history of the state, and when issued in 1833, was spoken of as an invaluable acquisition to every enlightened citizen of the state; and Mr. Chase was heralded as its first historian. It was also commented upon that the first volume of the "Statutes of Ohio and the Northwest Territory" by S. P. Chase, which included the preliminary history of Ohio, was all of it of Ohio manufacture. The paper was made by E. T. Coxe & Company, of Zanesville, and the printing and binding were done in Cincinnati.

In 1838, Caleb Atwater, in his history, named February 19, 1803, the date of the Federal Judiciary Act of Congress before referred to, as the date of admission. Hickey, on the Constitution, names November 29, 1802, the date of the adoption of that instrument, as the true date. Hildreth, in the fifth volume of his history, fixes the date as March 1, 1803, and, in my judgment, he is correct. Walker, in his history of Athens County, names the date of the act of Congress assenting to the modifications of the propositions of the enabling act, as proposed by the constitutional convention, which was March 3, 1803, thus, in effect, following the idea of Chase. In Black's Ohio, the date named is February 19, 1803. Hon. Rufus King in his history of Ohio fixes the date as March 1, 1803, as does also Samuel Adams Drake in his history of the Ohio Valley States. In 1888, Black's Story of Ohio was published; and within the last two years the president of an Ohio college, a leading educator, insisted that Ohio became a state on the nineteenth day of February, 1803. Even the late president of Marietta College in October, 1887, in an article on this subject published in one of the popular magazines, claims that: "The question as to the admission of Ohio is between the dates November 29, 1802, and February 19, 1803," and he contends that the latter is the true date because the act of Congress of that date, the Federal Judiciary Act before referred to, to use his language: "Transformed Ohio from a territory into a state."

This contention might be dismissed for the present with the remark that Congress has no power to create a state, hence it could not work the alleged transformation even if so disposed. The creation of a state is peculiarly the business of the inhabitants of the territory in question, under certain sanctions imposed

by the Federal constitution, provided that territory belongs to the United States. It is fair to add, however, that on the date contended for February 19, 1803- the constitution of Ohio, together with the memorial heretofore referred to, were in the possession of Congress; and that by the terms of the constitution it was then well known and generally understood that the new state would complete its organization on the first Tuesday of March, 1803, that day falling on March 1.

This writer also overlooked the significant fact that the court provided for by this act was not organized until March 1, 1803, and that the first session of the court, as provided by the act itself, was to be held on the first Monday in June, 1803. It would seem that these facts would be sufficient to effectually dispose of the argument that because the preamble of the act in question recognizes the state of Ohio by name and the body of the act provides for the administration of the laws of the United States and creates a Federal court to administer them therein, it thereby creates a state and also admits it into the Union! But I shall have occasion to notice this argument again later on.

In the seventeenth volume of the Magazine of American History are two articles upon this subject; one argues that Ohio became a state on the date of the adoption of the new constitution, November 29, 1802; the other contending that Ohio became a state on the nineteenth day of February, 1803, and his arguments are practically the same as those already noticed.

It is true that the act of Congress of that date is the first which recognizes Ohio by name, but it is equally and incontestably true that the exact status of Ohio at that date was that of a body politic, an unorganized and inchoate state. And this was the status of the state from the date of the adoption of the constitution November 29, 1802, during the formative period, when under Schedule 6 of the constitution the elections of January 11, 1803, were held and officers necessary for the complete civil organization of the state were elected; and up to the date of the meeting and organization of the first General Assembly of the state and the complete and final civil organization thereof and consequent cessation of the territorial government and its functions on the first day of March, 1803.

Other claims and arguments as to Ohio's natal day could be given, but it is unnecessary, as the references already made establish the fact that great doubt and uncertainty have existed until a recent period, at least upon this important question. My first claim is: That the act of Congress of April 30, 1802, commonly called the Enabling Act, while it gave the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio permission to form a state, did not of itself create the state. And it follows that April 30, 1802, can be considered neither as the date of the creation of the state nor of its admission to the Union. Although by force of the first section of that very act the new state would become a member of the Union "when formed," that is at the very moment when its civil organization should become complete. This will more clearly appear on an examination of the preamble and first section of the act itself. The preamble is as follows:

An act to enable the people of the eastern division of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio to form a state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states; and for other purposes.

