errors and ever ready to abandon them when discovered; and professing adherence to no principle which would not bear the severest scrutiny of enlightened reason, they have stood and triumphed; and these principles have sustained the "party," and not the party the "principles." The party laid its foundations upon the rock of truth, and the superstructure has been steadily rising in grandeur and strength from year to year.

This leads us to notice an erroneous impression which seems of late to have taken possession of many minds and which threatens the ruin of this now powerful party unless checked in time, and that is that Democratic superstructures sustain their foundations and that consequently they may be built upon rock or sand, indifferently, and with equal safety-that because the Democratic party has become strong in numbers and apparently invincible in the field of political strife it may adopt any principle however inconsistent it may be with reason and experience, and however many times it may have been introduced into the policy of nations as a new discovery, and scourged out again as a foe to social happiness and good government, and by dubbing it as Democratic secure for it the assent and veneration of the party and gain converts from among its opponents. This is a ruinous mistake. The Democratic party is not strong on account of any magic attached to its name or to the men who assume to lead it. It is strong so far and so long only as it adheres to principles which will stand the test of rigid, thorough investigation and the still more satisfactory ordeal of experience; and when we expect an American community to receive new principles of government or important changes in the social system upon the mere ipse dixit of party leaders, we shall most generally be found "reckoning without our host."

We are aware of the fact that parties sometimes succeed upon false principles and suffer defeat upon sound ones. The struggles of the Democracy for commercial emancipation and to secure to the nation a sound currency have furnished instances of this kind and will doubtless furnish others; but a triumph upon false principles will, most commonly, prove a short-lived triumph; and a defeat upon correct principles can be but temporary if those principles are manfully adhered to by those who know their truth and power.

It is not fair, we grant, to infer simply from the rejection of the constitution that any one of its principles was unsound. It raises a strong presumption that there was something radically

wrong about it, and that is all. We do not believe it was the case with our constitution, but it is quite conceivable that such an instrument may have been defeated from the sheer prejudices of minorities respecting different portions of it. We must, therefore, look deeper than the popular surface to ascertain what principles contained in that instrument are sound, and what, if any, are unsound. If all its provisions, after careful examination, are found to have had their origin in the nature and reasonableness of things, it will be fair to presume that its rejection was the result of prejudice against the body which formed it, or of a misconception of its provisions; and we may with perfect safety frame another upon substantially the same principles and calculate upon its adoption; for so far as the rejected instrument is radically right, a radical deviation from it would render the new constitution radically wrong. On the other hand, if it is found to contain important principles which, though specious in their character, will not bear the scrutiny even of ordinary minds, it will be fair to attribute its rejection, in part at least, to those principles and discard them in future.

We have extended our exordium to a full-length article and do not like to dispense with a single paragraph of it. We must therefore defer entering upon the main subject till next week.

CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES:

[June 1, 1847]

II BOUNDARIES

As the question of boundaries excited no small degree of interest and discussion in the late convention and undoubtedly exerted more or less influence upon the election, it may not be amiss to bestow a few remarks upon it with reference to future action.

Many contend, and among them some very intelligent and well informed men, that Congress has trenched upon our rights of boundary in three particulars: first, in fixing the northern line of Illinois at 42° 30′ N., instead of the latitude of the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan; second, by giving to Michigan the country between the northern shores of Green Bay and Lake Michigan, and the southern shore of Lake Superior from the Menominee River of Green Bay to the Ste Marie's; third, by dividing the territory from the mouth of the St. Louis River, on Lake Superior, to the mouth of the St. Croix, on the Mississippi.

The first-named grievance is the one which has excited the most interest and, in our opinion, the one we should under existing circumstances care the least about; because in the first place we have no right to it; and in the second place we cannot get it even if we have a right to it; and in the third place, Suckerized and involved in debt as it is, we do not want it if we could get it.

As to our right—the great men of the nation have differed, it being substantially the same as that claimed by Michigan in respect to a part of Ohio; and we do not intend at this time to do more than barely state the position of the question. The Northwest Territory by the Ordinance of 1787 was divided into three geographical states by two due north and south lines, the eastern of which comprised the state of Ohio and the most of Michigan as they are now bounded; the middle state included Indiana and the greater part of Lake Michigan; the western state included Illinois and nearly the whole of the present territory of Wisconsin. The ordinance then provides "that the boundaries of these three states shall be subject so far to be altered, that if Congress shall hereafter find it expedient, they shall have authority to form one or two states in that part of the said territory which lies north of an east and west line drawn through the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Michigan."

