of their abject social condition and habits, where, he said, every negro was a thief, and every negro woman far worse, and called upon any gentleman present to refute this position. He adverted to the system of colonization as the proper mode of effecting the object aimed at by those friendly to the negro race, and bade Godspeed all who were endeavoring to elevate this unfortunate class of men, but thought it would be an injustice to the negroes themselves, as well as whites, to place the two races in the same scale of social equality.

Mr. Whiteside was also opposed to the proposed amendment and supported his opposition at some length.

Moses M. Strong came out in a violent speech in opposition to negro suffrage. He had not intended to say anything on this subject, but to leave it to be settled by the committee; there was less reason for him to make a speech now, as everything he could have said had been said by the member from Racine and his colleague. This much he would say, however, that he was teetotally opposed to negro suffrage in any manner or form that could be devised. If this negro clause was inserted in the constitution, he could promise gentlemen that it would not receive fifty votes west of Rock River; the people would deem it an infringement upon their natural rights thus to place them upon an equality with the colored race. He came down upon the abolition party like a perfect avalanche; was in favor of no half-way measures with them, but would give them war-war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt! He alluded to the fact that the member from Winnebago had the largest proportion of negroes in his county of any other in the state, yet he had said nothing in favor of their being allowed the right of suffrage, and he hoped every Doty man in the committee would vote with him on this question.

Mr. Tweedy next took the floor in support of the substitute. His remarks will probably be published hereafter.

Marshall M. Strong said he had voted for and advocated the spirit of this doctrine in the legislature, but had since changed his views on the subject and would now vote against it.

General W. R. Smith wished to correct a remark made by the gentleman from Milwaukee in regard to the existence of negro

suffrage in Pennsylvania and went into quite a lengthened essay on the rise and progress of the system in that state from the time of William Penn down to the adoption of the present constitution.

Mr. Bevans was opposed to the principle contained in the amendment. He respected the philanthropic feelings of the gentlemen who advocated the elevation of an unfortunate class of beings, but thought they took the wrong course to secure it. He moved that the committee rise and report progress, which motion was carried and the committee rose.

The convention then adjourned to two o'clock.-Express, Oct. 27, 1846.

TWO O'CLOCK, P. M.

The convention again resolved itself into committee of the whole on No. 2, "Article on suffrage and the elective franchise," Mr. Baird in the chair. And after some time spent therein rose and by their chairman reported progress thereon and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted.

On motion of Mr. Crawford the convention adjourned.

Mr. Ryan again took the floor as he said to make one remark more on this subject, but instead of one remark occupied about an hour with many remarks, all in opposition to the proposed amendment.

General John Crawford wished to make a remark or two somewhat digressive from the subject, he said, and asked if such would be in order. (Go on, go on.) Mr. Crawford then proceeded as follows:

Mr. President-I will suppose a case. Supposing there was a convention of delegates assembled to frame a constitution consisting of one hundred and twenty members, and there were amongst them twenty Whigs, very docile, and one hundred Democrats. Amongst the Democrats there were twenty-five lawyers, and each lawyer should occupy the body two days in long and useless speeches that would convey nothing more than a common-sense man could convey in five minutes. The question is, What is the difference in the time spent? And who is responsible for the useless waste of that time? Supposing they

were determined to saddle upon the people such obnoxious features as pains and penalties, that the people would not adopt the constitution. Who is to blame? Why, sir, the remaining seventy-five must answer for it! But I hope such a thing will never happen in our glorious Wisconsin.

