however, that in case it was created, there were plenty of persons who would be willing to fill it.

The question on the motion to recommit was then taken, and was decided in the negative. And the ayes and noes having been called for and ordered, those who voted in the affirmative were [affirmative 30, negative 32; for the vote see Appendix I, roll call 17].

Mr. Judd moved that the convention adjourn until Monday morning at ten o'clock. And the question having been put, it was decided in the negative. And the ayes and noes having been called for and ordered, those who voted in the affirmative were [affirmative 25, negative 37; for the vote see Appendix I, roll call 18].

The question was then put on ordering said article to be engrossed and read a third time, and was decided in the affirmative. And a division having been called for, there were 29 in the affirmative and 28 in the negative.

The President presented a communication from the secretary of the territory, containing an abstract of the census, which was read, when on motion of Mr. Kilbourn the convention adjourned.

SATURDAY, DECEMBER 25, 1847

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Lord.

The journal of yesterday was read and corrected.

On motion of Mr. Featherstonhaugh the convention adjourned.

[Mr. Featherstonhaugh said he was absent from his seat yesterday on account of illness in his family; and he had been surprised to learn that a motion had been made to adjourn over till Monday and had been lost. He said there were persons in the convention who, if they did not wish to keep the twenty-fifth day of December sacred, at least wished to do as they pleased on that day. He therefore moved that the convention adjourn, which was agreed to, and the convention adjourned until Monday morning.-Tri-Weekly Express, Dec. 25, 1847.]

MONDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1847

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Fox.

The journal of Saturday was read.

Mr. Brownell, from the committee on general provisions to whom had been referred the subject of boundaries of the state, made the following report, dissenting from the report of the majority of the committee, which was read, to wit:

BOUNDARIES

"The undersigned, a minority of the committee on general provisions, to whom was referred with other matters the subject of the boundaries of the state of Wisconsin, respectfully dissents from the conclusions at which the majority of said committee have arrived in the article on boundaries, heretofore reported by them to the convention, and submits the following reasons for said dissent:

"By the act of Congress for the admission of Wisconsin into the Union the northwest boundary of the state followed the main branch of the St. Croix River to the intersection of that stream with the Mississippi. This boundary was so altered by the convention to form a constitution, which sat at Madison last year, as to bring the line some fifteen miles east of the one fixed by Congress, throwing the valley of the St. Croix into the new territory. Both the act of Congress and the decision of the last convention are a departure from the terms of the Ordinance of 1787, and from the act for the division of the Indiana territory, approved January 11, 1805, which defined the boundaries of the fifth state in the Northwest Territory to be: on the west, the Mississippi River; on the north, the boundary line between the United States and Great Britain; on the east, a line drawn through the centre of Lake Michigan to the northern extremity of said lake, and thence due north to the northern boundary of the United States; and on the south, a west line drawn through the southerly bend of Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River. Without stopping to argue the question as to the propriety of this departure from the Ordinance of 1787, it is sufficient to remark that the action of Congress and the vote of the last convention equally indicate a disposition to divide the territory of Wisconsin into two parts. The question as to the most proper location of the dividing line is the only one which the undersigned proposes to discuss.

"As before remarked, Congress has made the main channel of the St. Croix River the dividing line, while the last convention proposed to sever it fifteen miles farther eastward. The majority of the committee, differing with both Congress and the last convention, have reported in favor of throwing the line some fifty-five miles farther to the northwest. To all these propositions the undersigned and those whom he represents have serious objections.

"The first line, that adopted by Congress, divides the settlements along the St. Croix, which are identical in interest and closely connected by business and other relations, into two portions, retaining one within the limit of Wisconsin and transferring the other to the new territory of Minnesota. This line would be in all respects an unnatural and inconvenient one, severing those

whom association has joined together, establishing different jurisdictions on the opposite sides of the same stream, and opening the door to conflicting legislation and clashing interests. Of the three lines proposed, this would be the most obnoxious to the people of the St. Croix valley.