The original right, therefore, of Congress to confine the whole of Michigan and Wisconsin as parts of the original states and thus to preclude their separate existence altogether cannot be questioned; and indeed this point was conceded in the great controversy in Congress respecting the right of Michigan to a part of Ohio; and the ground of controversy was narrowed down to this: whether, if Congress did find it expedient to form one or two additional states, the ordinance did or did not require that they should include the "whole" of the territory lying north of the designated point. And this question turned upon the proper meaning of the little word "in" as it stands in the sentence quoted. Had the word been "of" instead of "in," the claim would, perhaps, have been more clear. Had it been "within" instead of "in," the claim would, perhaps, have been more manifestly without foundation. As it is, if it can be shown that the county of Dane is not "in" Wisconsin because it does not include the whole of it, we may reasonably claim that it was foreordained by the Continental Congress that if such a state as Wisconsin should ever exist, the southerly extreme of Lake

Michigan should be the exact latitude of its southern boundary, and not otherwise.

We said we could not get that portion of Illinois even if we had a right to it. Congress has recognized and ratified the present boundaries of Illinois and is bound by the Constitution to protect her in the peaceable possession of every inch of ground which it has recognized as within her jurisdiction. She may, therefore, insist upon her present boundary, as she doubtless would if the question were brought up; and the faith and resources of the nation are pledged to back her up. We cannot resort to the courts while a territory, because, as everyone will admit, as a territory we have no rights of boundary but such as Congress sees fit to give us. Congress never has, and never will, and never ought to lay the foundation for a civil war by admitting a new state with a pending question of boundary between it and another state. It would be imminently hazardous to the peace and stability of the Union to do so. We cannot become a state without the consent of Congress; and that consent, we may be well assured, will never be given till the question of boundaries is settled, and so settled as not to conflict with its previous engagements with other states-and here

we are.

The second point of grievance is altogether imaginary. The line established by the ordinance, between the middle and western states, grazes along the eastern coast of Wisconsin from south to north, and taking to the land near Twin Rivers, cuts off a long point of the peninsula and adjacent islands now belonging to Wisconsin; and crossing Green Bay, cuts off a large portion of the country west of the Ste Marie's, which is now claimed as having been wrongfully wrested from Wisconsin and given to Michigan. The ordinance line has indeed been altered, giving to Wisconsin a portion of country which would otherwise have belonged to Michigan, and to Michigan a portion of country which would otherwise have fallen to Wisconsin. Michigan may have the best of the bargain in the alteration; but however much she may have gained or we may have lost by it, the right of Congress to make the alteration is as clear as language can make it. It was one of the lines established by the ordinance; and the same article which establishes them declares that they shall be subject to be altered for the very purpose for which the line in question was altered.

In the extent of our jurisdiction we have gained more than we have lost by the alteration, although what we have gained upon the

east is mostly water. Had the ordinance line been retained, our jurisdiction on Lake Michigan would have extended about a cable's length from shore along about half of our present coast. As it is, our berth extends to the middle of the lake; and the time may come when we shall regard this extension of our marine jurisdiction as far more important than the jurisdiction of the country between the Menominee River and the ordinance line.

In respect to the third point of grievance, we have only to say that we can see no necessity for extending the area of a state beyond what is necessary to include a sufficient amount of wealth to sustain a respectable and efficient government without onerous taxation. The example of other states and a comparison of their natural resources with ours seem to indicate that the area proposed by Congress is amply sufficient for the state of Wisconsin.

NATIONAL REFORM

[June 1, 1847]

The National Reform humbug is about raising a buzz in Wisconsin. The Courier and Democrat, with characteristic mud-headedness, are giving wind to its sails. It is announced that a great Mr. Somebody down East, who, like Monsieur Fourier, has found out that our laws and institutions are all out of joint, and never were anything else, and who can tell us all how to mend them, is coming to Wisconsin to enlighten us in the beauties of an inalienable homestead, "provided always" that we will have a little "dough" ready for him when he gets here, and all are strictly exhorted to cast in their earnings and be ready to worship the calf Fourier, and the calf Van Amringe, and the calf "wat aint got no name"; these be thy gods, O geese, that brought you up.

It is asked with an air of satisfactory triumph, "Who is he who would refuse to vote himself a farm?" So every man is to have a farm by voting for it! The idea of buying and selling land is regarded by these reformers as a monstrosity not to be tolerated. The land, they say, should be as free as the air or the water; that every man has a natural right to it—they do not say exactly how much a man is born heir to, but probably Mr. Van Amringe when he arrives here will tell us for about two bits how much every man is entitled to by "natur." Nor does it definitely appear whose farms they are going to appropriate to themselves by a vote; and