Whereas, We have learned with surprise and regret that a numerous and influential body of citizens of western New York, have petitioned the Legislature of said State for the passage of a law to increase the tolls on the Oswego canal, so as to burden the trade of the western States passing through said canal, with a tariff of tolls, not applicable to the citizens of Oswego and the surrounding territorytherefore,

Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, That we view all restrictions and discriminations like those contemplated by the "Petitioners of Western New York," as unjust, unconstitutional and oppressive to the trade and commerce of the Western States.

Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to inquire, by resolutions instructing the appropriate committees of their respective Houses, whether there exists a necessity for any legislation by Congress for the purpose of establishing free trade between the several States, and preventing partial and unequal charges on transportation, or duties on exports and imports disguised under that name, on the part of the several States.

Resolved, That the Governor be, and he is hereby requested to send copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the Governors of the several States of the Union, and to our Senators and Representatives in Congress.

No. 15.

1845.

REPORT of the Committee on State Affairs.

To the Honorable the Senate of the State of Michigan:

SAMUEL DENTON, for the committee on State affairs, to which was referred the petition of numerous voters in Oakland, Washtenaw and other counties, praying that the necessary legislative action may be taken for amending the const tution of this state, by expunging from the 2d article thereof the word White."

Your committee report as follows:

It is in favor of granting the prayer of the petition.

The petition seeks to carry into effect a great principle, namely That taxation and representation are inseverable. To this principle our republic owes its being. But for it, the State of Michigan had not been this day sitting in sovereignty. For its assertion the wisdom, the blood, and the treasure of this nation were not deemed too great an expenditure durir g eight years of infancy and weakness.---Its truth has not been since questioned; on the contrary, it has gathered strength from the commentary of 70 years. Of all our republican principles it is now the most popular, and universally acknowledged. The demand for the practical application of such a principle, therefore stands on the strong est ground. To refuse a demand thus commended, to stay the operation of a principle thus great, popular and sacred, from its associations, can be justified only by reasons of the most cogent stringency. Do they exist? The question will be presently considered.

Before an American assembly it were a waste of time to discuss the policy of a principle so confirmed, or to reason respecting the natural rights of man. The committee but remark that in the Declaration of Independence no limitation by color or other trifling distinction is found to mar the harmony, or impede the career of this noble principle. The committee pass to other topics, which, with those

1

alluded to, converge to a common conclusion in favor of giving the right of suffiage to every tax payer irrespective of color.

No principle is more dear to pure democracy than the extension of suffrage. In proportion to the weakness of democratic principles, limitation prevails; conservatism retains it by educational or pecuniary barriers aristocracy compresses it within the narrow limits of of birth or fortune; despotism obliterates it. OUR nationality is built upon democratic principles; of these, universal suffrage is one, and it has enjoyed a vigorous protection, or encountered a cramping jealousy, according as the spirit of democracy was in the ascendant or on the wane amid the councils of the nation. In no way can democratic nationality be more effectually preserved than by a free extension of suffrage to the tax payer, and by a jealous distrust of every demand for its restriction. True! restrictions must necessarily exist -but they ought to be founded in a general principle, and not in their marked violation. To erect "color" into a barrier to this great democratic doctrine, is but to belie our professions, and make a hypocrite of our principle.

Further reasons for a sacred fidelity to our cardinal principle are found in the peculiarity of our political structure. We are united as a nation, but by voluntary compact. Each individual is equal, and each state sovereign. A compact based on man's natural rights binds us into a common people. While these rights and their consequent principles are practically respected, our compact will be performed, and our union indissoluble; but to violate them either openly or by antagonist inconsistencies, at once undermines the only foundation on which our structure can permanently rest. Unlike the monarchies of Europe, we have no great external power, whose resistless force compresses discordance and inconsistency to a reluctant harmony. Our governmental machine must work by the concord of its parts, and its own unmarred power. To legislate directly against our principles, or even to shrink from carrying them out, is to throw discord into the otherwise harmonious working of our gov. ernment, and necessarily endanger our stability.

Some may think this reasoning too serious for the subject; that the question, whether suffrage shall be granted to, or withheld from a mere handful of tax payers, is an insignificant matter.

Your committee think differently. The rights of a minority ought to be respected, and more sacredly if it is weak. The weakness of the claimants but enhances the present question. Their small number and the powerlessness of their position commends their rights to a generous and just majority. But a much more important reason for serious consideration of the subject, is found in the fact, that principle is always subverted by insidious effort. It is first attacked in a remote and apparently trifling point; the invader, if noticed, is despised; the small concession he seeks excites no alarm; he creeps from post to post; gains strength at every step; at last assaults and carries the citadel itself. Moral delinquencies illustrate this. The housebreaker's career began by some petty school-boy theft; the murderer's principle first yielded to some wild gust of childish passion; the forger at first but devised some cunning scheme of money raising.The point at which to have arrested the guilt of these individuals, was at their first deviation from principle. That point surrendered, their consummation of guilt was almost certain None leap at once into the arms of full grown crime, or violation of principle; their course is gradual as the growth of the man fron the child. As with the moral so with the political principle. Its greatest danger lies in the apparently trifling, yet wilely encroaches on some remote point. But the jealous freeman should guard his trust as does the maiden her honor, and repel the slightest liberty. If we tamper with our fundamental principles-if we hedge up the way of our great one"taxation and representation," and to day exclude a man because of his color, what follows? Why, that country is to be a disqualification to-morrow, and creed the day after. Establish these, and on their heels will follow a property, and an educational qualification; and universal suffrage is lost. No! No! Let us not tamper with this cardinal principle.

It is the precious bequest of our revolutionary sires; it comes to us consecrated by the blood and the patriotism of '76. Be ours the care to preserve this priceless legacy in the purity of its maiden gift and if time has dropped upon it à sullying spot, be ours the grateful task to remove it, and restore its original lustre.

These views inducing a sympathy with the prayer of the petition, are strengthened by other considerations. One of them is found in