Those who voted for Wm. W. Wyman were: Messrs. Burchard and Elmore-2.

Beriah Brown, having received a majority of all the votes cast, was declared by the President duly elected printer to the convention.

Mr. Moses M. Strong: Mr. President, will the Whig vote be counted for Mr. Brown?

President: That question must be settled in caucus.

Mr. Ryan: I understand that caucuses have been exploded from this body.—Argus, Oct. 13, 1846.

The following resolution, introduced on yesterday, was then taken up, to wit: "Resolved, That this convention elect a second assistant secretary," and on motion of Mr. Giddings the resolution was laid on the table.

The resolution for electing a second assistant secretary was announced the next business in order.

Mr. Ryan wished to know if one was wanted.

The Secretary answered that for the present they could write out the proceedings, but that it was necessary to copy them into a book, and that by and by another secretary would be necessary to do this part of their duty.-Democrat, Oct. 10, 1846.

The resolution introduced on yesterday calling upon the clerks of the different courts in the territory for certain information was then taken up, when Moses M. Strong moved to lay the said resolution on the table, which was decided in the affirmative. And a division having been called for, there were 47 in the affirmative and 28 in the negative. On motion of George B. Smith the convention adjourned until four o'clock, P. M.

FOUR O'CLOCK, P. M.

The President announced the appointment of the following standing committees, to wit:

1. On the constitution and organization of the legislature: Messrs. Marshall M. Strong, Baird, Tweedy, Madden, and Cooper.

2. On the powers, duties, and restrictions of the legislature: Messrs. Agry, Bell, Hesk, Jenkins, and Inman.

3. On the executive of the state: Messrs. Reed, Agry, Whiteside, Boyd, and Rankin.

4. On the organization and officers of counties and towns, and their powers and duties: Messrs. Baird, Marshall M. Strong, Asa Kinne, Mills, and James.

5. On the organization and function [s] of the judiciary: Messrs. Baker, Ryan, Hiram Barber, William R. Smith, and O'Connor.

6. On municipal corporations: Messrs. Bevans, Burnett, Clark, Hazen, and Pierce.

7. On banks and banking: Messrs. Ryan, Gibson, Phelps, Sewell Smith, and Soper.

8. On corporations other than banking and municipal: Messrs. Noggle, Gray, Randall, Kern, and Hammond.

9. On a bill of rights: Messrs. George B. Smith, Giddings, Wakeley, Granger, and Goodrich.

10. On a preamble: Messrs. O'Connor, Dunning, Hill, Bowker, and James H. Hall.

11. On suffrage and elective franchise: Messrs. Moses M. Strong, Huebschmann, Cox, Burchard, and Manahan.

12. On the militia: Messrs. Wm. R. Smith, Crawford, Parkinson, French, and Topping.

13. On education, schools, and school funds: Messrs. Graham, Ryan, Dennis, Fitzgerald, and Drake.

14. On finance, taxation, and public debt: Messrs. Judd, Burnside, White, Toland, and Kellogg.

15. On internal improvements: Messrs. Meeker, N. F. Hyer, Rogan, Wilson, and Green.

16. On miscellaneous provisions not embraced in the subjects committed to other committees: Messrs. Steele, Warren Chase, Doty, B. Babcock, and Bowen.

17. On amendments to the constitution: Messrs. Lovell, Parks, Cruson, Atwood, and Bennett.

18. On the act of Congress for the admission of the state: Messrs. Prentiss, Ellis, J. M. Babcock, Willard, and Chamberlain.

19. On the boundaries and name of the state: Messrs. Doty, Edgerton, G. B. Hall, Goodell, and Dickinson.

20. On the schedule for the organization of state government: Messrs. Beall, John Y. Smith, Turner, Seaver, and Harkin.

21. On the eminent domain and property of the state: Messrs. A. Hyatt Smith, Janssen, Fuller, Parsons, and Goodsell.

22. On the revision and adjustment of the articles of the constitution adopted by the convention: Messrs. Parks, Elmore, Steele, George Hyer, and Hiram Brown.

Hiram Barber moved that the committee on the organization and functions of the judiciary be increased by the appointment of four additional members, which was decided in the affirmative. And the ayes and noes having been called for and ordered, those who voted in the affirmative were [affirmative 80, negative 13; for the vote see Appendix I, roll call 3].

Mr. H. Barber moved to increase the committee on the judiciary by adding four more thereto.

Mr. Moses M. Strong could not vote for the proposition, and would content himself with calling the ayes and noes.

Mr. Barber said the committee on the judiciary was the most important one in the convention, and he hoped it would be increased. He thought that a larger committee would be more likely to produce for the consideration of the convention well adjusted articles than the present one would do.

