repugnant to the constitution of the United States, or the acts of Congress applicable to the Territory. The act of Michigan does not appear to me to be liable to any such objection, and I must, therefore, deem it a valid law."

It may not be unimportant to remark, that every act upon our statute book, civil and criminal, may yet be annulled by Congress; and if the fact

that Congress may annul an act of the Territory, be an argument requir ing the suspension of proceedings under them, then may the Territorial Government cease until the next Congress. But because the power does exist in Congress to annul at its pleasure any Territorial act, it is not reasonable to expect Congress will exercise it, unless a law of the Territory be "repugnant to the constitution of the United States, or the acts of Congress applicable to the Territory.", The act of February 12th is liable to no such objection. Indeed, had it existed, Congress would have annulled it at their last session, when brought before them by the delegate from Michigan, in the discussion of this very controversy. Its existence was then known to Congress, and the objections made to proceeding under it now, cannot be considered valid. The Attorney General of the United States declares the law to be obligatory upon all persons within the limits of Michigan, and where, it is asked, exists the power to prevent its operation?

It will be borne in mind that the proceedings against individuals residing in the disputed tract, did not originate under the act of February 12th, and that those are the proceedings of the Judiciary, and not the Executive. The undersigned fully concurs in the just sentiment expressed by Messrs. Rush and Howard, that there exists no controlling power in the country, either under the Federal or State Government, to dictate to the tribunals of justice the course to be pursued, and with this firm conviction, he cannot interfere in the execution and enforcement of the act of February 12th by the judical department of the Government.

The suggestions are submitted for his consideration "that, as the act in question is a criminal law, the power of the Governor has been thought competent to dispense with its operation, either in whole or in part, without interfering with the exercise of the judicial power of the courts; and whether there cannot be found within the scope of his powers a mode of dispensing with the rigorous punishments of a criminal law without clashing with any co-ordinate authority." Coming as these suggestions do from a source that entitles them to his most deliberate reflection, the undersigned has carefully weighed them in his mind, and has arrived at the conclusion that there exists in the Executive no power or authority to suspend the operation of this law, even should he desire it. Its execution, in all respects, rests with the courts. The Executive will not, it is hoped, be called on to act until after conviction in all prosecutions under it; and then he can only be approached in the exercise of his pardoning power. When that period arrives, each prosecution will form an individual case, and must be determined on from the facts then submitted to him. He need not add that it cannot be desired or expected that the Government of the Territory would exercise the removing power to prevent the enforcement of this law. Such an extension of power would be an act of Executive usurpation and tyranny, and would be placing every department of our government within the despotic control of a single officer. With such views and opinions, the undersigned is constrained to say he has no right to suspend the operation of the act of February 12, 1835. If he could suspend the operation. of the act of February 12, 1835. If he could suspend the operation of this act, it may be asked what law of the Territory would not be under his control whenever the Territorial Executive should will it. If the authorities, in executing the law, should use force, it is not, it is conceived, his province to control them. The officer obeying the order of the court