IS 
 
 5PH^te^~!^ : 
 
 
 fc^]!H|p?4 ^^^Lt^^it^ "■ 
 
 -SS- 
 
 
 ptg-v 
 
 ■JjawL 'V\lBfa ^\dMfcfc//-MRgr— ■ \<MfcA—'[1S?' 
 
 
 SwHfIkJrhKw 
 
 
 ^f-fP;'^:^^),: 
 
 
 ^L'IETrAIO^ 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 
 Of ILLINOIS 
 
 
 977.2 
 
 
 In2 
 
 
 v.© 
 
 
 «p.4 
 
 ILL HIST. SURVW 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/northernboundary86shee 
 
THE NORTHERN 
 BOUNDARY OF INDIANA 
 
 By 
 MRS. FRANK J. SHEEHAN 
 
 Indiana Historical 
 
 Society Publications 
 
 Volume 8 
 
 Number 6 
 
 INDIANAPOLIS 
 
 PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY 
 
 1928 
 
The Wm. Mitchell Printing Co. 
 Greenfield, Indiana 
 
THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF INDIANA 1 
 
 When those of the original thirteen states which laid claim 
 to the Northwest Territory ceded these claims to the United 
 States government, it was with the understanding that new 
 states would be formed and added to the Union. In the original 
 cession of Virginia these prospective states were defined as 
 areas to contain not less than one hundred and not more than 
 one hundred fifty miles square of territory. 2 In accordance 
 with this plan, Thomas Jefferson drew the draft of the 
 Ordinance of 1784 for the government of the territory ; the 
 land was to be divided into ten states, some of which would 
 bear such names as Sylvania, Cherronesus, Assenisipia, Poly- 
 potamia, and Pelisipia. 3 
 
 At this time James Monroe made a trip into this western 
 country and reported: 
 
 A great part of the territory is measurably poor, especially that 
 near Lakes Michigan and Erie ; and that upon the Mississippi and the 
 Illinois consists of extensive plains which have not had, from appearances, 
 and will not have, a single bush on them for ages. The districts, there- 
 fore, within which these fall, will, perhaps, never contain a sufficient 
 number of inhabitants to entitle them to membership in the Confederacy. 4 
 
 a For much of the information used in this article, credit is due to 
 the librarians who assisted, in the Gary Public Library, the Indiana, 
 Michigan, and Ohio State Libraries, the Chicago Historical Society, and 
 the Newberry Libraries; especially to Esther U. McNitt and her assist- 
 ant, Olga F. Ruehl, of the Indiana State Library, who gave much 
 thought and search in an effort to find material bearing on this subject. 
 For the map, we are indebted to George Pence, of Columbus, Indiana. 
 
 ^Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, p. 343. 
 
 3 Ford, Paul Leicester (ed.), The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 
 IV, pp. 251-55 (New York, 1904). The word "Cherronesus" is thus 
 spelled in Jefferson's original draft. 
 
 4 Larzelere, Claude S., "The Boundaries of Michigan," Michigan 
 Historical Collections, Vol. XXX, p. 6. 
 
 (289) 
 
290 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 This visit undoubtedly influenced Congress to determine on 
 the advisability of larger geographical units, and a resolution 
 was passed July 7, 1786 asking Virginia to change her original 
 cession relative to the boundaries, because of the "many and 
 great inconveniences" it would cause. Certain of these incon- 
 veniences were listed : 
 
 That by such a division of the country, some of the new states will 
 be deprived of the advantages of navigation, some will be improperly 
 intersected by lakes, rivers and mountains, and some will contain too 
 great a proportion of barren unimprovable land, and of consequence 
 will not for many years, if ever, have a sufficient number of inhabitants 
 to form a respectable government, and entitle them to a seat and voice 
 in the federal council : And whereas in fixing the limits and dimensions 
 of the new states, due attention ought to be paid to natural boundaries, 
 and a variety of circumstances which will be pointed out by a more 
 perfect knowledge of the country, so as to provide for the future growth 
 and prosperity of each state, as well as for the accommodation and 
 security of the first adventurers. 5 
 
 We find therefore, that Congress adopted a new draft of an 
 ordinance, drawn for the government of this area, known in 
 history as the Ordinance of 1787. Article V of this document 
 provided for the establishment of 
 
 Not less than three nor more than five States; and the boundaries 
 of the States, as soon as Virginia shall alter her act of cession, and 
 consent to the same, shall become fixed and established as follows, to-wit : 
 The Western State in the said territory, shall be bounded by the 
 Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash rivers; a direct line drawn from the 
 Wabash and Post St. Vincent's, due North, to the territorial line be- 
 tween the United States and Canada; and, by the said territorial line, 
 to the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle State shall be 
 bounded by the said direct line, the Wabash from Post Vincent's, to 
 the Ohio; by the Ohio, by a direct line, drawn due North from the 
 mouth of the Great Miami, to the said territorial line, and by the said 
 territorial line. The Eastern State shall be bounded by the last men- 
 tioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the said territorial line: 
 Provided, however, and it is further understood and declared, 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. And, whenever any of the said 
 States shall have 60,000 free inhabitants therein, such State shall be 
 admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an 
 
 5 Journals of Congress, Vol. IV, p. 663. 
 
* 2 
 
 o a 
 
 o H 
 
 2 W 
 
 3 O 
 
 M O 
 
292 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall 
 be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State government. 6 
 
 Had this line been adhered to as a boundary, the people 
 dwelling in part of Toledo, in Painesville, Ashtabula, Conneaut, 
 and Jefferson, Ohio, and those in Michigan City, South Bend, 
 Mishawaka, Elkhart, LaGrange, and Angola, Indiana, would 
 be living in Michigan; those in East Chicago and Whiting, 
 Indiana, and in Chicago, Elgin, Aurora, Dixon, and Freeport, 
 Illinois, would be living in Wisconsin. Again, had the line laid 
 down in the Ordinance of 1787 been held inviolable as a 
 boundary, neither Indiana nor Illinois would have had a foot of 
 frontage on any one of the Great Lakes ; Michigan and Wis- 
 consin would have been disproportionately large ; Michigan 
 would have owned a triangle on the southern shore of Lake 
 Erie wholly disconnected from the parent state. 
 
 The entire area was organized and governed as one territory 
 until the Act of May 13, 1800 provided for the organization of 
 the western part as Indiana Territory, the eastern part (includ- 
 ing the future state of Ohio) retaining the name of Northwest 
 Territory. Ohio entered the Union in 1802. When Congress 
 passed the Enabling Act for this state, Section 2 provided that 
 it should be bounded "on the north by an east and west line, 
 drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Michigan," 
 which line we shall hereafter speak of as the Ordinance Line. 7 
 Its exact latitude was at that time unknown ; some considerable 
 settlements had grown up where Toledo now stands, at the 
 mouth of the Maumee River ; prominent citizens and real estate 
 men had planned a canal from Cincinnati to enter Lake Erie 
 at this point, believing it to be within the state of Ohio. The 
 story is told that when the constitutional convention was pre- 
 paring the constitution of Ohio, a veteran trapper informed the 
 
 6 Kettleborough, Charles, Constitution Making in Indiana, Vol. I, 
 PP. 32-33 (Indiana Historical Collections, Indianapolis, 1916) ; Macdon- 
 ald, William (ed.), Documentary Source Book of American History, 
 1606-1926, pp. 215-16 (New York, 1926). 
 
 ''Annals, 7 Congress, 1 session, col. 1349; see also Sherman, C. E., 
 The Ohio-Michigan Boundary, p. 16 (Ohio Co-operative Topographic 
 Survey, Vol. I, Ohio State Reformatory Press, 1916). 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 293 
 
 delegates that in reality the mouth of the Maumee River lay 
 much farther north than had been supposed. 8 Accordingly 
 Article VII of Ohio's constitution contained the proviso that 
 the state should be bounded as follows: 
 
 On the north by an east and west line drawn through the southerly 
 extreme of Lake Michigan . . . provided always and it is hereby fully 
 understood and declared by this convention, that if the southerly bend 
 or extreme of Lake Michigan should extend so far south that a line 
 drawn due east from it should not intersect Lake Erie, or if it should 
 intersect the said Lake Erie east of the mouth of the Miami River of 
 the Lake, then in that case, with the assent of the Congress of the 
 United States, the northern boundary of this state shall be established 
 by, and extending to, a direct line running from the southern extremity 
 of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape of the Miami Bay. 9 
 
 The territory north of the Ordinance Line was organized 
 under Indiana Territory. 10 Michigan Territory was separated 
 from Indiana in 1805 ; Section 1 of the Act provided that it 
 was to consist of "all that part of the Indiana Territory which 
 lies north of a line drawn east from the southerly bend or 
 extreme, of Lake Michigan." 11 After the official survey of the 
 line, Michigan continued to exercise her former jurisdiction 
 over the populous towns and villages of the mouth of the 
 Maumee — which were claimed by Ohio — until she entered the 
 Union in 1837. 
 
