Argus were fully satisfied with the result of the election and had no wish to "try another scratch" for the printing of the convention. The object of the friends of this resolution was to place the proceedings of this body in a proper shape-it had no reference to the Argus. The resolution did not arise with the proprietors; they had no wish that the subject should be renewed. The election had been gone into and decided-it was not to be denied that the convention had elected a printer— they had done what they had previously resolved to do, and he was satisfied, as were all the proprietors of the Argus. They had received a majority of all the Democratic votes in the convention, which fully satisfied them in regard to the result. He thought it no more than proper to state, however-what everybody already knows-that this result was not brought about by the Democrats in this body, but by an amalgamation of the influence of Whigs, bank Democrats, conservatives, and noparty men. A few of the true and tried Democrats had voted against them he knew; yet he thought they would be sorry they had pursued such a course when they more fully understood the circumstances of the case. Among his opponents he was not surprised to find men who had gloried in their attachment to John Tyler-men who had defrauded this territory out of $30,000 and had judgments on their backs for the amount. He hoped the motion would not prevail.

Moses M. Strong said it was due to truth to say that the resolution originated with himself alone, without consultation upon the subject with any person whatever, and he wished the whole responsibility to rest upon his shoulders and not upon those of anybody else; his shoulders were broad, and were already tolerably burdened with responsibility; yet they were still capable of sustaining this and much more. He thought the circumstances attending the election called for this movement, and thought so still, but would withdraw the resolution out of respect to those Democrats who had voted against him on the question of printer.

Leave was granted, and the resolution withdrawn.-Express, Oct. 12, 1846.

The resolution introduced yesterday relative to adjournment was then taken up, when Mr. Judd asked and obtained leave to withdraw the same.

The following rule, introduced by Moses M. Strong, was then taken up and adopted, to wit: "Rule -. Every proposition which it is proposed shall form a part of the constitution shall, [after it shall] have been considered in committee of the whole, and after the amendments reported by the committee of the whole shall have been acted on, be open to amendment in the convention, and when there are no further amendments to be proposed the question shall be on ordering the proposition to be engrossed for its final passage, and after the same shall have been engrossed the same shall not be amended except by the unanimous consent of the convention."

Moses M. Strong moved the amendment to the rules offered by him yesterday be now taken up. Mr. Strong went into an explanation of the object of this amendment. It was that all resolutions should, after being amended and finally passed, be engrossed in a fair hand, for the final action of the committee on revision.

Mr. Ryan was of opinion that the lines had not been, nor could be, so distinctly drawn between the duties of the different committees that their reports would not in many cases cover the same grounds; propositions would come in from other committees covering the grounds already reported upon. And he considered it would be the proper duty of this committee on revision to sift out, examine, and prepare a perfect synopsis of all the business of the convention.

Moses M. Strong said propositions would be introduced and referred to a committee of the whole before the final action upon them in convention. It was the object of this rule to have these propositions with all the amendments thereon inserted in their proper places, and then engrossed in a plain hand for the revision of the committee, instead of the plan now pursued of tacking the several amendments to the original proposition with a bit of wafer, which was liable to become detached and the amendments lost or mislaid. He considered this a loose way of keeping a record of the doings of the convention and would like to see it done away with.

Mr. Ryan called for another reading of the resolution.

Mr. Judd said he agreed with the member from Iowa that the amendment was right and proper; the subject matter contained in the amendment had not escaped the attention of the committee to whom was entrusted the duty of drafting the rules; and he thought the sixteenth rule adopted by the convention covered the ground of this amendment.

The question on the adoption of the amendment was put and carried.-Express, Oct. 12, 1846.

The following resolution, introduced yesterday, was then taken up and adopted, to wit: "Resolved, That 150 copies of all reports of committees and of all petitions and resolutions ordered to be printed be printed for the use of the convention without further orders." On motion of Mr. Ellis the convention adjourned.

Mr. Moses M. Strong moved that the convention resolve itself into a committee of the whole on the article on banking, and Mr. Wm. R. Smith hoped the motion of the gentleman would not prevail. He was opposed to the provisions of the article, which made banking criminal and enacted a penalty. To enact a penal code was the legitimate business of a legislature and not of a convention. To remove these objectionable features he would move to refer the article to a select committee with instructions to strike out the penalties.

