{"character_count": 1451, "word_count": 247, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9603000283241272], "ccnet_perplexity": [1497.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
Ohio and Michigan. Globe con- tains the opinion of the Attorney General on the subject of the northern boundary. It is not what the Michigan folks under stood 1t to be. Its conclusions are as follow:

 "First. The Congress of the United States, By receiving Ohio into the Union, without objecting to the proviso contained in the 9th section of the 7th article of her constitution, implicitly assented to that pro- yiso.

 Secondly. That the assent thus given to the provso, did not involve nor include an assent, on the part of Congress, to the then actual and present extension of the northern boundary to the line mentioned in the pro- yiso--it being the contemplation of the parties, that the decision of Congress upon the question of giving or refusing such as- sent, should he made at future day and l by some future act, on the entertainment of particular fact, which has not even yet been duly ascertained. And, Thirdly. That until this last mentioned assent shall have been given by Congress, the tract in dispute must be considered as forming, legally part of the Territory oi ] Michigan. !"

 These positions appear to me unexcep- ltlonable. The opinion repudiates all force, and maintains that the questions in contro- versy are to be adjusted by legislation and adjudication. The object of the opinion Is to advise the President, upon the legal points involved, to guide him in ascertain ing and performing his official duties.

 Gin. Ga1.