ceive in payment any paper money, bank note, promissory note, treasury note, certificate of deposit, or other evidences of debt intended to circulate as money, which shall purport to have been issued either within or out of this state. Any person upon conviction shall for a violation of any of the provisions of this section be fined in a sum not less than $5,000 and be imprisoned not less than two nor more than ten years.

Moses M. Strong would vote for the last amendment to the amendment and would then vote against the amendment as amended, because the original report suited him best.

Mr. Ryan said he was not struggling for words nor whence words come. He took to himself no honor in framing this report; if it emanated from any other gentleman of the convention, he would have supported it with the same heartiness. He would vote for any amendment which covered the same ground as the report. This amendment by the gentleman from Grant suited him better than the amendment of the member from Iowa, and he should therefore vote for the amendment to the amendment and then vote against the amendment as amended.

Mr. Judd moved that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again, which was carried, and the committee rose.-Express, Oct. 20, 1846.

Mr. Ryan moved that the amendments offered in committee of the whole to said article be printed for the use of the convention which was decided in the affirmative.

Hiram Barber presented the certificate of election of Horace D. Patch, a member of this convention from the county of Dodge, who on his motion was admitted to a seat.

On motion of George Hyer the convention adjourned.

BANKS AND BANKING

(Speech of Mr. Noggle, October 12, 1846)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I propose to make a few remarks upon the subject before the committee. And in doing so, permit me to say that I do not propose to make a speech for my own notoriety or aggrandizement—nor do I intend to boast or brag about my constituents; they are a class of people possessing intelligence and integrity sufficient to commend them to the hon

est deliberations of this body, without an effort on my part to puff them.

The question before the committee has already been under discussion nearly three days, and has been ably discussed, and it would seem to be presumptuous on my part at this late period to attempt to throw any new light upon the subject before the committee; but, Mr. Chairman, it does seem to me that much of the discussion already had has been upon matters not in issue before the committee and in support of principles not denied by anyone upon this floor, save the gentleman from Fond du Lac (Mr. Gibson) who introduced the minority report. I do not, Mr. Chairman, consider that we are properly to decide in voting upon this matter the question whether banks are good or badwhether proper or improper-whether we shall have banks or not-for every member of this committee who has had the honor of occupying the floor since the commencement of the present discussion save the exception before mentioned has been loud and boisterous in declaring his hatred, indignation, and determined opposition to banks and banking in all its hideous shapes and forms; then can it be possible that we are disputing or contradicting whether we will have banks or not? From the course which the debate has taken thus far it would seem that we are warring against banks. Now, Mr. Chairman, it does appear to me that gentlemen who have addressed the committee have lost sight of the proper question, the real matter in dispute. If I understand the matter correctly the real cause of dispute and which we are by our votes to settle and determine grew out of the two provisions contained in the majority and minority reports of the committee on the subject of banks and banking in connection with the substitute of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Smith) and the amendment to the substitute offered by the gentleman from Grant, all of which, in my opinion, as the matter now stands before the committee, resolves the whole dispute into two questions: First, shall we exclude from circulation entirely, and at once, paper money? And second, shall the penalties contained in the report be enacted and retained as a portion of the constitution?

As to the first, shall or shall we not exclude from circulation within the new state all paper money whatever? I answer for myself and for my constituents in the affirmative. The gentleman from Walworth, my friend Mr. Baker, contends that it would be ruinous to the interests of the eastern portion of the territory-that the people of that portion could not transact business without the use and benefit they daily d[e]rive from foreign bank paper-that persons who sell their farms east would not be able to bring with them the gold and silver, but would be compelled to bring the paper of the neighboring banks. If this is true, Mr. Chairman, does it not then follow that we should at once discard it and distrust such currency? Are we not in imminent danger of being swindled-yes, ruined -by trafficking in such unsafe and uncertain currency? Sir, if the eastern emigrant cannot obtain the specie in the neighborhood of the bank, or at the bank counter, has he any right to presume that he will get the specie in the far west, a thousand miles perhaps from the banks? Most certainly not. Then is it safe, is it justice to ourselves or to our neighbors to hold out an inducement for the circulation of foreign paper money? Shall we in our magnanimity, in our great design to do the greatest good to the greatest number, say by our acts in this hall that banking shall be forever excluded from the good citizens of the future new state of Wisconsin, and at the same time declare to every other state that we open the door for them to roll their rags into our midst and thus enrich the foreign bankites upon the hard earnings of our own worthy citizens, and at the same time have a provision blazing forth in our constitution and upon our statute books prohibiting under a severe penalty banking in all its various shapes and forms within the new state? The gentleman from Walworth (Mr. Baker) undertakes to say that the business of the country cannot be done if we exclude paper entirely-that it will be out of the question to make the necessary exchanges. Supposing that the whole business of the country was done with silver alone and every dollar received for merchandise should be sent to New York and Boston to pay for the goods, how much would it cost for freight and insurance to send all the silver to the above