 In 1811 the territorial legislature of Indiana petitioned 
 Congress to advance the territory to statehood. Upon the 
 recommendation of a special committee the national House of 
 Representatives passed a resolution, March 31, 1812, that this 
 should be done whenever the "population of its Federal num- 
 bers" amounted to 35,000. Under the direction of the terri- 
 torial legislature a census was taken in 1815 which showed a 
 population in the thirteen organized counties of 63,897. 12 Ac- 
 
 8 Burnet, Jacob, Notes on the Early Settlement of the Northwestern 
 Territory, p. 360 (Cincinnati, 1847) ; see also Committee Reports, 23 Con- 
 gress, 1 session, No. 334, p. 41. 
 
 9 Sherman, The Ohio-Michigan Boundary, p. 16. 
 
 10 Appeal by the Convention of Michigan, p. 37 (Detroit, 1835). 
 
 ^Annals, 8 Congress, 2 session, col. 1659. The italics are the author's. 
 
 12 Ibid., 14 Congress, 1 session, col. 460. 
 
294 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 cordingly a formal petition was adopted by the territorial 
 legislature on December 11, 1815 asking for the admission of 
 Indiana to the Union and stipulating certain grants and provi- 
 sions desired from the federal government. 13 This was pre- 
 sented to the national House of Representatives on December 
 28, 1815 by Jonathan Jennings, the territorial delegate. 14 The 
 petition was referred to a committee composed of Jonathan 
 Jennings, Samuel McKee, Bennett H. Henderson, John Reed, 
 and Hosea Moffit. 15 
 
 A week later, January 5, Jennings reported a bill to enable 
 the people of Indiana Territory to form a constitution and state 
 government, and for the admission of such state into the Union. 
 His accompanying report set out the Ordinance Line as the 
 northern boundary line. The bill was read twice and referred 
 to a Committee of the Whole House. 16 On March 29 the House 
 sat in Committee of the Whole for the consideration of the bill. 
 A variety of amendments were reported and successively agreed 
 to, and the bill as amended was ordered engrossed for third 
 reading. 17 On March 30 the engrossed bill was read the third 
 time and passed by a vote of 108 ayes — 3 nays ; those voting 
 adversely being Representatives Charles Goldsborough, of 
 Maryland, and Joseph Lewis and John Randolph, of Virginia. 18 
 
 Meantime, on January 2, the memorial of the Legislative 
 Council and House of Representatives of Indiana Territory 
 had been communicated by the President to the Senate, and 
 referred to a committee consisting of Jeremiah Morrow, of 
 Ohio, William T. Barry, of Kentucky, and James Brown, of 
 Louisiana. 19 Nothing seems to have been done, however, until 
 
 13 For a chronological summary of the procedure of Congress in re- 
 gard to the Indiana Enabling Act, see Appendix I. 
 
 14 An account of these proceedings, with the documents, is given in 
 Kettleborough, Constitution Making in Indiana, Vol. I, pp. 65ft". 
 
 15 Annals, 14 Congress, 1 session, col. 408. 
 
 1Q Ibid., cols. 459-60. ^Ibid., col. 1293. 
 
 18 Ibid., col. 1300. 19 Ibid., col. 31. 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 295 
 
 the Senate received the House bill on March 30. 20 On April 1 
 the House bill was read once and passed to second reading. 21 
 
 Up to the present writing, it has been impossible to obtain 
 accurate information as to the text of the amendments which 
 were passed by the House. We are hopeful that these may yet 
 be discovered. Let us pause, therefore, to compare the text of 
 the bill (H. R. 24) which was introduced in the Senate on 
 April 1 with the report when the bill was originally introduced 
 in the House. To our astonishment, we find that one of the 
 amendments "agreed to," must have dealt with our northern 
 boundary line, for this line is now described as "the forty- 
 second degree of north latitude." 22 
 
 On April 2 the bill was read a second time in the Senate 
 and referred to the committee on the memorial of the Legisla- 
 ture of the Mississippi Territory. 23 On April 3 it was ordered 
 on motion by Senator Jeremiah Morrow that the committee to 
 whom the bill was referred be discharged and that it be referred 
 to the committee appointed January 2 on the memorial of the 
 Legislative Council and House of Representatives of Indiana 
 Territory. 24 This committee consisted of Senator Morrow, 
 chairman, Senators William T. Barry and James Brown. The 
 following day the bill was reported out of committee, with 
 amendments. 25 One of the three amendments defined the boun- 
 daries as finally adopted. It provided that Indiana should be 
 bounded 
 
 On the east by the meridian line which forms the western boundary 
 of the State of Ohio; on the south by the river Ohio, from the mouth 
 of the Great Miami river to the mouth of the river Wabash; on the 
 west by a line drawn along the middle of the Wabash from its mouth, 
 to a point where a due north line, drawn from the town of Vincennes, 
 would last touch the northwestern shore of the said river; and from 
 thence, by a due north line, until the same shall intersect an east and 
 west line, drawn through a point ten miles north of the southern extreme 
 
 20 Ibid., col. 255. 21 Ibid., col. 256. 
 
 22 See Appendix II. 
 
 23 Annals, 14 Congress, 1 session, col. 274. See Appendix I. 
 2 *Ibid., col. 278. 25 Ibid., col. 282. 
 
296 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 of Lake Michigan; on the north by the said east and west line, until 
 the same shall intersect the first mentioned meridian line which forms 
 the western boundary of the State of Ohio. 26 
 
 On April 12 the Senate sat in Committee of the Whole to 
 consider the bill with amendments and the "bill having been 
 amended, the President reported it to the House, accordingly." 27 
 The next day, April 13, it was reported correctly engrossed, 
 read a third time as amended, and passed. 28 On April 15 the 
 amendments proposed by the Senate were read in the House 
 and concurred in. 29 
 
 It would be natural to suppose that in pushing this boundary 
 line northward our forefathers were actuated by the desire to 
 secure for Indiana a foothold on Lake Michigan, with its com- 
 mercial advantages. How great a part our rivers played in 
 settling these boundary lines may be seen from a statement of 
 Senator William Hendricks, that "One object which Indiana 
 had in going north of the east and west line, so often men- 
 tioned, was, that she might include the mouth of the St. Joseph 
 river, and have a harbor there on the lake. In that she has 
 been defeated." 30 As late as December, 1833 we find Represen- 
 tative John Ewing, of Indiana, pressing this point, with the 
 introduction into the House of Representatives of a resolution 
 asking : 
 
 That the Committee on the Territories be instructed to inquire into 
 the expediency of extending the northern boundary of the State of 
 Indiana, so as to embrace a slight tract of land (now attached to the 
 Territory of Michigan) south of the St. Joseph's river, so as to render 
 said river the boundary line from its junction with Lake Michigan, and 
 allow concurrent jurisdiction to Indiana at its mouth. 31 
 
 It has been impossible to determine what motive could have 
 led Jonathan Jennings to willingly accept, as he seems to have 
 done, the change to the boundary line of 42° north latitude. To 
 
 26 Annuls, 14 Congress, 1 session, col. 1841. 
 
 ^Ibid., col. 312. 2 *Ibid., col. 315- ™Ibid., col. 1373- 
 
 30 Esarey, Logan (ed.), Messages and Papers of Jonathan Jennings, 
 Ratliff Boon, William Hendricks, p. 432 (Indiana Historical Collections, 
 Vol. XII, Indianapolis, 1924). 
 
