SELECTIONS FROM THE MADISON WISCONSIN ARGUS REVISING THE CONSTITUTION' [May 4, 1847] The last number of the Rock County Democrat publishes the following article under the head of "How would it do?" The proposition strikes us very favorably, if there is no legal and constitutional objection-and we know of none. A new convention cannot be held at an expense less than from $20,000 to $30,000. Territorial paper is depreciated about twenty per cent, and the additional cost of a convention now would ruin our credit. Time would also be gained, so that it might be voted upon next April. It would also save much contention and difficulty and would in every respect answer the public demand. Most of the objections to the constitution have been enumerated in this article. There is one very palpable one we will mention. The constitution sadly needs revising. It is full of bungling sentences and awkward expressions, which need rectifying. But most of its provisions are correct, when clothed in proper language. It needs only such alterations as a legislature might easily make. The Democrat says: We have paid some attention to the opinions of the press and more to the opinions of individuals as to the grounds of opposition to the constitutionand we think we are safe in saying that it is admitted almost universally that the sixth section of the bank article and the article on the rights of married women and homestead exemption were the principal points objected to. The election of judges by the people and "the numerous legislature" were, during the canvass, occasionally alluded to-but always as matters of minor importance. There was no direct issue made upon them, and we cannot tell whether they were popular or otherwise. Throwing out of view all uncertainties, let us deal in conceded facts and see if we cannot enter into a compromise and get a good and popular constitution without incurring the expense of a new convention. We agree at once that those articles obviously condemned by the people should be thrown out. Suppose, then, that the legislature at its next session should pass a law submitting the rejected constitution, freed from all its clearly condemned parts, to a vote of the people, thus obviating the 1The titles as they appear in this volume differ in some cases from those in the newspapers. necessity for and the expense of a new convention-how would it do? We put this question to the people and the press, believing it to be of sufficient importance to enlist their attention. What say the people and press to this proposition? Is it not a good one? A CONSTITUTIONAL PARTY [May 4, 1847] We have received information from Milwaukee that an effort is on foot to organize a “Constitutional” party, as contradistinguished from the Whig and Democratic parties. Precisely what this party propose to advocate, we know not. If it is to resuscitate the old constitution, we have only to say the people have weighed that in the balance and proclaimed it lacking. If it means that they are to advocate the next constitution, right or wrong, we have only to say if the next one meets our approbation, we shall be with this new party in its support; if not, we shall assuredly oppose it—and we shall either oppose or support it as it squares with our notions of Democracy. The people of Wisconsin are a great constitutional party. The only difficulty is in adjusting details. A distinct party known as "Constitutionalists," without defining what "kind," strikes us as exceedingly absurd-for all parties will be for or against as they like or dislike it; and they cannot know which until the document is before them. An effort to form such a party with no basis but a mere name is a strange hallucination. We hope the Democracy of Wisconsin will have no fellowship with any such party. A constitution should stand or fall on its own merits; and to proclaim in advance either for or against it is the height of folly. Let Democrats take no part but to send good men and true to the next convention. They want a Democratic constitution, such as the old one, with proper modifications. This they will have as Democrats, and a "Constitutional" party cannot alter their opinions. We hope our political friends will not burn their fingers by any such new-fangled notion. SHALL THE LEGISLATURE REVISE THE CONSTITUTION? [May 11, 1847] The proposition for having the members of the next legislature revise, alter, and amend the constitution and submit it to the people without the trouble and expense of another convention appears to meet with general approbation. We have noticed but one opponent as yet. The editor of the Sentinel and Gazette, taking courage from the foolish despairing of the Democrat, "that the next convention would undoubtedly be Whig," and wishing to have its friends have a grab at office, under this hallucination does not at all relish the proposition. Notwithstanding this, we are not without hopes that the people will consult their own true interests and adopt a course which will preserve the public credit and save them from an enormous and useless taxation. It is admitted on all hands that a constitution might properly be submitted by the legislature, that all necessary alterations might be made by them, and that the extra expense would be nothing to the people. What good objection, then, can be urged against this plan? If time, expense, and trouble can be saved, and the same results accomplished just as well, why not adopt it? What will be gained by another convention? Anything that might not be done by the legislature? No one pretends this. We say, then, it is a matter of the highest moment for the people to express themselves on this subject to save the trouble of a special election, and especially to save themselves an expense of at least thirty thousand dollars. A