Now it is certainly competent for us to look at this preamble in order to determine what were the original intentions of its framers. As to whether or not those intentions were carried out we must look to the act itself. It is evident from the language employed that the intention was not only to confer upon the people of the territory in question the right to form a state, but also, by the same act, to admit that state, when formed, to the Union. And upon reference to the first section of the act we see that this intention was clearly carried out. It is as follows:

Be it enacted, etc., That the inhabitants of the eastern division of the territory Northwest of the river Ohio, be, and they are hereby authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper; and the said state when formed shall be admitted into the Union, upon the same footing with the original states, in all respects whatever.

Now it seems perfectly clear that Congress by virtue of this. act not only granted to the people of the territory in question O. C. -7

all needful permission to form for themselves a constitution and state government, but that by force of this very act that state, when formed, was admitted into the Union. That this is the correct construction of the act is plain from the language of the preamble, from the language of the section quoted, and from the fact that no other formal act admitting Ohio to the Union was ever passed. No other act could add anything to this. Ohio was specifically admitted to the Union by this act, although then neither formed nor named.

Now in further confirmation of the fact that this is the correct construction of this act and to show that it is the construction placed on it by those who were contemporary to these events, I will give you a brief letter written by one of the brightest and most energetic men in public life in the Northwestern Territory in those days, and one who was by all writers admitted to have done more to effect Ohio's admission as a state than any other, and who was elected the first United States senator in 1803, reelected in 1810 and resigned his seat in the Senate in 1814 to accept the office of governor of Ohio, an office to which he was in turn re-elected. This letter was written to Col. Nathaniel Massie, who, by the way, was a brother-in-law of Charles Willing Byrd, and is as follows:

WASHINGTON, April 30th, 1802.

I do myself the pleasure to enclose you a copy of the Act for the admission of the Territory into the Union as a State. I leave this place in an hour.

THOMAS WORTHINGTON.

Now, as the act of April 30, 1802, admits the new state when formed, the important ultimate question is, on what date was the state of Ohio formed?

My second claim is:

That November 29, 1802, the date on which the constitutional convention held in pursuance of the Enabling Act of Congress completed its work, the day on which the first constitution of Ohio was signed and approved, cannot be considered as the day on which the state was formed, because the convention by its work up to that point had created only a body politic, an unorganized or inchoate state; the complete or

ganization of which was postponed by the express provisions of the constitution itself until the first Tuesday in March, 1803, which day was March 1, 1803. See Article I, section 25, constitution of Ohio, 1802.

That the territorial condition of the new state was not terminated by the adoption of the constitution on November 29, 1802, and that it did continue by the very terms of the instrument itself, as has been shown, until March 1, 1803, was thoroughly understood at that time. In the first place, among the membership of the convention which framed the constitution eight, or nearly one-fourth of the entire body, were then members of the Territorial Legislature, and they may be presumed to have known the provisions of that instrument which was to legislate them out of office. Then we find in "American State Papers Miscellaneous," volume I, page 343, a letter written by the distinguished Edward Tiffin, president of that convention and afterwards governor of Ohio, to the Honorable the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, transmitting to Congress the constitution for submission to that body, under the date of December 4, 1802; and he directs it from Chillicothe, N. W. Territory, and not from the state of Ohio. This distinctly shows what was understood to be the status of the new state at that time and its accuracy cannot be impeached.

It is also safe to say that President Jefferson knew when Ohio was entitled to be considered as one of the states of the Union, yet in his annual message of December 15, 1802, he makes no allusion to the admission of the state, and as late as January 11, 1803, he is still unaware of its existence, as is shown by the following entry found in the Executive Journal of the United States Senate for the year 1803, page 433, which is very significant :

I nominate Joseph Wood of the North Western Territory, to be Register of the Land Office at Marietta in said Territory and in place of P. Foster resigned; and Griffith Green to be collector for the District of Marietta in the North Western Territory and inspector of the Revenue for the same. January 11th, 1803.

TH. JEFFERSON.