fluence he can exert as a private citizen, he has here availed himself of the high and official station which he occupies in this honorable body to accomplish his withering and desolating purpose, and seeks to have the merits of the constitution canvassed here, seeks to have it prejudged, hampered, trammeled, and disgraced within the halls of the legislature by legislative enactment. Are these legislative halls, sir, the place to have the constitution adopted or rejected? I think not-I reckon not-I calculate not! Why then discuss the matter here? Is it not plain to the whole territory what the object is? Is the gentleman afraid to have the people's constitution, the work of their own hands, go before themselves for adjudication? Is he afraid, sir, to have the people, by their own firesides, and in their barns, and fields, and workshops, give it an honest and fair investigation unless it is first hampered and distrust thrown upon it by legislative action? Is he afraid that the "sober second thought" of the people will prevail over the political maneuvering of aspiring men? Why not then honestly hand it over to the people unscathed and unharmed as it came from the hands of their own representatives?

But, sir, is here the place to have the constitution discussed and decided upon? Is this the body, sir, the legally constituted tribunal to investigate and decide upon the merits of this vital and important instrument? If so, I have surely mistaken the power that called it into existence, that gave it the breath of life. I thought, sir, that it was to go before a higher and more august tribunal than even this dignified assembly.

But, sir, I have trespassed too long already on the patience of the Council. I must leave the subject, and also my friend from Racine, and am under the necessity of saying to my Democratic friends, in the language of the Bible, "Ephraim is joined to his idols, let him alone."-Wisconsin Democrat, February 13, 1847.

REMARKS OF MR. PALMER, FEBRUARY 6, 1847

Mr. Palmer said that the gentleman from Milwaukee had well observed that this was an important measure. It is, Mr. President; a measure involving considerations of the first magnitude. The real question at issue is whether this body will take the responsibility of saying that this constitution is unworthy the support of the people. This is a responsibility which I for one am unwilling to assume. I was not sent here for that purpose. The constitution is now before the people, and there I desire to leave it until adopted or rejected by their votes.

The gentleman from Racine (Mr. Strong) has said that by the passage of this bill we do not necessarily condemn the constitution. Nay, that we do not even by remote implication declare it unworthy of adoption. Here the gentleman and I differ widely. That I am right in my position is evident from the whole tenor of his arguments. For what other fact has he attempted to establish by these arguments? The entire burden of his speech (and it certainly was ably and deliberately made) was an effort to prove that the constitution is a bad one. That it is unwise and injurious in its provisions. That for these reasons it will and ought to be rejected by the people. And that, therefore, a new convention should be provided for. Upon these grounds, and none others that are tenable, is the passage of this bill sought to be justified.

It is also urged by the friends of this measure that the petitions in its favor are numerous, and I am asked whether it is right to disregard them. By what I can gather from the remarks of gentlemen who have alluded to these petitions as well as from the influences which have produced them and which now operate in favor of the bill I have a right to infer that a majority of the petitioners are unfriendly to the constitution. But have they any right to call upon us to aid them in their efforts to defeat it? Many of the petitioners, I am aware, did not look upon it in this light. But can any rational mind now regard it in any other? If so, why do we see the opponents of the constitution on the one hand vigorously and urgently pressing forward the measure, while the friends of the constitution on the other hand, both in this body and out of it, with equal unanimity call upon us to abstain from any action?

But it has been said that unless we pass this bill the organization of the state government will, if the constitution should be rejected, be unnecessarily delayed. Now I contend that this is not a necessary consequence. If it were I should certainly feel more doubt on the subject. I believe it, sir, to be wholly within the province of the governor to convene the legislature to provide for such a contingency. And I regard this as an evil of less magnitude than any attempt on the part of the legislature to prejudge the constitution.

I did not intend, Mr. President, when I arose to address myself to this question, to enter into any discussion of the merits of the constitution. I did not deem it my duty to do so. I do not admit that this is the place for a debate on the merits of that instrument. I am therefore wholly unprepared for so arduous a task. But since the discussion has taken so wide a range, I shall briefly revert to some of the positions taken by the gentleman from Racine, not

by way of arguments for or against the constitution, but simply to show that this is a subject upon which entire unanimity of sentiment can hardly be expected under any circumstances-that it is idle for us to expect it, even upon this floor, much less among the people.

Mr. Palmer here reviewed some of the arguments advanced by Mr. Strong, for the purpose of showing that they were not of such a nature as to justify legislative action, which he contended, as in other portions of his remarks, could only be justified by a precondemnation of the constitution itself.

In continuation he said that the gentleman from Racine seemed to apprehend difficulty in the way of inducing capitalists to invest their means in this country, should the constitution be adopted. Whether this conclusion is arrived at from the fact that banking is prohibited by the provisions of the constitution is more than I dare undertake to say. But from the gentleman's well-known hostility to all banking institutions I feel constrained to believe that this is not the case. But should it be otherwise, I am prepared to meet this objection on the broad principle long entertained and believed in on my part, that banking institutions do not, on the whole, increase the actual wealth of a country. The rate of interest to which he has adverted to sustain his position can neither be increased nor diminished except by the actual accumulation or diminution of wealth in the country. And so long as we have a large amount of public land to invite investment, and withdraw from circulation, there to be locked up in unproductive property, the surplus capital that may accumulate or flow in upon us, just so long, and no longer will this evil be felt, and the rate of interest be exorbitant.