 zl House Journal, 23 Congress, 1 session, p. 106. 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 297 
 
 be sure, this provision would eventually have added a twenty- 
 five mile strip instead of a ten mile strip. It must be concluded 
 that Jennings had arranged the change for this very reason. 
 If this supposition be correct, he must have had "inside" infor- 
 mation, probably from Ohio citizens, as to the true location, 
 for an examination of the maps of that period reveals the 
 greatest ignorance of this area and places Lake Michigan far 
 north of its present location, so that an acceptance of this line 
 would have meant an apparent relinquishment of approximately 
 a twenty-five mile strip of territory which Indiana could claim 
 under the Ordinance Line. A very detailed map of this area 
 was drawn by John Mitchell in 1755 ; it was "repeatedly repro- 
 duced, widely used and long deemed to be an authority." 32 
 This locates the southern extreme of Lake Michigan at 42° 20' 
 north latitude. We find, also, that such maps as the Vaugondy 
 (1755), the Longchamps (1756), the Giissefeld (1784), the 
 Thos. Jefferys (1762), the Mentelle (1806), the Faden (1785), 
 the Hutchins (1778), disclose that this line was thought to be 
 at least 42° 10' or higher, and some even place it north of 
 42° 30'. The map of the United States by John Cary, 1806, a 
 section of which is reproduced in the plate facing page 298, 
 shows the southern tip of Lake Michigan north of 42°. A map 
 by Barker in 1805 shows a line drawn through the southern 
 extremity of Lake Michigan and places it as high as 42° 30'. 
 Maps of the United States made by Lewis in 1815 and by 
 Vance as late as 1818 show the same error and picture Lake 
 Michigan at least one half degree of latitude too far north. 33 
 Surely there was every reason and every opportunity for Jona- 
 than Jennings to have obtained every advantage for Indiana, 
 
 32 Schlesinger, Arthur M., "Basis of the Ohio-Michigan Boundary 
 Dispute," Ohio Co-operative Topographic Survey, Vol. I, p. 6o. See 
 also Committee Reports, 23 Congress, 1 session, No. 334, p. 41. 
 
 33 Maps, Indiana State Library; Committee Reports, 23 Congress, 1 
 session, No. 334, p. 41. The official survey of the northern boundary of 
 Indiana as finally decided upon and of the latitude of the southern ex- 
 tremity of Lake Michigan, made by E. P. Kendrick in October, 1827, 
 shows the former to be 41 ° 47' 43", and the latter 41 ° 38' 58". Trac- 
 ing by George A. Baker in Indiana State Library. 
 
298 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 and although we have no proof, we are forced to believe that 
 he had some first-hand information from trappers and hunters 
 which formed the basis for the amendments passed in the 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Whether Senator Morrow, of Ohio, was more familiar with 
 the maps of that age and believed that the line 42° was not 
 sufficiently well determined to be a safe boundary, or whether 
 he was selfishly interested in making sure that the Ordinance 
 Line would be broken by the admission of Indiana, and thus 
 strengthen Ohio in her controversy with Michigan, it is impos- 
 sible to determine. We must think that he had a personal inter- 
 est in our Enabling Act, for we have noted that he was 
 instrumental in having the Senate bill, which was originally 
 referred to his committee, transferred back to it when it had 
 been accidentally referred, together with other bills, to a differ- 
 ent committee. 
 
 At any rate, Michigan statesmen credit Jennings with being 
 responsible for the change. Lucius Lyon even goes so far as 
 to accuse our delegate of deliberately keeping the question in 
 the background, saying: 
 
 Jonathan Jennings, then Delegate from the Territory of Indiana, 
 was made chairman of the select committee to whom the subject of the 
 admission of that State into the Union was referred ; and being thus 
 placed in a situation to exert a controlling influence, the committee seem 
 to have paid about as much attention to the rights involved in the ques- 
 tion which they were then considering, as was afterward given to similar 
 rights, on the admission of Illinois, before spoken of. It is true that, 
 on the 5th January, 1816, Mr. Jennings made a short report on the 
 subject referred to the committee; but in that report the boundary 
 described in the proviso of the fifth article of the ordinance of 1787 
 is kept wholly out of view, and not even alluded to. 
 
 The chairman, who doubtless wrote the report which he submitted 
 to the House, seems to have been conscious that even to name this 
 proviso of the ordinance would call too much attention to it, to suit 
 the interests of Indiana, and therefore the whole subject was studiously 
 avoided. 34 
 
 In justice to Mr. Jennings it should be pointed out that this 
 accusation by Mr. Lyon is unfair, for Jennings' report of 
 January 5 could not have mentioned changes in the boundary 
 
 ^Committee Reports, 23 Congress, 1 session, No. 334, p. 20. 
 
[From John Cary's Map of the United States, 1806] 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 299 
 
 line that were not proposed until March 29. Claude Larzelere, 
 of Michigan, who has made a study of the controversy, states : 
 
 The change met with no opposition in Congress. The only man 
 interested was the delegate from Indiana and he was chairman of the 
 committee that arranged the boundaries. 35 
 
 On April 16 Jennings himself wrote a letter to his "Fellow 
 Citizens," which was published in the Vincennes Western Sun. 
 He makes no statement bearing directly on the boundary 
 change, but refers to the Enabling Act as follows : 
 
 With regard to the grants and conditions contained in this act, the 
 convention when met will be able to form a correct estimate. Allow me, 
 however to state that they are at least as advantageous if not more so, 
 than those granted to any other Territory on similar occasions. 36 
 
 Two clauses in the Enabling Act passed by the House of 
 Representatives (H. R. 24) may have significance as revelations 
 of Jennings' idea that he had secured an advantageous boundary 
 which needed express sanction in view of provisions of the 
 Ordinance of 1787. In Section 2 it was provided, "that the 
 convention hereinafter provided for, when formed, shall ratify 
 the boundaries aforesaid, otherwise they shall be and remain 
 as now prescribed by the ordinance for the government of the 
 Territory north-west of the River Ohio." Section 4 provides 
 that the constitution of Indiana shall be "not repugnant" to 
 those articles of the ordinance of 1787 "which are declared to 
 be irrevocable between the original States and the people and 
 States of the Territory north-west of the River Ohio, excepting 
 so much of said articles as relate to the boundaries of the 
 States therein to be formed." These clauses show that the 
 author of the bill considered the northern boundary specified 
 in it to be something in the nature of an amendment to the 
 Ordinance of 1787. 
 
 The change aroused no comment favorable or unfavorable 
 on the part of Hoosiers. The Vincennes Western Sun of 1816 
 followed the discussion and progress of the bill, and published 
 
 35 Larzelere, "Boundaries of Michigan," p. 17. 
 ^Western Sun, May 11, 181 6. 
 
300 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 it as passed, but without comment, possibly because there was 
 little editorial comment on current topics in the press of that 
 early day. 37 It has not been possible to find any words of 
 commendation or criticism in the contemporaneous letters, 
 papers, or speeches to which we have had access. As soon as 
 the change came to be known, the Territorial Council of Michi- 
 gan made a protest, but it was a mere matter of form. Two 
 causes undoubtedly contributed to this lack of interest: first, 
 Michigan had no territorial delegate in Congress at this time; 
 and second, the area was entirely undeveloped. L. G. Stuart, in 
 discussing this matter, points out the absence of commercial 
 enterprise in the area. He says : 
 
 Indiana had no extensive canal system with an outlet within the terri- 
 tory claimed. She had no prospectively valuable town sites in the dis- 
 trict. None of the members of the constitutional convention were 
 incorporators or stockholders in railroads projected into the ten mile 
 Indiana strip. 38 
 
 The Enabling Act for Indiana had stipulated that the con- 
 vention for drawing up a state government, when formed, 
 should ratify the boundaries aforesaid, otherwise they were to 
 remain "as . . . prescribed by the ordinance for the govern- 
 ment of the territory northwest of the river Ohio." 39 We find 
 that this convention, on Saturday, June 22, 1816, passed the 
 resolution, which follows in part, presented by James Dill, 
 chairman of the committee relative to the propositions of Con- 
 gress and the boundaries of the state : 40 
 
 "Resolved, By the people of the state of hidiana," by their repre- 
 sentatives in convention met at Corydon, on Monday the tenth day of 
 June, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixteen, that we 
 do, for ourselves and our posterity, agree, determine, declare, and ordain, 
 that we will, and do hereby, accept the propositions of the Congress of 
 the United States, as made and contained in their act of the nineteenth 
 
 37 'Western Sun, April 20, 27, and May 4, 1816. 
 
