SELECTIONS FROM THE MADISON EXPRESS

PUBLIC PRINTING PARTY DRILL

[October 13, 1846]

It will be seen by the reports of the proceedings of the convention that Mr. Gray of Grant County offered a resolution to have the printing let out to the lowest bidder, a measure which would have saved a large sum to the people of the territory. Had the vote been taken immediately upon it, there is no doubt that a large majority would have been found in its favor. But the consideration of the resolution was postponed, and the interim afforded an opportunity for certain leaders to "whip in" refractory members and thus defeat the wishes of the people. When the resolution was called up it was immediately quashed, and the election of a printer gone through with, which resulted in the choice of Mr. Brown of the Wisconsin Democrat. Although the election of a printer was their object, yet the Old Hunkers are by no means content with the result, and an ineffectual attempt was made to reconsider the vote. We said that a large sum would have been saved to the people of the territory had the printing been let out to the lowest bidder. Economy in expenditures, however, is no part of the Locofoco creed, and if the people do not by their votes emphatically say so when the state has been organized, we shall be much mistaken.

A WHIG VIEW OF THE CONVENTION
[October 27, 1846]

The proceedings of this body have thus far been highly interesting. After having been in session only three weeks, they have actually succeeded in adopting two articles, one on banks and banking, and the other on suffrage and the elective franchise. The people have every reason to be thankful that this expedition has marked the progress of those whom they have sent here to form a constitution. If an equal amount of industry and perseverance is exercised in regard to the articles that remain to be acted upon, we may confidently expect that by the first of February next a constitution will be framed. How long it will then take to indite a Preamble we cannot say.

The article on banks and banking prohibits the existence of any bank or banking corporation within this state and excludes the paper of other states of a less denomination than $10 after the year 1847 and after the year 1849 of a less denomination than $20. We have

every reason to believe that this will in a great measure stop the influx of emigration, seriously affect our commercial interests, and greatly embarrass every department of business in our now prosperous and population-increasing territory. It were far better that we remain as we are, without being numbered in the constellation of stars of the Union, and without a voice in the national councils, than that our future prospects should be thus blasted and our future enterprise and energy forever crippled. The people of the territory will submit to no such sacrifice, to no such wrong; and we already begin to hear murmurings of disapprobation from Democrats as well as Whigs. Should the people sanction the adoption of this article and hereafter desire banks in the state, they will be met with the clause of prohibition, and with it the fact that this convention has assumed legislative powers-powers which do not belong to it. A redress of grievances can then be obtained only at the expense of amendment or of a convention to revise the constitution. We have no fears, however, of this article on banking being adopted by the people. The article on suffrage and elective franchise has been a source of considerable contention among the different factions in the Democratic ranks in the convention, some being in favor of submitting the question as a separate proposition whether we have universal suffrage or not, and others being violently opposed to it. The Whigs are merely "lookers on in Venice." Every attempt they make to modify or substitute is immediately put down, and they are hardly allowed to express their sentiments. We had hoped a constitution would be framed by which we could be immediately admitted into the Union, but from the character of the articles already adopted even should the rest be unobjectionable, we are confident that it will be rejected. We shall have to "bide our time" patiently.

CRAWFISHING

[October 27, 1846]

It will be recollected by some, at least, that Marshall M. Strong made a big speech in the council chamber last winter in favor of negro suffrage, but when the subject was called up in the convention last week he got up and said he had changed his views, and should vote against the measure, and did so. We opine that the abolitionists of Prairieville, who held a public meeting and passed resolutions commending the course of Mr. Strong and congratulating themselves on the acquisition to their ranks, will now since he has

crawfished call a meeting and rescind the said resolutions. Mr. Strong, we believe, is not the only one who has backed out or crawfished on this question. We are informed that none of the candidates in Waukesha County could have been elected had they not given their hearty support to the resolutions which were adopted at the meeting which nominated them, and which required them, if elected, to go for negro suffrage. Six out of eleven crawfished when brought to the scratch, as will be seen by reference to the ballot taken on this subiect.