In conclusion, Mr. President, the gentleman has lugged in another argument which I did hope to see kept out of this discussion. He says it is urged as a reason why we should not pass this bill that it would overthrow the Democratic party. Now sir, I have heard no such argument used on this floor. If any allusion to party or party interests has been made in the discussion of this question it has not fallen from my lips or from the lips of any of the opponents of this measure. For I believe I am the only member who had spoken on this side of the house when this remark was made by the gentleman from Racine. In my remarks this morning I endeavored to place the question on its true merits. I contended then as I do now that we had no right to meddle with the subject because we were assuming a responsibility that did not devolve upon usbecause we were undertaking to decide a question which properly

belonged to the people to decide, and for which they would hold us responsible. I have not on any occasion permitted myself to take such a position. Neither have I deemed myself called upon either to defend or to denounce the constitution. I have only contended that we should let it stand or fall upon its own merits, and abstain from all action which would either increase or diminish the chances of its rejection.-Argus, Feb. 16, 1847.

REMARKS OF MR. SINGER, FEBRUARY 6, 1847

MR. PRESIDENT: I am not unconscious of the inequality of the contest I engage in. I know that the odds are against me. With abilities, which I need not the very courteous gentleman from Racine to tell me are but ordinary, with little experience in debate, I have to encounter a gentleman of acknowledged talent, much experience as a debater, and who withal is cool, collected, and wary, and on a subject in which all the feelings of his heart, the energies of his soul, and the stimulated purpose of fixed revenge and passion are concentered. But, sir, unequal as the contest may be, I will not coward-like shrink from the engagement, though I have to lament my want of strength on an occasion and in an emergency from which greater powers might shrink with distrustful diffidence. Besides the advantages of talent and experience, the gentleman has all the advantage of matured deliberation, studied preparation, and well rehearsed argument. Never, perhaps, has there been an occasion in the life of the gentleman of as deep and vital interest as the present one; an occasion which from the moment he left these walls with a rebuked spirit and an indignant heart he has in the secret bastile of his thoughts prayed for and with all the means and appliances which an angered determined purpose is too fruitful to devise has sought to bring about. Yes, sir, great and important as this occasion is, we are mainly indebted to the gentleman for it. It is his own legitimate offspring-the wished for day of bringing forth after months of agonized travail. And let him hereafter, when the execrable offspring encounters him as Death, the child of Satan's wicked dalliance with Sin, encountered him at the thrice threefold gates of hell, not disown his true begotten. The rich fruit, the "golden opinions from all sorts of men" which may have been in expectancy will be at their fruition like the fruit on the shores of the Asphaltitis-ashes and bitterness to the taste. Such, sir, is always the fruit which baffled ambition is doomed to partake of. I say baffled ambition, for to that united with the unrelinquishable

love of office felt by a clique of incumbents may we attribute the manufactured agitation and public opinion that has been trumpeted about these halls to frighten members into a support of this bill. And I do not know but it has had the desired effect, preposterous as it may seem that men who in the catalogue go for statesmen of intelligence and honesty should come here to act, to legislate upon the constitution, of which the sovereign people are the only arbiters, when, too, they are no fresher from the people and no better qualified than the very men who were commissioned for this work. That instrument is to be tried by a jury of the people. Let it have a fair trial, unbiased and unprejudiced. When the people to whom it is submitted will have expressed themselves, then, sir, and not until then, can we with fairness and impartiality entertain a bill providing for another convention.

Gentlemen may deny a design prejudicial to the constitution; but, sir, I know it was introduced with other preparatory measures without these walls by the implacable enemies of the constitution for the purpose of withdrawing from it so far as these influences extended the support of the Democratic party. Their denial of their design only makes their conduct more deserving of reprehension, as insidious, and, I may add with perfect justness, assassin-like. What, I would ask, would be thought of that individual who, when another had been arrested for an alleged offense, would without waiting for conviction by a jury of the offender's peers break open the prison doors and with an uplifted dagger drive it to the hilt into the prisoner's heart? Would he not be a foul, cowardly, and accursed assassin? But there are other considerations which should make every Democrat frown upon this bill-considerations which force themselves upon me from a knowledge of the circumstances, motives, and influences in which it originated. Sir, I am bold to say that had not certain ambitious spirits been repulsed in their high pretensions at the convention this threatening occasion would have been spared us. But repulsed they were, aye prostrated by that very constitution; from that time their only study has been revenge, and nothing but the sacrifice of the constitution will satiate their vengeance.

Like the rebel archangel, who "by lies drew the third part of the host of heaven" after him, they, vain and impotent creatures, think to draw part of the Democratic host after them. But I trust they cannot "seduce them to that foul revolt."

Prominent Whigs have been addressed throughout the territory and urged by the authors of this measure to make the adoption or