 38 Stuart, L. G., "Verdict for Michigan. How the Upper Peninsula 
 became a part of Michigan," Michigan Historical Collections, Vol. 
 XXVII, p. 398. 
 
 36 'Annals, 14 Congress, 1 session, eol. 1841. 
 
 40 The Committee consisted of James Dill and Solomon Manwaring, 
 of Dearborn; William H. Eads, of Franklin; James Smith, of Gibson; 
 Daniel C. Lane, of Harrison. 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 301 
 
 day of April, eighteen hundred and sixteen, entitled, "an act to enable 
 the people of Indiana territory to form a state government and con- 
 stitution, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an 
 equal footing with the original states :" And we do further, for our- 
 selves and our posterity, hereby ratify, confirm and establish, the 
 boundaries of the said state of Indiana, as fixed, prescribed, laid down, 
 and established, in the Act of Congress aforesaid. 41 
 
 It is of interest to note, as has been pointed out, that Indi- 
 ana had power to refuse to ratify these boundaries and demand 
 the entire middle third of the Northwest Territory and that 
 Congress had the power to annex this north central area to 
 Indiana any time before Michigan was admitted to the Union. 42 
 
 The resolution admitting Indiana to statehood passed the 
 Senate on December 6, 1816 and the House on December 9. 
 It was signed by the President on December 11, 1816. It 
 declared that the people of Indiana had conformed with the 
 "principles of the articles of compact between the original 
 States and the people and States to be formed in the Territory 
 Northwest of the River Ohio." 43 
 
 On March 2, 1827 the President was authorized "to ascer- 
 tain and designate the northern boundary of the state of Indi- 
 ana," and in pursuance of this act, the survey of 1827 was 
 officially made. 44 The exact latitude of the line was still un- 
 known, for we find Congress asking for this line to be deter- 
 mined in 1828, and again in 1832. 45 
 
 Illinois followed Indiana into statehood in 1818, with a 
 boundary sixty miles north of the Ordinance Line, and extend- 
 ing to 42° 30' north latitude. This added 8,500 square miles 
 of territory to her dominion. At this time all the northern 
 land was organized as Michigan Territory. 
 
 As we have before stated, Michigan made a formal protest 
 against the infringement of her southern boundary by Indiana 
 
 41 Journal of the Convention of the Indiana Territory, pp. 49-50 
 (Louisville, 1816). 
 
 42 Senate Documents, 24 Congress, 1 session, No. 211, pp. 10-11. 
 
 * s Annals, 14 Congress, 2 session, col. 1348. 
 
 44 Esarey (ed.), Messages and Papers of Jennings, Boon, Hendricks, 
 p. 430. 
 
 45 Appeal by the Convention of Michigan, pp. 23-24. 
 
302 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 and Ohio. A memorial was addressed to Congress, January 3, 
 1818; in reviewing the subject the memorial states: 
 
 Your memorialists conceive it their duty, vested as they are with 
 the temporary legislative power of this territory, to submit this subject 
 to the consideration of Congress. They do not presume to request that 
 any particular course may be pursued in relation to it. They are anxious 
 that the just rights of the people of this territory may not be forfeited 
 through their neglect, and that it may not be hereafter supposed they 
 have acquiesced in the changes which have been, and which are proposed 
 to be made in its boundaries. To some future period, when the people 
 of this country can be heard by their own Representatives in the Legisla- 
 ture of the Union, they leave the further discussion and final decision 
 of these questions, which will vitally affect their political importance. 46 
 
 For more than ten years the boundary dispute between 
 Indiana and Michigan seems to have received no attention on 
 the part of either. Then we note that Lucius Lyon, terri- 
 torial delegate from Michigan, asked Congress not only "to 
 resist all attempts at further encroachment, but also to restore 
 to her all the territory so solemnly guarantied to her by that 
 irrepealable law." 47 Governor Lewis Cass, in his message of 
 January, 1831 stated: 
 
 Indiana asserts and exercises jurisdiction over a tract of country, 
 ten miles north of our southern boundary, as defined in that irrepealable 
 law, which gave and guarantees to us our political existence, and extend- 
 ing from Lake Michigan east, along the whole northern frontier of 
 that state. That this claim will eventually be contested on the part of 
 this Territory, or of the State, which must soon be established here, 
 there is no doubt. And as we have every confidence in the justice of 
 our cause, we may reasonably look forward to a favorable decision. As 
 however the rights of the parties rest upon conflicting acts of Congress, 
 and as Indiana has possession of the tract in question, a prudent regard 
 to circumstances will probably dictate a postponement of the subject, 
 until we shall be admitted to a participation in the council of the 
 tribunal, by which it must be determined. 48 
 
 The next official action taken by the Legislative Council of 
 the Territory of Michigan, was the passage of an act approved 
 December 26, 1834. This act provided for the appointment of 
 three commissioners by the governor of the Territory of Mich- 
 
 46 Appeal by the Convention of Michigan, pp. 39-40- 
 ^Committee Reports, 23 Congress, 1 session, No. 334, p. 29. 
 48 Fuller, George N. (ed.), Messages of the Governors of Michigan, 
 Vol. I, p. 60 (Lansing, 1925). 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 303 
 
 igan, "to enter into a negotiation with such commissioners as 
 may be appointed on the part of the states of Ohio, Indiana, 
 or Illinois, or with the Governors of those states, to adjust and 
 finally settle the northern boundary of the said states. 49 A 
 copy of this act was evidently sent to the governors of the 
 three states mentioned. A message from Governor Lucas to 
 the legislature of Ohio acknowledged the receipt of the com- 
 munication, and advised the legislature that Michigan had not 
 been admitted to the Union, that Congress alone had the power 
 to determine the boundaries of territories ; hence such a com- 
 mission as was proposed by Michigan would be without power 
 to act. 50 A memorial of the Legislative Council of Michigan, 
 adopted March 23, 1835, expressly stated: 
 
 We do not, at this time, present for consideration our claims con- 
 nected with the boundaries of Indiana and Illinois. They will be brought 
 forward at a future day, and under different circumstances. But those 
 cases furnish no parallel for the proceedings of the state of Ohio. 
 Congress, by its own authority, enlarged their territorial extent. We 
 contend that such enlargement was invalid, because conflicting with the 
 irrepealable articles of compact. But those states hold the territory 
 alluded to under the acts admitting them into the union. They have 
 always possessed jurisdiction over the country, and if we are ever to 
 obtain possession of it, it must be by judicial decision, or by commis- 
 sioners already, or to be hereafter, appointed. But Ohio claims to do 
 by her own authority what Congress has done for Indiana and Illinois. 51 
 
 Michigan based her claim to the disputed area on her belief 
 that the Ordinance Line was an immovable boundary. She 
 asserted that it had been established by the Ordinance of 1787, 
 and later confirmed by the Enabling Act for Ohio, by the 
 transfer of the northern part of the remaining territory to 
 Indiana Territory and finally by the act establishing her own 
 Territory, in each of which cases this Ordinance Line was 
 expressly used by Congress as a boundary line. She further 
 asserted that repeated attempts on the part of Ohio had failed 
 to induce Congress to change the line. In regard to Indiana 
 
 49 Appeal by the Convention of Michigan, pp. 145-46. See Appen- 
 dix III. 
 
 50 Ibid., pp. 146-48. 51 Ibid,, pp. 110-11. 
 
304 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 she claimed that since this Enabling Act was passed in contro- 
 version to the above mentioned acts it must be null and void. 
 