ERROR CORRECTED
[November 3, 1846]

In our last number we stated to the effect that we thought the editor of the Argus was the "softest" member of the convention. We did not then happen to think of the "gentleman from Dane," who had to have the nomination for the convention in order to save his party from a "split," or we should not have made the assertion. without qualifying it. This gentleman is equally entitled to share with the editor of the Argus the application of the term "soft." He has disgusted every sensible man in the convention by his course there and by his clumsy attempts to make great speeches-"to his constituents in the gallery." On the bank question he "blew hot and cold," making speeches on one side and voting on the other. He has offered several foolish resolutions and amendments, and when they came up to be acted upon, called for the yeas and nays thereupon, and appeared as the only one in their favor. He is death on internal improvements and thinks it very unwise policy for our future state to foster or encourage them in any manner. What a pity it is this young sprout of Democracy was not on the stage of action in the days of De Witt Clinton. There is no telling what he might have accomplished. We do not wonder that John Y. Smith published in the Argus that George B. Smith was no kin of his, when they were both candidates for the convention. Probably the people will hereafter appreciate his worth and talents by permitting him to retire to the "shades of private life" after a short but brilliant

career.

THE DREADFUL NEW YORK NEGROES
[November 10, 1846]

Mr. Ryan, I believe from Racine County, is reported to have said in the convention on the twenty-first of October that in New York City "every negro was a thief, and every woman worse." Now, I

have a curiosity to ascertain how he knows all this. Is it by experience, or by the information of others? If by experience, he must have been particeps criminis with them. And if so, his knowledge of such things must be extensive, for there are many thousands of both sexes of negroes in that city! If he made the assertion from the information of others he has been greatly imposed upon, and his own good sense-if he has any, which is doubtful, or he would not have made the assertion-should have told him so.

Of the colored population of the city of New York several thousands are worthy members of some Christian church, under the care and oversight of pious and enlightened whites. And it is an outrageous slang and slander to intimate that thieves, etc., etc., would be kept in church communion under the eye and care of such men. And of the blacks themselves many of them have attained a moral, religious, and intellectual standing that would put their traducer to the blush. They share honorably in the learned professions and can sustain themselves against the attacks, distant or present, of any political demagogue.

I am no abolitionist. I am not in favor of the African race remaining on our soil. I wish them to go back to the land of their fathers and redeem the continent from its present degradation because I know they never can be raised to an equality with the whites in this country, not for want of intellect, but on account of color. But I dislike to hear men publish such barefaced falsehoods, under the frenzy of heated debate or otherwise, at any time, and especially when it does such glaring injustice to a people who have already been ground to the bone. I go for giving the Devil his due, and certainly honest, industrious, and virtuous people, whether black, white, or red, ought to have it. Even Mr. Ryan is entitled to what is justly his due, though it should be that of false accuser.

It is not to be presumed that he ever saw many of the blacks in that city, and therefore could not know them to be thieves and worse. The presumption is that he made the assertion either from information or without it. If from information, he ought to have known that it could not be true, and never to have peddled off such a slander. But if he made it without being so informed he is entitled to the just odium that such an act deserves.

INQUIRER

DISQUALIFICATION OF MINISTERS

[November 17, 1846]

November 2, 1846

MR. EDITOR: Among the wild schemes and antirepublican measures aimed at by members of the convention I perceive by the reported proceedings of that body on the twenty-first of October that my friend, Gen. W. R. Smith, proposed one which squints too strongly of the union of the state with the church, to pass without a brief notice.

His second resolution is reported as follows:

"WHEREAS, Ministers of the gospel are by their profession dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions, therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest, of any denomination whatsoever shall at any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatever, be eligible to or capable of holding any civil or military office or place within this state."

Now, if the state has a right to say what the church or her ministers shall or shall not do, then upon the principle of equal and impartial justice the church may say what the state or her ministers (politicians) shall or shall not do. It has been the glory of our American institutions that church and state, or state and church, were not and should not be united. One should not control the other in any shape or form whatever. But here is a barefaced proposition for the state to control the church by disfranchising her ministers. The next step may be to control her faith and practice! Have not ministers the same right to exclude officeholders from their communion and the means of salvation, as officeholders have to exclude ministers from their places? The acts and doings of a minister of the gospel, if improper, are a subject of church discipline, and by the sacred principles of her ritual corroborated by the Constitution of the United States, that discipline is her own concern, has been adopted as the dictates of the consciences of those subject to it, and cannot be touched by the unclean hands of political demagogues or corrupt statesmen.

The propriety or impropriety of ministers of the gospel holding civil or military office is not the point now to be discussed. I leave that where it belongs to the church-which is amply able to take care of her ministers and members without the unhallowed aid of civil legislation. But the question is as to the legality or constitutionality of the state thus interfering with the affairs of the church.