Mr. Chase: The motion to refer is out of order, as it is already referred to the committee of the whole.

But he should oppose going into committee at this time because he wanted the report of the minority of the committee, which had been promised, and which he supposed would be ready by Monday next.

Mr. Ryan was in favor of delaying till the minority can make a report: While up, I will take occasion to say a few words in support of the report itself, seeing that it has been attacked by the gentleman from Iowa (W. R. Smith) because there are penalties attached to its violation. This, I am told, is an unheard of thing in framing constitutions. Let that gentleman look into any of the constitutions of the states, or of the United States, and he will find precedents for these provisions. I have examined nearly all of them, and I find similar provisions. I will read them if the gentleman desires to hear them. Then

there is precedent; but if there were none, could not this convention step out of the usual track and attach a penalty to a breach of the constitution? Constitutions are made to restrict and restrain legislators, as well as to protect the citizen. Therefore, when you would limit the legislature, you place the provision in the constitution; when you would prohibit the passage of laws, you place the prohibition in the constitution; and when you would restrict, it is placed in the constitution. I hope this convention has a decided majority of "hards"-of men who are opposed to all banks, banking, and bank paper. But who can tell when there will be a "soft" legislature? Let a "soft" legislature come into power, and the penalties will at once be put down so that it will be for the interest of any corporation to pay the fine for the sake of the money they can make. The law will be as "soft" as it is now, when any company may be ready and willing to pay $1,000 a year for the privilege. Leave the question open, and the halls of legislation will be beset with "softs" asking for privileges, bitterly complaining that high penalties cannot be paid, as the business of banking is not as good "as it used to was." Give us low penalties, and we will pay them. I would place these restraints, limits, and penalties where the "softs" cannot reach or reduce them. I fear the "softs." They cannot be killed. The hundred heads of the hydra might be lopped off, but the "softs" have no heads. They spring up on every hand; they sway and govern the legislatures. Look at the new statesdemocratic, "hard," as are the body of the people; see how the "softs" have carried all their measures and involved the people. Let it not be so in Wisconsin. Place the penalty where the "softs" cannot reach it. Before I will consent to have the penalty reduced, I will vote to increase it. I belong to that party which would give to banking no quarter.

Mr. Moses M. Strong would postpone the matter until Monday, which would, he thought, give ample time to the gentleman from Fond du Lac, Mr. Gibson, to make his report. His colleague has made a remark against this article which he could not consent to let pass unnoticed. He, Mr. Wm. R. Smith, opposes the article because it contains a penal enact

ment. The propriety of those penalties has been abundantly proved by the gentleman from Racine. Why should the article be sent to a select committee to make a report? Is the gentleman who is here as the representative of a most decidedly "hard" constituency who give no countenance to banks or bank paper desirous of distinguishing himself by making a "soft" report? If the convention wish to strike out the provisions they can as well be done in committee of the whole as in a select committee. Mr. Strong concluded by withdrawing his motion to go into committee, and the convention adjourned.-Argus, Oct. 13, 1846.

Moses M. Strong moved that the convention go into committee of the whole on the report of the committee on banks and banking.

W. R. Smith was in favor of the report being submitted to a select committee before going into committee of the whole upon it. He was of opinion that the report was objectionable in regard to affixing penalties, as that power should be more properly vested in the legislature.

Mr. Chase said the report had already been referred to the committee of the whole, but he did not consider the proper time had arrived for such action on the report. The minority members of the committee had given notice of intention to make a minority report, and it was due in courtesy to those gentlemen to wait until such report was submitted.

Mr. Ryan assented to the remarks of the last gentleman, that it was proper to wait the minority report before going into committee of the whole, but would say a few words in regard to affixing penalties being beyond the limits of the duties of this convention and confined to the legislature. He knew the committee had not exceeded their power in this respect. The Constitution of the United States and of every state in the Union contained clauses of this character-Florida, Texas, and the constitution of every state which he had yet seen embraced penalties; authority and example can be found in every constitution. It was his wish that the constitution of Wisconsin should be an independent one, made by ourselves and for our