 Whatever the intention of the men in Congress may have 
 been in 1787, the text of the Ordinance itself offered a techni- 
 cality for setting it aside. It contains the provision : "If Con- 
 gress 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." 62 Our own Sen- 
 ator William Hendricks ably pointed out in his debates in Con- 
 gress that: "Congress is indeed prohibited from coming, with 
 the northern boundaries of these three states, south of this east 
 and west line, but she may go as far north of that line as shall 
 be deemed expedient, even to the boundary of the United 
 States." 63 
 
 Samuel F. Vinton, of Ohio, likewise asserted : "If the 
 phrase had been, 'shall have authority to form one or two States 
 of that part of said territory/ the word of, in the same context, 
 would have been a denial of all discretion over the limits of the 
 State or States to be formed. In the latter case, the State or 
 States must have embraced the whole country, to satisfy the 
 terms used." 64 Representative John M. Clayton, in his report 
 to Congress, as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
 March 1, 1836, agreed with this view, and stated emphatically: 
 "A power to form one 'or two States in a territory' is not to be 
 restricted, without the grossest violence to all the rules of con- 
 struction, to a mere power to form one or two States out of that 
 territory." 56 
 
 Michigan claimed also that the Ordinance was a compact, 
 which could be changed only by common consent, and that she 
 had never given her consent to such a change. John Fiske has 
 asserted that the Ordinance of 1787 was no more nor less than 
 
 52 Macdonald, Documentary Source Book, pp. 215-16. The italics 
 are the author's. 
 
 53 Esarey (ed.), Messages and Papers of Jennings, Boon, Hen- 
 dricks, p. 432. 
 
 ^Committee Reports, 23 Congress, 1 session, No. 334, p. 55- 
 
 65 Senate Documents, 24 Congress, 1 session, No. 211, p. 6. 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 305 
 
 any other act of Congress, because there was no second party 
 to it; it was not ratified by the states. 56 It was amended by 
 the next ensuing Congress, August 7, 1789, in the matter of 
 the appointment of territorial officials. 57 The Ordinance pro- 
 vided for its change by common consent, which must have 
 meant either the consent of our representatives in Congress or 
 the consent of the majority of the people dwelling in the area 
 involved. In either case, consent was undoubtedly secured 
 when the people of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois ratified their 
 state constitutions providing boundaries for these states other 
 than the Ordinance Line. 58 Senator John Tipton is credited 
 with having written: 
 
 This was a proposition made by the United States in Congress 
 assembled, to the people of Indiana and Illinois, and accepted by the 
 people of these new states in their highest attribute of sovereignty, their 
 constitution-making capacity. Hence no power other than the people 
 themselves can abrogate the compact thus entered into. 59 
 
 Although this article is merely signed "Peace and Union," 
 the belief that Tipton was the author is borne out by a letter 
 from Thomas Fitzgerald, of St. Joseph, Michigan, dated April 
 24, 1835, to John Tipton, to whom the latter had sent a copy 
 of the paper. 60 
 
 Michigan founded her claim, also, on the act of Congress 
 establishing her territorial boundaries in 1805, in accordance 
 with which she had organized and held jurisdiction over part 
 of the disputed territory. 
 
 Ohio, on the other hand, asserted that she had been admitted 
 with a proviso for the change in her boundary, but we should 
 point out that this change, as before stated, was to be effected 
 "with the assent of the Congress of the United States." Ohio 
 was then concerned to ascertain the exact location of the mouth 
 
 5fl Fiske, John, The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789, 
 pp. 206-7 (Riverside Press, 1888). 
 
 67 Annals, 1 Congress, col. 2159. 
 
 68 The census of 1830 showed Michigan's population to be 31,639, 
 while the combined population of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois was 
 
 M38,379. 
 
 69 Logansport Canal Telegraph, April 4, 1835. 
 60 Tipton Papers, Indiana State Library. 
 
306 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 of the Maumee River in relation to the Ordinance Line and, if 
 necessary, to secure the assent of Congress to the change. 
 Undoubtedly the spirited controversy with Ohio over the pos- 
 session of the mouth of the Maumee River prevented Michigan 
 from pressing her claim against Indiana. This quarrel with 
 Ohio is designated in history as the "Toledo War," or, by the 
 people of Michigan, as "Governor Lucas' War." 
 
 In 1812 Congress gave authority for an official survey of 
 the Ordinance Line. Because of the war with England, the 
 survey was not undertaken until 1817, when a surveyor marked 
 the so-called Harris Line. It was soon discovered that William 
 Harris, instead of marking the Ordinance Line, had marked 
 the line Ohio claimed as her northern boundary. A protest 
 from Michigan compelled the President to order a second sur- 
 vey, which has borne the name of the Fulton Line, in accord- 
 ance with the Ordinance Line ; this established the fact that the 
 mouth of the Maumee River lay north of the said Ordinance 
 Line, and in Michigan Territory. 
 
 From this date forward the annals of Congress are filled 
 with repeated attempts to have Congress approve the so-called 
 Harris line as the official boundary of the state of Ohio, but 
 each such attempt failed. Attorney General Benjamin F. But- 
 ler advised President Jackson that while Congress, in receiving 
 Ohio, implicitly assented to the boundary proviso, the assent 
 of Congress was necessary to the change, and until Congress 
 did give assent, it was his duty to enforce the laws — in short 
 to take the side of Michigan. 61 John Quincy Adams said : 
 
 Never in the course of my life have I known a controversy of which 
 all the right was so clear on one side, and all the power so overwhelm- 
 ingly on the other; never a case where the temptation was so intense 
 to take the strongest side, and the duty of taking the weakest was so 
 thankless. 62 
 
 Citizens of Indiana early in the struggle espoused the cause 
 of Michigan. John Tipton is credited with the statement that 
 
 61 Senate Documents, 24 Congress, 1 session, No. 6, pp. 4-13. 
 62 Cooley, Thomas M., Michigan, a History of Governments, p. 219 
 (New York, 1905). 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 307 
 
 this matter was a question of concern to all states because of the 
 physical strength of Ohio. 
 
 If the strong are suffered to beat down the weak by the strong arm 
 of force, what guarantee have the other territories of the United States 
 that the neighboring states may not desire a portion, or all, of their 
 territory? .... there are still wire-workers behind the curtain. It is 
 believed that a set of heartless speculators, who own property on 
 Maumee Bay, stimulate and urge this matter on their public men. 63 
 
 Meantime Michigan was eagerly demanding her enabling 
 act, desiring the increased strength this would give her in Con- 
 gress. In 1834 and again in 1835 her petitions fell on deaf 
 ears ; a census revealed her population to be 87,273, or more 
 than 27,000 in excess of the required number. 04 The people of 
 Michigan were angered because their demands were not recog- 
 nized, and led by their vigorous "Boy Governor," Stevens T. 
 Mason, without any enabling act, called a constitutional conven- 
 tion in May, 1835, and a constitution, which has been called 
 "almost a Declaration of Independence," was formed ; this 
 constitution was adopted by the people in the following October, 
 and all state officers elected or appointed, and a Congressman 
 elected. The legislature met in November, inaugurated Mason 
 as governor, and chose their United States senators. 65 Here 
 we have the interesting example of a fully formed state existing 
 without the Union from November 2, 1835 to January 26, 
 1837. In framing their constitution they adhered to the 
 original Ordinance Line, which of course threatened the north- 
 ern boundaries of Indiana and Illinois as well as Ohio and 
 forced the congressmen of these states to join to defeat 
 Michigan. 66 
 
 ^Logansport Canal Telegraph, April 4, 1835. See ante, p. 305. 
 
 64 Utley, Henry M., and Byron M. Cutcheon, Michigan As a Prov- 
 ince, Territory and State, Vol. II, p. 337 (New York, 1906). 
 
 ^Ibid., pp. 319-23- 
 
 66 Soule, Annah May, "The Southern and Western Boundaries of 
 Michigan," Michigan Historical Collections, Vol. XXVII, p. 357 (Lans- 
 ing, 1897), reprinted in part in Ohio Co-operative Topographic Survey, 
 Vol. I, pp. 71-112, under title, "The Controversy over the Ohio-Michigan 
 Boundary." 
 
308 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 By this time there was a wider appreciation of the value of 
 this area. Governor Noah Noble, of Indiana, in his message of 
 1834 asserted: 
 
 Were it possible to recognize this claim, Indiana would lose a dis- 
 trict ten miles wide, extending entirely across the northern part of the 
 State, including one of the fairest and most desirable portions of her 
 territory, and be entirely excluded from any access to the Lake, except 
 through a foreign jurisdiction. 
 