"Nor would the plan of carrying the boundary line fifty or sixty miles northwest of the St. Croix to the mouth of Rum River be much more acceptable. It would indeed keep the settlements of the St. Croix together, but it would attach them to a government from which, by reason of the distance which intervenes between the settlements and the capital, they could derive but little advantage. The principal settlements on the St. Croix are nearly two hundred and fifty miles above Prairie du Chien and some four hundred miles from Madison, the seat of government in Wisconsin, to say nothing of the still greater inconvenience to the people living on the south shore of Lake Superior. In the spring, summer, and fall access is obtained to the settlements on the St. Croix by the Mississippi; in the low stage of water the navigation is greatly obstructed, and the transportation of passengers and goods is rendered difficult, tedious, and expensive. During the winter season-say for more than four months in the year-this avenue is closed, and the inhabitants of the valley of the St. Croix are in a good measure cut off from all communication with their fellow citizens in the southern and thickly settled portions of Wisconsin. There is no road on either side of the Mississippi leading to the St. Croix country, and there is no probability of one being made for some time to come. The country intervening between the St. Croix and Black rivers, a distance of one hundred and forty miles, is of a forbidding character. Except in the immediate valleys of the streams there is but little good land, while pine barrens, tamarack swamps, and innumerable marshes and lakes cover the face of the country and render the prospect of settlement remote and doubtful. This broad belt of waste land constitutes a barrier almost impassable between the settlements on the St. Croix and the nearest ones in Crawford County. Is not the simple statement of this fact sufficient to show the impropriety, not to say injustice, of attaching the St. Croix country to Wisconsin? Is it reasonable to ask the inhabitants of that remote region to come under the rule of a government from which they are so distant that they can take but little interest in its concerns and derive but little benefit from its protection? In further illustration of this point the undersigned respectfully refers to the report herewith submitted of a select committee of the constitutional convention on the subject of boundaries.

"It remains to speak of the third line, which is the one proposed by the late convention. The principle which led to the adoption of this line, viz., the desire to consult the wishes and convenience of the people along the St. Croix valley, meets with the hearty concurrence of the undersigned. But in conformity to the views of those whom he represents he would respectfully propose to bring the line still farther to the eastward, by which, while no additional settlements or population of great amount would be cut off from Wisconsin, a more convenient line would be adopted for the division of our territory into two states. A very strong, and as it seems to the undersigned, a conclusive argument in favor of the proposed change, is to be found in the fact that its adoption would leave population and territory enough on the north

and west of Wisconsin to form in a very few years another state; while if the line of Rum River, as proposed by the majority of the committee, or of the St. Croix River, as prescribed in the act of Congress, should be agreed upon, a long period must elapse before the settlements would be sufficiently numerous to warrant the establishment of another state on our northwestern border.

"With these remarks, the undersigned earnestly recommends that the northwestern boundary of Wisconsin should commence in the channel of the Mississippi River, directly south of the highest peak of Mountain Island, which according to Nicolet's map is about where the forty-fourth degree of latitude crosses the Mississippi; thence due north half a degree; thence on a direct line northeasterly to the headwaters of Montreal River, striking said headwaters at the same place as marked upon the survey made by Captain Cram; thence down the main channel of Montreal River to the middle of Lake Superior. G. W. BROWNELL

"All of which is respectfully submitted. "MADISON, December 27, 1847."

REPORT OF COMMITTEE RELATIVE TO DIVISION OF THE STATE

"The select committee 'to inquire into the expediency of dividing the territory of Wisconsin, and locating such line of division as shall equitably divide the same into two states' have had the same under consideration and respectfully report that in their opinion the territory of Wisconsin should be equitably divided for the following principal reasons: first, the large extent and peculiar shape of the territory and the consequent inequality in the benefits of government; second, the late act of Congress, dated August 6, 1846, dividing the same; third, the present unequal representation in the Senate of the United States.

"Your committee have found in examining the subject that the area included within the present undisputed limits of Wisconsin Territory may be estimated at about 90,000 square miles; and is about as large as New York and Pennsylvania together; and the length of the same entirely disproportioned to its breadth, averaging about 200 miles wide and some 600 or 700 miles long.

"The present population in the vicinity of the west end of Lake Superior and the settlements now forming immediately south of the same, continuing to the Mississippi River, are greatly inconvenienced on account of the distance from the seat of their present legislature, and so far as distance is concerned, without a parallel in the history of any of the states in this Union; the north is, therefore, liable to great injustice by the legislature passing laws touching their interests before it could be possible for the inhabitants of that region to get any information on the subject and have sufficient time to exercise the inestimable right of petition or remonstrance within the ordinary time of any session of the legislature. That a large proportion of the territory located between the Wisconsin and Chippewa rivers, a distance of nearly 150 miles, is broken and undesirable for cultivation and settlement, which renders it probable that the facilities of a speedy winter communication between this sec