B. F. Manahan, Andrew Palmer, Henry Clark, H. C. Hobart, and Timothy Burns. On motion the meeting adjourned to meet again at the same place on Saturday evening, the thirtieth day of January, 1847.

At the time and place last aforesaid the said meeting again assembled, and Mr. John E. Holmes, as chairman of said committee, reported the following resolutions, to wit:

*16

"Resolved, That we are entirely opposed to all moneyed monopolies and privileges of every description whatever, established and protected by exclusive legislation, to all unequal taxation, and believe that government should be so administered that each citizen shall share equally with every other its burdens and its benefits.

"Resolved, That we are opposed to conferring upon the future state of Wisconsin the power to contract any debt for the purposes of internal improvement, believing that it is the object of a state government not to transport freight or passengers, but to make and administer equal and just laws.

"Resolved, That, inasmuch as the success of Democratic principles and the perpetuity of freedom depend entirely upon the intelligence and virtue of the people, it is therefore the duty of every government to provide that every child in the state shall have the means within reach of obtaining a good moral and intellectual education.

"Resolved, That in the present important crisis of our territorial affairs we deem it the duty of every Democrat to use concession and make all reasonable exertions to promote union and harmony, and that we do not recognize the principle that the adoption or rejection of the constitution now submitted to the people and the whole people-is a party question.

"Resolved, That the proceedings of this convention be signed by the chairman and secretary, and be published in the Wisconsin Argus and the Wisconsin Democrat, and that the Democratic papers of the territory be requested to copy the same."

After some discussion on the above resolutions, the meeting adjourned till Saturday, the sixth day of February, to meet at the same hour and place.

At the time and place last aforesaid, the meeting having again assembled, the above resolutions were adopted, and Mr. Singer being absent, Jno. T. Haight was chosen secretary pro tem.

MADISON, February 6, 1847

MASON C. DARLING, Chairman JNO. T. HAIGHT, Secretary pro tem

16 We omit to print a number of resolutions which deal with national issues rather than with questions local to Wisconsin.

THE RESOLUTIONS

[February 16, 1847]

In today's paper will be found a series of the resolutions adopted in a meeting of the Democratic members of the late legislature. We think they will meet with the approbation of all true Democrats, as they sustain fully the leading measures of the Democratic party of the Union.

The resolution relative to the constitution we believe did not pass unanimously, and probably will not meet with universal approbation. For our own part we are well pleased with its mild and conciliatory character, and especially that it discountenances the idea of making the adoption or rejection of the constitution a party question. This we believe to be the true ground for both the advocates and opponents of the constitution and especially for the former.

The following are among the reasons why we think the constitution should be allowed to stand or fall upon its own merits, rather than upon party strength:

First. Because the fundamental law should be the free, unbiased, and untrammeled choice of a majority, and as large a majority as possible of the whole people, in order that it may be regarded with that degree of veneration which will secure its supremacy.

Second. Because the constitution embraces many principles which all parties hold in common and many provisions which are mere matters of expediency and have no imaginable relation to party politics or political principles of any kind. Where are the two men who would not agree that the government should consist of three departments, and that the powers and duties of these departments should as far as practicable be separate and distinct from each other, or who would disagree as to the propriety of having the legislature consist of the two houses, or having a supreme and inferior courts, or in respect to any one section in the bill of rights?

On the other hand what possible connection can there be between party politics and the salary of a governor or judge, the exact terms for which they should be chosen, the number of judicial districts which shall be established, the number of members which shall constitute the senate and house of representatives, or the per diem which shall be allowed them? And yet all these are matters of interest to the people, and in respect to which they have a right, belong to what party they may, to exercise their own judgment.

Third. Because party organization and party strength are only intended to bear upon particular principles in respect to which parties disagree, and not upon those, and principles which are universally admitted, and questions of mere expediency indiscriminately. This, as in the case of our constitution, would be a perversion of party organization and a waste of party strength.

Fourth. Because the adoption or rejection of a constitution as a party measure was never attempted in any of the new states, and is inconsistent with the universal practice of submitting the instrument to a popular vote. In our case, a convention was elected on party grounds, and the Democratic party was largely in the majority. Now if the same majority is bound to adopt the instrument, whether they like it on the whole or not, submitting it to a vote of the people at all is a mere farce, or, at best, a mere formality, and the action of the convention, as in the case of a legislature, might just as well have been final upon the question. In either case we are bound by the action of the convention and have nothing further to say about it. It amounts, in fact, to repudiating the Democratic practice of submitting the fundamental law of the state to a vote of the people before it is allowed to have any force or effect.