 This claim can never be acceded to by Indiana, and it is highly 
 important that the question should be brought to an early decision. 67 
 
 Senator John Tipton, when debating the admission of Mich- 
 igan in Congress on March 30, 1836, stated: "Indiana never 
 will surrender what Michigan claims to any power on earth." 
 He admitted the rights of Michigan as to her claim with Ohio, 
 but continued, "she should not, in pursuance of those rights, 
 violate the rights of others. She has no right to the ten miles 
 claimed by her Constitution from Indiana; and if that claim 
 continues to be urged, I am against her." 68 For his attitude on 
 the Michigan question, Tipton was commended by Calvin 
 Fletcher in a letter dated January 20, 1836. 69 
 
 We find that our Indiana legislature realized the seriousness 
 of the situation, and Samuel Bigger, chairman of the select 
 committee to which the matter was referred, made a report, 
 February 7, 1835, in which he referred to the growing im- 
 portance of the area : "A portion of the ten miles in question, 
 on account of the inducements held out for emigration, the 
 excellence of the country and the anticipated advantages of a 
 prompt and constant market on the lake, has within a few years 
 received an increase of population almost without a parallel" ; 
 again he speaks of it as "embracing a most fertile tract of 
 country, and that part of Lake Michigan which we have been 
 taught to prize as all important to the trade, commerce and 
 agricultural interests of the northern part of the state." He 
 
 "Indiana, House Journal, 1834-35. P- 16 (Indianapolis, 1834)- 
 * 8 Logansport Canal Telegraph, May 7, 1836; the speech here quoted 
 
 appears in the Congressional Debates, 24 Congress, 1 session, cols. 
 
 1008-11. 
 
 69 Tipton Papers, Indiana State Library. 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 309 
 
 further states that "great and lasting injury would be done 
 the state of Indiana, by stripping her of the territory claimed 
 by Michigan. Her whole northern trade and commercial inter- 
 ests, so far as the same is connected with the possession of 
 the lake, would be placed in the power of a strange jurisdic- 
 tion." 70 
 
 A resolution was adopted, paragraph one of which stated: 
 
 Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana, That 
 our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our representatives re- 
 quested, to resist the establishment of the southern boundary of Michigan 
 on a line drawn east and west from the southern extremity of Lake 
 Michigan; and also that they insist upon the present northern boundary 
 of Indiana, as prescribed in the act of Congress of 1816, providing 
 for her admission into the Union. 71 
 
 In January, 1836 Samuel Bigger prepared another joint 
 resolution, which was adopted and transmitted to Congress on 
 the twentieth of that month. This resolution took a further 
 step, instructing our senators and representatives to oppose the 
 admission of the people of Michigan as a state, "unless they, 
 by their constitution, shall acknowledge the present northern 
 boundary of Indiana." 72 
 
 In pursuance of this changed sentiment, Senator Hendricks 
 opposed the seating of the senators from Michigan in Decem- 
 ber, 1835 ; 73 in March, 1836 Lucius Lyon wrote to his fellow 
 citizens in Michigan that Senators Hendricks and Tipton had 
 declared they would not vote for any bill that did not provide 
 for a change of the Michigan constitution. 74 
 
 Ohio, meantime, had become thoroughly aroused over the 
 failure of Congress to give the required assent to her boundary 
 proviso, and the legislature promptly passed a bill which pro- 
 vided for the extension of her jurisdiction over the contiguous 
 counties in the disputed area, and for the re-marking of the 
 Harris Line, with an appropriation for the enforcement of the 
 
 70 Laws of Indiana, local, 1834-35, p. 260. 
 71 Ibid., p. 262. 
 
 72 Senate Documents, 24 Congress, 1 session, No. 72. 
 7 Congressional Debates, 24 Congress, 1 session, cols. 38-39. 
 74 "Letters of Lucius Lyon," Michigan Historical Collections, Vol. 
 XXVII, pp. 492-93. 
 
310 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 Act. 75 The summer of 1835 proved an eventful one for Michi- 
 gan and Ohio. Governor Lucas, of Ohio, with his staff, 
 boundary commissioners, General Bell, and some six hundred 
 Ohio militia marched to the border line. Governor Mason, of 
 Michigan, with General Brown and nearly one thousand Michi- 
 gan militia occupied Toledo. At this juncture, two commission- 
 ers, Richard Rush and B. C. Howard, sent by President 
 Jackson, arrived, and tried to effect a compromise. Their pro- 
 posals, which were favorable to Ohio, were accepted by 
 Governor Lucas, but rejected by Governor Mason, who hoped 
 to see Michigan's congressmen seated at the next session and 
 in a position to enforce their claims ; by mutual consent the 
 militias of both states were dismissed. In July, 1835, however, 
 Governor Lucas repeated his attempt to re-mark the Harris 
 Line, but his surveyors were promptly seized by Michigan 
 officials. 
 
 President Jackson attempted to avert a crisis by removing 
 the impulsive Governor Mason, September 1 1 ; he appointed 
 John S. Horner, of Virginia, to succeed him, but the people of 
 Michigan adhered to their "Boy Governor." Horner arrived 
 at Detroit September 19 and remained there eight months, but 
 was powerless. Here again we have another interesting situa- 
 tion, a governor of a territory, appointed by the President, and 
 a governor of an unrecognized state, elected by the people. 
 
 Governor Lucas finally succeeded in exercising jurisdiction 
 for his state by holding a session of court in the outskirts of 
 Toledo, with an escort of twenty armed men, at three o'clock 
 in the morning of September 7, 1835, in spite of the fact that 
 Michigan militia occupied the heart of the city in an effort to 
 prevent it ; Lucas, apparently satisfied with his accomplishment, 
 withdrew his forces ; the second episode of the "'Toledo War" 
 came to a bloodless end. 
 
 76 For events in the history of Ohio and Michigan connected with 
 this boundary controversy and the admission of Michigan into the Union, 
 consult Soule, "The Southern and Western Boundaries of Michigan," 
 Michigan Historical Collections, Vol. XXVII, pp. 346-90; Cooley, Michi- 
 gan, a History of Governments; Utley and Cutcheon, Michigan As a 
 Province, Territory and State, Vol. II, especially pp. Z\7&- 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 311 
 
 It was realized that the Ohio-Michigan boundary dispute 
 could not be settled ultimately by the states themselves, but 
 only by Congress. A presidential election was near. Politically, 
 Ohio was doubtful, and with her now stood Indiana and 
 Illinois, controlling some thirty-nine electoral votes. Admis- 
 sion of Michigan was most desirable; on June 15, 1836, there- 
 fore, a compromise bill was passed by Congress giving Ohio 
 the disputed territory, and offering Michigan the Northern 
 Peninsula. A convention of delegates, elected by the people of 
 Michigan, at the call of the Governor, rejected the compromise. 
 All state officials and the congressmen who had been elected, 
 wished to take office, however, and Michigan wished to have 
 her share in the distribution of five per cent of public moneys 
 soon to be made by the federal government. Thus pressure was 
 brought to bear on all sides ; upon the Governor's refusal to 
 call a second convention, the Democrats took matters into their 
 own hands and called for the election of delegates to a second 
 convention, a procedure in which the Whigs refused to take 
 any part. This convention, made up almost entirely of members 
 of the Democratic party, held what was termed by opponents 
 the "frost-bitten convention," and accepted the compromise bill ; 
 according to Hinsdale it was an entirely extralegal group, 
 
 Having no more authority to do so than the crew of a Detroit 
 schooner or a lumberman's camp in the Valley of the Grand River. . . . 
 Most astounding of all, the two Houses of Congress, by large majorities, 
 passed an act . . . accepting this convention as meeting the require- 
 ments of the act of admission, and so declared Michigan one of the 
 United States. 76 
 
 This act admitting Michigan, passed in 1836, describes that 
 state as bounded on the south by Ohio and Indiana. 77 
 
 Had Michigan not accepted the compromise bill and settled 
 the northern boundary of Indiana, what would have been the 
 outcome? Inasmuch as the federal constitution provides that 
 no state may be erected within the jurisdiction of any other 
 
 76 Hinsdale, Burke A., The Old Northwest with a view of the thir- 
 teen colonies as constituted by the Royal charters, p. 335 (New York, 
 1899). 
 
