網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1846

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. McHugh.

The journal of yesterday was read.

Mr. Judd called the attention of the convention to an error in punctuation in printing the report of the committee on finance, taxation, and the public debt, whereby the meaning of the report is essentially altered.

N. F. Hyer called up the resolution offered by him some days. since, relative to obtaining certain information from clerks of courts.

The Chair was of opinion that his motion would be in order when the unfinished business came up.

Mr. Judd begged leave to differ with the Chair in his construction of the rules.-Express, Oct. 20, 1846.

Moses M. Strong moved that the rules relative to the order of business be suspended and that the convention do now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the further consideration of No. 1, “Article relative to banks and banking," and the minority report relative thereto, which was decided in the affirmative. And a division having been called for, there were 53 in the affirmative and 13 in the negative.

The convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole for the consideration of said article, Mr. Agry in the chair. And after some time spent in the consideration thereof the committee rose and reported progress and asked leave to sit again thereon. Leave was granted.

On motion of N. F. Hyer the convention adjourned until two o'clock, P. M.

Mr. Baker took the floor in opposition to the penal clauses contained in the majority report of the committee. He did not pretend to enter into the principles of banking, as he considered that principle definitely settled, no member having yet spoken in favor of banks or banking, although much time had been already spent in this discussion. He believed it to be a settled principle with every member of the committee that we were to have no banks nor banking operations whatever within the state. He thought the prohibition of the circula

tion of bank notes of other states would be injudicious and inexpedient and did not believe the people would uphold the convention in inserting such a clause in the constitution. He feared the rejection by the people of the constitution containing such a prohibition. With the views he entertained upon the subject he would not be deterred from frankly and fearlessly expressing his sentiments by any such epithets as "Old Hunker," "Progressive Democrat," "Tadpole," or "Fourfooted Democrat." He would ask if we were prepared to exclude all the foreign paper money from our state. He considered such a prohibition uncalled for and prejudicial to the best interests of the people. It was true, he said, that the western portion of the territory had driven out paper, which was all right so far as they were concerned, and the east could also do it by making laws to banish it. But they have never done it, nor have they ever wished to do it. The east was essentially different from the west. A constant influx of emigration pouring in, most of whom brought with them the paper of good, sound, specie paying banks, it was impossible in every case to bring specie in lieu of paper; specie was not so plenty there. If a man sold his farm for four or five thousand dollars, it was a difficult matter in many cases and sometimes impossible to obtain specie in payment. Therefore, if this amendment of the member from Grant should prevail, it would have the effect of checking emigration to our state and turn it off to some other quarter where their money could be used with less inconvenience. Mr. Baker regarded the operation of this law vastly differently west than at the east. Should you say to an emigrant coming into our lake ports, "You shall not bring your paper into our state," it would most effectually check the tide of emigration. He said the main export of the west was lead, and of the east wheat; specie was plenty at the west because there was not that competition in lead that there was in wheat. The eastern staple of wheat must compete with the vast wheat region of New York, that of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio; and buyers will be apt to purchase where they can do so with the least inconvenience. If they are obliged to bring with them the specie to purchase our wheat, when they can purchase their

[graphic][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors]

supplies in the other markets for the paper of sound banks, they will be drawn off to the other markets.

The majority of our territory is a wheat growing country; laws would not be to their interest prohibiting the circulation of bills of sound banks in other states. If the people of the east wish a specie currency they can have it, or any other currency they please. Unless a law enacted to prohibit paper be sustained by the good will of the people it will be of no use. They can fix the currency for themselves, and let them say what it shall be. He was in favor of leaving the penal clauses to the action of future legislatures, as it would be a novelty unheard of to name crimes and affix penalties in a constitution. The convention came here to define the future government of the state; to define the legitimate functions of the legislature; and anything further was an encroachment upon the duties of the legislature. One objection to thus lumbering up the constitution with naming crimes and affixing penalties is that it would render it complex and ambiguous, not easily understood by the people, who would sometimes be compelled to consult a lawyer to define its meaning; and he was fearful lest this should cause a rejection of the constitution in toto by the people. Give the people a constitution that is plain and conspicuous in all its general principles, and allow the legislature to fill up the details; give them some power and some duties to perform, and not arrogate to ourselves more wisdom and foresight than all who are to come after us. Mr. Baker referred, during his remarks, to the constitutions of Missouri, Texas, and other states, showing that they had not gone so far as to affix penalties but instead of doing so had left to the legislatures to prohibit banking, under such restrictions as they saw fit. These were "hard" states; the majority in Texas were emphatically a "hard" set. They both enjoin the legislatures to pass laws prohibiting banking; yet they do not go into detail by affixing penalties. He hoped to see our constitution in advance of all others in its liberal principles, but he did not consider it necessary to go into details to do this. He thought we should have our constitution plain and definite and not go into prolix details more properly belonging to legislatures, by affixing pen

« 上一頁繼續 »