Fifth. Because we believe that many of the warmest supporters of the constitution are unwilling to endorse and would be unwilling to see their party endorse every principle contained [in] it. Several important principles in the constitution are acknowledged by their most sanguine friends to be mere experiments, and although it may be lawful and right for parties to experiment, yet they should do so with caution and not be too confident until the success of an experiment has become at least probable.

As Democrats and as advocates of the constitution we would not like to see it made a party measure.

First. Because there are many Democrats who would vote for the constitution in view of its aggregate qualities and all the circumstances of the case, who would not vote for it as a party document throughout.

Second. Because, if it should be attempted to force Democrats into its support by party discipline, we might have more cases of discipline on hand than we could attend to with anything like efficiency or profit.

Third. Because we believe there are many Whigs who are so far pleased with the constitution that they would vote for it upon its

merits, when, if made a party question, they would feel constrained to vote against it from party considerations.

Fourth. Because, leaving every man free and untrammeled to weigh its merits and strike the balance between the good and the bad, and in view of all the circumstances of the present and the probabilities of the future, to deposit a blue ticket or a white one, as his own sober judgment may dictate, is the only means by which harmony and good feeling can be preserved among Democrats and the party be enabled, in case the constitution should be defeated, to rally harmoniously and try to make a better one.

While, therefore, we are desirous to see the constitution adopted and intend to urge our fellow citizens without respect to party to vote for it as the best thing that can be done, taking the instrument as it is, and our circumstances as they are, we shall endeavor to conform to the spirit of the resolution alluded to, and not hurl anathemas at those, who in the discharge of the high responsibilities of freemen may think and act differently from ourselves.

WHAT IS THE LEADING OBJECTION TO THE CONSTITUTION? [March 9, 1847]

That there are different objections raised and honestly entertained by different individuals and classes of voters, there can be no doubt; nor are we disposed to deny that some of these objections are well founded so far as they relate to isolated provisions. But is there not some one provision which while it is approved by a majority is exceedingly obnoxious to a minority, and to defeat which every other objection, however trifling, is brought up and magnified beyond measure and brought to bear, indirectly, upon it?

We believe this is the true state of the constitutional war so far as a large majority of its opposers are concerned and that this one thing is the article on banks and banking. Let us not be misunderstood. We do not say that all who oppose the constitution are in favor of banks, but we sincerely believe that the main opposition is covertly directed against this article-covertly-because bank men well know that open opposition to the bank article would strengthen rather than weaken the constitution. They know that they could no more defeat the constitution on the ground of the bank article than they could take Gibraltar with a pocket pistol. They know that if they are to undermine the constitution, they must dig in softer spots than this, and that there are softer spots "is a muckle pity."

We know there were men in the convention who opposed the bank article with their utmost zeal-who scouted the idea of a specie currency-who insisted that we must have banks and predicted the overthrow of the constitution and the defeat of the Democratic party if it were attempted to exclude them, until the article on exemption and the rights of married women passed, and that was the last we heard from them about the bank article. Thenceforward they would oppose the constitution on account of those provisions.

For a long time the opposition press belabored the bank article and grounded opposition to the constitution upon its provisions. But latterly they seem purposely to have forgotten this objection, and bent all their energies against the article on the rights of married women and exemption. Well, these provisions are bad enough, we grant, but they are not the hundredth part so much to be dreaded as a banking system. A very slight experiment with these provisions will consign them to the shades, and the mischiefs they produced will soon be obliterated. But let a banking system be once fastened upon us and we may strive in vain to free ourselves from it.

Sift the objections of opponents of the constitution, and three times out of four they will all slip through but this: "We must have banks." We believe the sentiment of a large majority of the people of Wisconsin is "We must not have banks." But let the constitution be defeated, and this single objection, "We must have banks," which is now so carefully kept in the background, will be placed first and foremost by bank men, as the objection which has been sustained by a popular vote.

We hope, therefore, that the friends of a constitutional currency who may have other and serious objections to the constitution will weigh well the risk they will run by allowing their objections to what is wrong to determine their vote against what is right. What farmer in order to get rid of a few mulleins would incur the imminent hazard of seeding his whole farm with Canada thistles?

TO THE CANDID AND REFLECTING

[March 9, 1847]

In the present crisis of affairs in Wisconsin we think all men of candor will admit that sound policy requires that the Democratic party should stand upon an impregnable basis. That basis, in our view, consists in a rigid adherence to our chosen principles. These are embodied in the creed of Jefferson, Madison, and a host of