 77 Acts of Congress, 24 Congress, 1 session, pp. 84-85. 
 
312 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 state, the controversy had to be disposed of before Michigan 
 could be admitted. Had her dispute centered against Indiana, 
 she would have asserted prior claim because the act of Congress 
 giving Michigan Territory the disputed strip antedated the gift 
 to Indiana by eleven years. Against this claim Indiana would 
 have contended that the later act was the more binding, because 
 instead of being a mere act for the government of a territory, 
 it was a compact made with a sovereign state and ratified by 
 the citizens of that state and could be broken only by the con- 
 sent of the citizens with whom the said compact had been made. 
 Furthermore Indiana had had undisputed possession of the area 
 since her admission. A close study of all the references of 
 Michigan statesmen as quoted above leads one to believe that 
 they realized fully that the ultimate verdict would undoubtedly 
 have been rendered in favor of Indiana. 
 
 Indiana little knew how valuable this ten mile strip would be 
 in her future development. As late as 1821, when John Tipton 
 made the official survey of our western boundary, he described 
 in detail the low sandy hills of the Lake Michigan region, and 
 continued: "immediately behind thos[e] hill [s] the country 
 falls off into pond[s] and marshes that can never admit of set- 
 tlement nor never will be of much service to our State." 78 Yet 
 this area is destined to be a part of the greatest industrial cen- 
 ter in the world. In it, in recent years, have been constructed 
 great units of the Standard, the Roxana, and the Sinclair Oil 
 Companies, the Universal Portland Cement Plant, the United 
 States Steel Company, and numberless smaller steel mills which 
 would not have chosen this location but for the lake harbor. 
 The original boundary would have entered the lake within the 
 city of Gary, and had the Ordinance Line been held inviolable, 
 that city, as now located, would have been under the jurisdiction 
 of the three states, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin. We 
 would have lost the beautiful farming area and the populous 
 district including Elkhart, South Bend, Mishawaka, Lagrange, 
 
 78 Journal of John Tipton, commissioner on the part of Indiana for 
 marking the Illinois-Indiana boundary line, p. 34- Copy by George 
 Pence, in Indiana State Library. 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 313 
 
 and Angola. The state prison would not have been located at 
 Michigan City. We would have been deprived of the attractive 
 lake region in our northeastern corner, and Indiana would never 
 have possessed the Dunes or Pokagon state parks. Fortunate, 
 indeed, was Indiana, that our forefathers were far-sighted 
 enough to secure for us approximately forty-one miles of front- 
 age on beautiful Lake Michigan and provide space within her 
 confines for this great industrial center. Fortunate, indeed, is 
 Indiana, that the present generation has been far-sighted enough 
 to establish the Indiana Dunes Park, thus preserving three miles 
 of this lake frontage and there establishing one of the most 
 inspiring playgrounds in the world for the use and enjoyment 
 of her citizens throughout all the generations that are to come. 
 
APPENDIX I 
 
 Procedure in regard to the Indiana Enabling Act as it 
 appears in the Annals, 14 Congress, 1 session. 
 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 December 28, 1815 
 
 Jennings presented petition of Legislature of Indiana Terri- 
 tory praying that said territory might be erected into a state 
 government. Referred to Jennings, McKee, Henderson, Reed, 
 and Moffit. Col. 408. 
 
 January 5, 1816 
 
 The above mentioned committee reported. (Report given 
 col. 460). Jennings reported a bill to enable people of Indiana 
 Territory to form a constitution and state government and for 
 admission of such state into the Union. Read twice and "com- 
 mitted to a Committee of Whole to-morrow." The report 
 stated that the northern boundary of Indiana should touch the 
 southern extreme of Lake Michigan. Col. 459-60. 
 
 March 29, 1816 
 
 House in committee of whole. Variety of amendments 
 received. Amendments reported were successively agreed to 
 and the bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossd for a 
 third reading. Col. 1293. 
 
 March 30, 1816 
 
 Engrossed bill read the third time and passed. 108 — 3. 
 Nays, Goldsborough, Maryland ; Lewis, Virginia ; Randolph, 
 Virginia. Col. 1300. 
 
 April 13, 1816 
 
 Message from Senate that Senate had passed bill, and ask- 
 ing concurrence of House in amendments. Col. 1367. 
 
 April 15, 1816 
 
 Amendments proposed by Senate were read and concurred 
 in by House. Col. 1373. 
 
 (3i4) 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 315 
 
 SENATE 
 
 January 2, 1816 
 
 Memorial of Legislative Council and House of Representa- 
 tives of Indiana Territory communicated by President to 
 Senate; referred to committee: Morrow, chairman. Col. 31. 
 
 March 30, 1816 
 
 Senate received word that House had passed bill. Col. 225. 
 
 April 1, 1816 
 
 The eleven bills last brought up for concurrence were read 
 and severally passed to second reading. Col. 256. 
 
 April 2, 1816 
 
 The bill was read second time and referred to Committee on 
 the memorial of the legislature of the Mississippi Territory. 
 Col. 274. 
 
 April 2, 1816 
 
 Moved that said committee (on admission of Indiana and 
 Mississippi Territories) ascertain and report number of in- 
 habitants in said territories. Col. 276. 
 
 April 3, 1816 
 
 Ordered on motion by Morrow that committee to whom 
 bill was referred be discharged and that it be referred to com- 
 mittee appointed January 2 on the memorial of the Legislative 
 Council and House of Representatives of Indiana Territory. 
 Col. 278. 
 
 April 4, 1816 
 
 Morrow reports from committee the bill with amendments 
 and certified statement of census of Indiana Territory. Col. 282. 
 
 April 12, 1816 
 
 Senate in committee of whole considers bill together with 
 amendments reported by committee and the bill having been 
 amended, the President reported it to the Senate. Col. 312. 
 
 April 13, 1816 
 
 Amendments to the bill having been reported by the com- 
 mittee correctly engrossed, the bill was read a third time as 
 amended. "Resolved, That this bill pass with amendments/' 
 Col. 315. 
 
APPENDIX II 
 
 The Enabling Act as it first passed the House of Repre- 
 sentatives and was sent to the Senate for concurrence. 
 
 H. R. No. 24 
 
 In Senate of the United States 
 
 April 1, 1816. 
 
 Read, and passed to the second reading. 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 To enable the people of the Indiana Territory to form a Con- 
 stitution and State Government, and for the admission of such 
 State into the Union, on an equal footing with the original 
 States. 
 
 1 Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said State 
 
 2 shall consist of all the Territory included within the fol- 
 
 3 lowing boundaries, to wit: bounded on the east by the 
 
 4 western line of the State of Ohio, from the forty-second 
 
 5 degree of north latitude to the mouth of the Great Miami 
 
 6 River; on the south, by the River Ohio, from the mouth 
 
 7 of the Great Miami River, to the mouth of the River 
 
 8 Wabash; on the west, by the Wabash River, from its 
 
 9 mouth, to the town of Vincennes, and from thence by the 
 
 10 meanders of the said River Wabash, to a point where a 
 
 11 due north line, drawn from the said town of Vincennes, 
 
 12 would last touch the north-western shore of the said river ; 
 
 13 from thence, by a due north line, until it shall intersect a 
 
 14 due east and west line, which shall touch the forty-second 
 
 15 degree of north latitude; and on the north by the forty- 
 
 16 second degree of north latitude. Provided, that the con- 
 
 17 vention hereinafter provided for, when formed, shall 
 
 18 ratify the boundaries aforesaid, otherwise they shall be 
 
 19 and remain as now prescribed by the ordinance for the 
 
 government of the Territory north-west of the River 
 (3i6) " 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 317 
 
 Ohio. Provided also that the said State shall have 
 concurrent jurisdiction on the river Wabash with the 
 State to be formed west thereof so far as the said river 
 shall form a common boundary to both. 
 
 ^« sjt ifc ;|e >je ije 
 
 1 Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the members of 
 
 2 the convention thus duly elected, be, and they are hereby 
 
 3 authorized to meet at the seat of the government of the 
 
 4 said Territory, on the second Monday of June next, which 
 
 5 convention, when met, shall first determine by a majority 
 
 6 of the whole number elected, whether it be, or be not 
 
 7 expedient at that time, to form a constitution and State 
 
 8 government for the people within the said Territory, and 
 
 9 if it be determined to be expedient, the convention shall be, 
 
 10 and hereby are authorized to form a constitution and State 
 
 11 government; or if it be deemed more expedient, the said 
 
 12 convention shall provide by ordinance for electing repre- 
 
 13 sentatives to form a constitution or frame of government; 
 
 14 which said representatives shall be chosen in such manner, 
 
 15 and in such proportion, and shall meet at such time and 
 
 16 place, as shall be prescribed by the said ordinance, and 
 
 17 shall then form for the people of said Territory, a consti- 
 
 18 tution and State government: Provided, That the same, 
 
 19 whenever formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant 
 
 20 to those articles of the ordinance of the thirteenth of July, 
 
 21 one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, which are 
 
 22 declared to be irrevocable between the original States and 
 
 23 the people and States of the Territory north-west of the 
 
 River Ohio, excepting so much of said articles as relate 
 to the boundaries of the States therein to be formed. 
 