DEMOCRATIC APPEAL FOR DELAY Rumor has become quite confident, of late, that the governor will call an extra session of the legislature at an early day. This may be so, but we do not believe that anyone knows much about it. If a special session is called, we presume it will be in accordance with a general expression of sentiment in favor of the measure. It is but little more than a month since the vote was taken on the rejected constitution, and we do not believe there has been time for a general expression of opinion either for or against an immediate movement for another convention. Nor do we believe the governor would determine upon it without due consideration and upon as full an expression of the public will as would be likely to be obtained by a little delay. The Democrat has spread its sails to this breeze and is out in hot haste for a new convention; but we do not regard this as any certain indication that the proposed measure is either wise, politic, or popular. The Democrat has aided very materially in running us on to one snag; and if it accomplishes anything in future, it will only be to help us on to another and perhaps a worse one. But a few days ago it was sure the next convention would be Whig; and now it is pell-mell for having it as soon as possible. We are not disposed to admit that the next convention will be Whig, under any circumstances, and shall not be till we have tried them a hack at the polls; but still they know, and Democrats ought to know, that their chance is about twice as good now as it will be six months hence; and then it seems strange, too, that those who went for the whole constitution and have sworn by lots of moonshine that they never will go for anything else should be in such haste to try the very same question over again. If the homestead exemption, the rights of women to be men, a legislature "consisting of not less than three nor more than five barnyards full," possess such transcendent beauties that when the people once see them in their true light they will adopt them, why give them time to "wool" these things? It takes time for nebulae to condense to solid rock. It can't be done in a minute; nor can the sober second thought perform its office till the man himself has got sober. We may be mistaken, but from all we have been able to learn we think the current of opinion is against the measure, decidedly so. The chief consideration in its favor seems to be that we may get into the Union in time to cast our vote for the next president. But cannot this be accomplished without an extra session? The legislature could pass an act during the first week of the session, a convention could convene under it in the latter part of February, and the vote could again be taken upon it at the April election, or that election might be put off till the first of May, and then there would be abundant time for our admission during the long session of Congress, which probably will not terminate until August or September. We do not desire to dictate in this matter, but only to give our opinion; and our fellow citizens will, of course, weigh it in their own balance and petition or remonstrate according to their own views of propriety. For our own part, we are opposed to "hurrying" on a new convention for a hundred reasons which we should suppose would occur to Democrats, especially, without being mentioned. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES: I GENERAL [May 25, 1847] The constitution lately submitted to the people of Wisconsin having been rejected by a majority which astonished its most sanguine opposers, and the heat of battle having in a measure subsided, we propose to take a review of the instrument and endeavor to discover the true causes of its failure, and to what extent those causes were founded in sound reason and to what extent in prejudice and error. We trust that neither constitutionalists nor antis will take alarm at this announcement, as we do not intend to cast unfavorable reflections upon those who were in favor of, or those who were opposed to, the constitution, nor upon those with whom we have differed respecting particular portions of it; but as it is acknowledged on all hands that the rejected constitution will form the basis of a new one, we wish rather in a cool, dispassionate, and friendly manner to reason with our Democratic brethren upon the great principles involved in that instrument, and if possible to promote a more general understanding as to what portions of it are worth preserving, and what portions should be abandoned as unsound and impolitic. From the foundation of our government to the present time the Democratic party, with few exceptions, has been the dominant party in the several states and consequently has had the chief control in the affairs of the Union. To what, we ask, does this party owe the origin and maintenance of its ascendancy? The reason, we apprehend, is simply this: The master spirits who founded the party and who bore so conspicuous a part in the founding of the government were men deeply versed in the science of governmentmen who had minds and hearts capable of appreciating human rights and discerning right principles and discriminating between these and the assumptions of civil and religious despotism on the one hand, and the licentious freedom of the French revolutionists on the other hand; and had the manly independence to adhere to those principles which commend themselves to the reason and judgment of mankind and to square their policy by those principles. This was the secret of their success and it is the secret of the success of the Democratic party from its earliest history to the present time. That party has availed itself of the increasing light of political economy and of past experience, being the first to discover its own |