Mr. Gibson did not wish to occupy the attention of the committee but a few moments. If he had properly understood the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa, one of his principal objections to allowing the colored population the right of voting was that the people would object to the constitution. If the people of the west were opposed to negro suffrage, the people of the east were equally in favor of it, and the north and east as strenuously advocated this question of free suffrage as the west opposed it. This feeling was increasing daily and would continue to increase as long as this question was agitated. The gentleman from Racine had intimated that should we extend to the colored race the right of free suffrage and still refuse to commingle, intermarry, and eat and drink with them, it would not benefit them at all; it was all idle talk. The same objection would bear equally against the Indian as the negro-the same principle would operate with the Indian; yet he had voted for the extension of the right of suffrage to the Indian! He was opposed to sustaining the institution of slavery in this country and would vote against it in any manner or shape. The state of New York had tried the system of negro suffrage under certain restrictions and was so well satisfied of its justice that the late Democratic constitutional convention had submitted a separate proposition to the people, for their decision, providing for the extension of the right without the former qualifications. He believed the whole system of a republican government opposed to depriving negroes of the right of suffrage the whole principle of republican institutions, from foundation to capstone, opposed to infringing upon the natural rights of any man, and he could not, therefore, vote for depriving this portion of citizens of the right of voting.

Mr. Manahan could not vote for depriving men of their right of suffrage unless also relieved from taxation; he had always heard and believed that taxation and representation should go together.

Mr. Randall spoke for some time in favor of the amendment, after which the question was taken on the amendment, and it was lost.

Mr. Bevans introduced an amendment to prohibit the right of suffrage to those who had resided in the state six years and neglected to become citizens of the United States.

The question elicited considerable discussion, in which Messrs. Bevans, Moses M. Strong, Ryan, and Harkin participated.

The question was taken on the amendment, and it was lost. The committee then, on motion, rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The convention then adjourned.-Express, Oct. 27, 1846.

Mr. Bevans moved to add to the section the following: "Provided, That no persons who are not citizens of the United States, and who have resided six years within the same, having neglected to become citizens thereof according to the laws of Congress, shall be entitled to vote at any election in this state until they become naturalized citizens according to the laws of the United States."

Mr. B. said he thought this amendment would tend to improve the article. It involved the question whether foreigners who had become voters should afterwards be deprived of that privilege; whether those who had once enjoyed this right and privilege should be again deprived of it. There were many in the country who did not mean to become citizens of the United States, who might, notwithstanding, be able to vote under the article as it there stood. He was willing to extend the right of suffrage to all who owed allegiance to the government, who could be convicted of treason, but he could not extend it farther than that. No one would contend that the oath which is provided for in this article will render a man liable for treason to the United States. The amendment ought to be passed, as it would tend to induce foreigners to become citizens of the United States, that they may enjoy the same benefit in other states should they happen to remove. It ought to pass that the government may have a hold upon them, and he doubted much

whether this state could pass an act which would allow a man to be punished for treason. The state is not a sovereign to which a foreigner can announce his allegiance and thereby be clear from the allegiance he owes to his native country. He would not oppose but promote emigration to the country from abroad, but at the same time he would guard that emigration. The time had been when a state had the power of naturalizing foreigners, but now that power was conferred alone on Congress and the United States. He put it on this ground then: If a man will not show that he was disposed to become a citizen of the United States, to owe allegiance to the government which protects him, he ought not to vote. He was far from desiring to restrict the right of voting to none but American born citizens; he knew no difference between the native and naturalized citizen. Hostility to the foreigners did not influence him in offering the amendment; on the contrary he believed every good foreigner would agree with him that the principle was right, and could see no objection to it.

Moses M. Strong inquired of Mr. Bevans if this was all the amendments he had-if the amendment he had heretofore offered to allow none but citizens to vote had finally dwindled down to this proposition-or was this attempted to be thrown in and taken if the larger one could not succeed?

Mr. Bevans could not tell what was in the future.

Then, said Mr. S., I suppose we are to have that amendment too. He said he did not think that the citizenship of the elector had anything to do with voting. This was a difference not commonly taken and understood by those who talk on this subject. A man may be a citizen and not.be a voter, and so he may be a voter and not be a citizen of the state or of the United States. The power to make foreigners citizens of the United States belongs to the United States; the power to prescribe the qualifications of electors has been lodged in the states, plainly showing that they are distinct powers. The convention then have full authority to act on this subject according to the Constitution of the United States, and they alone could and must determine the question. The amendment admits the right, the propriety of allowing foreigners to vote for six years, but not after