APPENDIX III 
 
 An Act to provide for the appointment of commissioners 
 to adjust the boundary between the state or states to be formed 
 north of a line running east and west through the southerly 
 extreme of Lake Michigan and the states of Ohio, Indiana and 
 Illinois. 
 
 Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Legislative Council of the 
 Territory of Michigan, That there shall be three commissioners 
 appointed by the Governor of the Territory of Michigan, by 
 and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, 
 whose duty it shall be to enter into a negotiation with such com- 
 missioners as may be appointed on the part of the states of 
 Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois, or with the Governors of those 
 states, to adjust and finally settle the northern boundary of the 
 said states or either of them. It shall be the duty of the said 
 commissioners, or a majority of them, to make a report of their 
 proceedings to the legislature or legislatures of the state or states 
 to be formed north of the aforesaid line ; and if said boundary 
 line shall be ascertained or agreed upon by the said commis- 
 sioners, it shall become the fixed and established boundary be- 
 tween such of the said states as shall consent and agree to the 
 same, by the ratification of the proceedings of the said com- 
 missioners by their legislatures respectively, so soon as their 
 consent shall be given. 
 
 Sec. 2. And the said commissioners to be appointed on the 
 part of Michigan shall receive such compensation for their 
 services as may be allowed them by law. 
 
 Approved, December 26, 1834. 
 Appeal by the Convention of Michigan, to the People of the 
 United States; with other Documents in relation to the Bound- 
 ary Question between Michigan and Ohio, pp. 145-46 (Detroit, 
 1835). 
 
 (3i8) 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Government Publications, Official Documents 
 
 United States Congress. Debates and Proceedings in the 
 Congress of the United States, The, . . . , 1, 7, 8, 14 
 Congresses (Washington. 1834-54). Cited as Annals. 
 
 . Journals of the American Congress, Vol. IV (Wash- 
 ington, 1823). Cited as Journals of Congress. 
 
 . Register of debates in Congress, comprising the lead- 
 ing debates and incidents of the eighteenth Congress, 
 second session to the twenty-fifth Congress, first ses- 
 sion, . . .,23 and 24 Congresses (Washington, 1834, 
 1836). Cited as Congressional Debates. 
 
 . Reports of Committees, House, 23 Congress, 1 ses- 
 sion (No place, no date). Cited as Committee Reports. 
 Public Documents printed by order of the Senate of 
 
 the United States . . .,24 Congress, 1 session (Wash- 
 ington, 1836). Cited as Senate Documents. 
 
 Indiana. Journal of the Convention of the Indiana Territory 
 . . . (Louisville, 1816). 
 
 . Journal of the House of Representatives, 1834-35 
 
 (Indianapolis, 1834). Cited as Indiana House Journal. 
 
 . Laws of Indiana, local, 1834-35 (Indianapolis, 1835). 
 
 See also Esarey, Logan, in section of Historical Books 
 
 and Articles. 
 
 Michigan. See Fuller, George N., in section of Historical 
 Books and Articles. 
 
 . Appeal by the Convention of Michigan to the People 
 
 of the United States; with other Documents, in relation to 
 the Boundary Question between Michigan and Ohio (De- 
 troit, 1835). 
 
 Manuscripts 
 
 Tipton, John. Papers. Manuscripts in Indiana State Library. 
 . Journal of John Tipton, commissioner on the part of 
 
 Indiana for marking the Illinois-Indiana boundary line. 
 
 Copy by George Pence, in Indiana State Library. 
 
 (3i9) 
 
320 The Northern Boundary of Indiana 
 
 Newspapers 
 
 Logansport Canal Telegraph, 1835 and 1836. 
 Western Sun, The, Vincennes, 1816. 
 
 Maps 
 
 Indiana State Library. 2 Vols. (Indianapolis, 1890). 
 . Miscellaneous collection of Photostat maps. 
 
 Historical Books and Articles 
 
 Burnet, Jacob, Notes on the Early Settlement of the North- 
 western Territory (Cincinnati, 1847). 
 
 Cooley, Thomas Mclntyre, Michigan, a History of Govern- 
 ments (New York, 1905). 
 
 Esarey, Logan (ed)., Messages and Papers of Jonathan Jen- 
 nings, Ratliff Boon, William Hendricks (Indiana His- 
 torical Collections, Vol. XII, Indianapolis, 1924). 
 
 Fiske, John, The Critical Period of American History, 1783- 
 1789 (Riverside Press, 1888.) 
 
 Ford, Paul Leicester (ed.), The Works of Thomas Jefferson, 
 Vol. IV (New York, 1904). 
 
 Fuller, George N. (ed.), Messages of the Governors of 
 Michigan, Vols. I and II (Lansing, 1925 and 1926). 
 
 Hinsdale, Burke A., The Old Northwest with a view of the 
 thirteen colonies as constituted by the Royal charters 
 (New York, 1899). 
 
 Kettleborough, Charles, Constitution Making in Indiana, Vol. I 
 (Indiana Historical Collections, Indianapolis, 1916). 
 
 Larzelere, Claude S., "The Boundaries of Michigan," Michi- 
 gan Historical Collections, Vol. XXX, pp. 1-27 (Lansing, 
 1906). 
 
 "Lyon, Lucius, Letters of." See Stuart, L. G. (ed.). 
 
 Macdonald, William (ed.), Documentary Source Book of 
 American History, 1606-1926 (New York, 1926). 
 
 Mendenhall, T. C, and A. A. Graham, "Boundary Line be- 
 tween Ohio and Indiana, and between Ohio and Michi- 
 gan," Ohio Archeological and Historical Publications, Vol. 
 IV, pp. 127-98 (Cincinnati, no date). 
 
 Miller, G. J., "The Establishment of Michigan's Boundaries," 
 American Geographical Society, Vol. XLIII, pp. 339-51. 
 
 Robson, Frank E., "The Michigan and Ohio Boundary Line," 
 Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, Vol. XI, pp. 
 216-27 (Lansing, 1888). 
 
The Northern Boundary of Indiana 321 
 
 Sherman, C. E., The Ohio-Michigan Boundary (Ohio Co- 
 operative Topographic Survey, Vol. I (Ohio State Re- 
 formatory Press, 1916). 
 
 Schlesinger, Arthur M., "Basis of the Ohio-Michigan Bound- 
 ary Dispute," Ohio Co-operative Topographic Survey, 
 Vol. I, pp. 59-70 (Ohio State Reformatory Press, 1916). 
 
 Soule, Annah May, "The Southern and Western Boundaries of 
 Michigan," Michigan Historical Collections, Vol. XXVII, 
 pp. 346-90; (Lansing, 1897) ; also reprinted in part in the 
 Ohio Co-operative Topographic Survey, Vol. I, pp. 71-112, 
 under the title "The Controversy over the Ohio-Michigan 
 Boundary." 
 
 Soule, Annah May, "The Michigan-Indiana Boundary," 
 Michigan Historical Collections, Vol. XXVII, pp. 341-45 
 (Lansing, 1897). 
 
 Stuart, L. G., "Verdict for Michigan. How the Upper Penin- 
 sula became a part of Michigan," Michigan Historical 
 Collections, Vol. XXVII, pp. 390-403 (Lansing, 1897). 
 
 Stuart, L. G. (ed.), "Letters of Lucius Lyon," Michigan His- 
 torical Collections, Vol. XXVII, pp. 412-604 (Lansing, 
 1897). 
 
 Utley, Henry M., and Byron M. Cutcheon, Michigan as a 
 Province, Territory and State, the Twenty-Sixth Member 
 of the Federal Union, Vol. II (New York, 1906). 
 
 Way, W. V., The Facts and Historical Events of the Toledo 
 War of 1835 as connected with the first session of the 
 court of common pleas of Lucas County, Ohio. (Toledo, 
 1869).