Mr. Wm. R. Smith should vote for the motion. There were precedents for increasing committees which were important in consequence of the business or duty which was required of [them]. The judiciary committee had probably more to do than any other committee in this convention. He held the doctrine and thought it right, that the larger the committee the greater the probability that the business before them would be better done, because it would bring more minds to bear upon it.

The ayes and noes being ordered, they were taken, and there were ayes 80, noes 13.-Argus, Oct. 13, 1846.

Mr. H. Barber thought the committee on the judiciary was the most important committee of the convention. He therefore moved that it be increased to nine.

Moses M. Strong did not wish the committee increased. He wished to concentrate opinion. If the question looked to the dispatch of business it would be another matter. But it was calculated to retard the progress of the committee. The reason of adopting the mode of committees was simply to bring before the convention the business in a tangible form. He called for the ayes and noes.

Wm. R. Smith should vote aye. The duties were the most arduous and responsible of any other, except, perhaps, one or two. We have reduced it from seven to five. He had never heard of less than seven on such a committee-more frequently eight or even thirteen. The matter of a judiciary should be discussed fairly and fully in the committee before [being] brought before the convention. He could not perceive the force of the objection of his colleague.-Express, Oct. 12, 1846.

A. Hyatt Smith moved to reconsider the vote upon the above question, which was decided in the affirmative. And a division having been called for, there were 46 in the affirmative and 16 in the negative. And the question having been again put on increasing the said committee, it was decided in the affirmative. And the ayes and noes having been

called for and ordered, those who voted in the affirmative were [affirmative 48, negative 42; for the vote see Appendix I, roll call 4].

The vote [roll call 3] having been announced, Mr. Ryan asked for the reading of the names of the committee on the judiciary as announced, which were read by the Secretary. Mr. Ryan said he thought he had heard his name announced as one of the committee, though he was engaged at the time. He rose to ask to be excused from serving on that committee, and he would give his reasons for the request. The resolution under which this committee had been appointed was first introduced by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Wm. R. Smith, and provided for a committee of seven; it was referred to a select committee of thirteen and by them reduced [to] five. No effort was made to increase the committee when the report was made, but on the contrary the number was agreed upon by the convention. This morning we met, and the President declared from his seat that he wanted time to arrange and appoint his committees; yet nothing is said about increasing this committee. Again, at the meeting this afternoon no motion is made until the committee is announced. But no sooner is that announcement made than this motion is offered to the convention and is adopted. To his mind it was nothing less than a reflection on the members of the committee as not likely to carry out the views of the majority of the convention, or as being incompetent to perform their duty. Under this view of the subject, and he could give it no other, he could not consent, after what he must consider and what appeared on the journal as a direct reflection, if not censure, on the committee as at present organized, to serve thereon.

Mr. Judd could not agree with the gentleman from Racine (Mr. Ryan) that the vote just taken was either a reflection or censure on the committee. Certainly, he for one had no such idea. He had voted for the motion for two reasons: First, the motion came from a member of the committee; and second, he was in favor of increasing this and some other of the committees, believing that the larger the committee the more probability there would be of a well-digested and acceptable report. He hoped the gentleman from Racine would review the sub

ject, change his opinion in regard to the vote of the convention, and consent to serve on the committee.

Mr. Barber was not of opinion that the vote just taken would be construed as the gentleman considered. He had no such intent when he made the motion. He hoped he should still have the aid and assistance of the gentleman from Racine on the committee.

Mr. Ryan had listened to the explanations of the gentlemen, but whatever might be their private opinion, it was not so expressed. He was not aware that the motion had been made by a member of the committee, and that fact did not alter his opinion of the subject or induce him to serve on the committee; but, on the contrary, it furnished him with an additional reason why he could not serve. It showed to him that a member of the committee was dissatisfied with his associates and wished

others added that the majority may be swamped. But he was

told that it was no reflection on the committee either as to the manner in which they were constituted or to their competency. If the committee was competent for their duty, why add to their number? No answer could be given but that which appears upon the journal, and gentlemen might as well say so (they did in fact, when they argued that others were needed on it) that the committee were incompetent to perform their duties. This was the plain language of the journal, and under it he must insist on his request.

Mr. Moses M. Strong agreed with the gentleman from Racine in opinion, and for those reasons he had opposed the motion at the first. He hoped some gentleman who had voted with the majority would move a reconsideration of the vote.

Geo. B. Smith could not look upon the matter in the same light as the gentleman from Racine did, and after the explanations that had been given he hoped he would continue to serve. Mr. Marshall M. Strong: It was well known to every man who was in the habit of attending political and other bodies. that when a committee which had been appointed did not reflect the will of the meeting an addition was made to the committee that the majority might be overwhelmed and a different report might be obtained. This fact and principle being known,