named cities? I will undertake to say to gentlemen who find silver so very abundant and so very cumbersome that every dollar can be taken from Milwaukee to New York or Boston for less than $1.55 on the $100 as often as they are prepared to send. But I am supposing a state of things that cannot exist. I have made no allowance for our exports, which I will undertake to say are nearly as great, if not greater, than our imports. After deducting from our imports the lumber, the lead, the copper, and the produce exported from this territory at the present time (saying nothing about the wool, hides, and furs) I would ask what would be the probable balance against us? Sir, it would be in our favor. Where then the necessity of being so much alarmed about our exchanges? Gentlemen seem to think that money is not a portable article. Do gentlemen forget that all the gold and silver received by the officers of the government for nearly the whole northwestern portion of the United States is deposited at St. Louis monthly; and can it be possible that gold and silver can be taken from Green Bay to St. Louis monthly, winter and summer, easier or cheaper than it could be taken from Wisconsin to New York? Reason teaches us that if silver can be carried safely by land a thousand miles in the quantities now so carried, that it can be taken to the eastern cities much cheaper and safer. Then is it necessary to call to the aid of our commerce worthless eastern bank paper or any other bank paper? I say not, and I say further, if we are to be continually and eternally wedded to banks and bank paper, let us at once say and determine that the good citizens and capitalists of our own state shall have the privilege of furnishing it for us, and not bar them from the benefits extended to foreign nabobs.

I come now, Mr. Chairman, to the second and last point in the matter in dispute before the committee: the question whether we will retain the penalties in the majority report and make them a part of the constitution. It is argued by gentlemen that such enactments are unusual, unprecedented. Now, sir, is that a sufficient reason why such a provision should not be in our constitution? It seems to me not. Sir, is it right; is it proper? All agree that the most stringent prohibitions

against bank and bank influence should be provided, but the great difference seems to be whether the work of prohibition shall be made complete in the constitution or whether we shall leave the most material and essential part for the legislature to do.

It does seem to me that we are differing and disputing about a small matter. I, sir, have no fears in relation to the matter. I am perfectly willing to trust the matter with the people, but the friends of the measure are anxious to retain the penal provision in the constitution. Some who oppose the measure contend that such a penal enactment would be a dead letter without further legislation upon the subject. My colleague (A. H. Smith) contends that if the report is adopted it will become a law complete without further legislation. I do not so understand it, and therefore I must differ with him; in my mind further legislation would be necessary if the report is adopted. Provision must be made for the prosecution and recovery by law.

But the adoption of the report will completely fix the minimum of the punishment, below which no legislature can go. The gentleman from Fond du Lac (Mr. Gibson), who presents the minority report, says that he is opposed to the report in every particular; he however declares against banks for the present. He says he does not believe that banks will be wanted in the new state for the next ten years; but he says. the time will come when we shall be more wealthy and will need banks. Now is his argument well founded?

Is it true that a population of one hundred and fifty thousand doing a business commercial or otherwise of two millions of dollars can get along better without banks than with, and is it equally true that when we have a population of six hundred thousand inhabitants doing a business commercial and otherwise to the amount of eight millions of dollars, that we must then have banks? Is it true, sir, that a merchant doing business of five thousand dollars now can do the same without the aid and assistance of banks, and ten years from this time the same merchant doing the same amount of business must then have the kind favor, aid, and assistance of