armies," or who have subscribed to the creed of the Democratic convention for Wisconsin in 1842, and pledged himself [themselves] "to use his [their] best and constant exertions to terminate the system, and to resist all future attempts on the part of our legislative bodies to confer exclusive and extraordinary privileges on any company of men associated for the purpose of carrying on what is usually denominated the banking business," look at this issue in its true light, and pause at the consequence of endangering this great principle for which we have so long fought.

THE REASON ASSIGNED

[March 30, 1847]

In answering the objections of the Western Star to the sixth section of the bank article we passed over No. 5, for want of any imaginable reason to support it. The Star goes back and makes the amendment thus:

No 5. "That it would subject us to great inconvenience in our intercourse with our sister states, where such currency is authorized by law."

Upon the above the Argus remarks: “As the editor has adduced not so much as the shadow of a reason why it will subject us to this inconvenience, and as we cannot imagine one, we shall not attempt to disprove the assertion."

Now for the special edification of the Argus we will give some reasons for this position, which the editor cannot discover. Our intercourse is mostly with the eastern states, and especially with the state of New York. In that state there were on the first of January, 1847, eighty banks with an aggregate amount of specie in their vaults of $6,340,513, with a circulation in bills of $16,033,125. This is no more than the law requires the banks to keep on hand for the redemption of their bills. Consequently if a grain dealer should wish to borrow money to buy wheat in Wisconsin, it would be impossible and highly improper for the banks to accommodate him with specie. He might obtain any quantity that he might need to circulate in the western country according to the usages of banks, but the specie must be retained for the redemption of these bills.

Well that is as good a reason as could be expected, but before we "crawfish," let us examine it a little.

The banks of New York have no more specie on hand than the law requires them to keep for the redemption of their bills already in circulation, and hence "it would be impossible and highly improper for the banks to accommodate him (the wheat speculator) with specie." Now this is precisely the same thing as to say that the banks have already as many bills in circulation as the law allows them to issue upon the amount of specie on hand and that it would be impossible and highly improper for them to issue any more, for after they have issued all the bills which their specie

can redeem, whether they loan a part of their specie or issue more bills, the effect will be the same-they will have more bills in circulation than they can redeem. But, says the Star, although the banks will not lend the speculator the specie, because they have as many bills already out as their specie can redeem, yet they will "according to the usages of banks" violate the law and do the same "impossible and highly improper" thing by lending him “any quantity he might need (of irredeemable paper) to circulate in the western country." It is issued as the Star admits in violation of law and without the means of redemption, but it is good enough "to circulate in the western country." The Star says truly enough that this is "according to the usages of banks." Objection No. 5 is twin brother to No. 6-that emigrants would be put to great inconvenience because they could not get the specie for their bills at home where they were issued.

Take notice then, farmers of Wisconsin, that the great argument against the adoption of the constitution is that it will prevent speculators from coming here and buying up your wheat with irredeemable bank bills. Their sole argument against excluding these bills is that the specie cannot be had in lieu of them. Neighbor, is such an argument satisfactory to your mind? If it is, we can only say to you," Go ahead and be swindled to your heart's content." The Star says we certainly do not argue like one who is sincere in the cause in which we are engaged. We must ask the Star whether he is sincere in telling the farmers of Wisconsin that they must sell their wheat for bank bills, because these bills will not bring the specie. You must take bills, because they are irredeemable! If the Star is sincere in putting forth such arguments, we do not see how anyone can avoid the conclusion that he is sincerely foolish. If the wheat buyer cannot get the specie for the bills which he pays. for wheat, it is equally certain that the wheat grower cannot get the specie for the bills which he takes for wheat.

The Star scares up another reason equally bright, to wit: that we should sell our specie to New York, but New York would not sell it back again, and says: "It requires no argument to prove that such a state of things would subject us to great inconvenience in our intercourse with other states." That is a fact; it requires no argument to prove that a bad state of things would be had, but it does require some argument to prove that such a state of things I would exist under our constitution. The Star has failed to show affirmatively that any such state of things would exist, and we

refer him to his second lesson in political economy which we sent him last week as proof negative in the premises.

But the Star seems aware that his mountain of reasons does not stand very strong, when he says: "We are aware that the Argus may cavil upon this question, but to us it appears to be a waste of time in this enlightened age of the world to argue such a question as this." As to the light of the age, you may put that under your arm. Half of the boasted light of the age is nothing but old darkness brushed up a little; and "if the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness?" That is no "whid," neighbor, although we "nail't wi' Scripture," and the doctrine that men must dispose of their labor and its products for that which is worth nothing because it is worth nothing is one of the brightest specimens of dark light which ever dazzled the eyes of a bat and must forever defy scrutiny though it should be attempted through the medium of a smoked glass.

THE CONSTITUTION-ON SCHOOLS

[March 30, 1847]

One of the most important considerations in favor of the adoption of our present constitution is the munificent provisions it makes for the establishment and support of common schools. It provides for the choice of the state superintendent of common schools. The importance of this provision is incalculable, and we have no certainty that it would be embodied in another constitution. In addition to the sixteenth section in every township, it devotes the five hundred thousand acres of state lands to the support of common schools, originally intended for purposes of internal improvements. Congress has changed the terms of this grant in compliance with the resolution of the convention.

If the constitution is rejected, have we any assurance that this splendid resource will be devoted to this object? Is the doctrine so well established in this territory that works of internal improvement should be undertaken and prosecuted by private capitalists, and not by the state, that in another convention the opposite sentiment might not prevail, and the five hundred thousand acres of state lands be retained for such purposes instead of being devoted to common schools? From what we saw in the late convention we have serious apprehensions on this point. The universal Whig party hold most tenaciously that government shall undertake and carry on works of this kind. This as well as every other really valuable pro

vision of the constitution was obtained by hard fighting, and we may depend upon it that if the constitution is rejected, its rejection will be tortured into a rejection of anything and everything which individuals or parties may dislike.

Again, all lands which may fall to the state by forfeiture or escheat are devoted to the same noble object. Adopt the constitution, and we have the resources for maintaining in the course of a few years a good common school within a mile of every dwelling in the territory during six months of every year. Reject it, and we know not what may become of the interests of education in another convention. Party whims or private interests in projects of internal improvements may ride over these paramount interests and involve the state in the complicated miseries of ignorance and debt.

THE RESULT

[April 13, 1847]

The election is over, and the result is satisfactorily ascertained. The constitution is defeated by an overwhelming majority. Yes, we own up, beat-thoroughly used up; that is to say-the constitution is. Well, since it was to be defeated, we are glad to see it done up so strong, though we must confess that as the returns began to thicken upon us we felt some as the doctor's boy did when he was trying with the best possible grace to submit to a severe castigation. He grinned and twisted and squirmed, till in his estimation grinning and twisting and squirming ceased to be virtues and then exclaimed as the blows fell thicker and heavier, "There-there-there-that's sufficient, Doctor."

There can no longer be a doubt that a respectable majority of the Democrats of the territory have voted against the constitution. We are warranted in this conclusion by the known Democratic majority in the territory and the prodigious majority against the constitution, taken in connection with the well-known fact that large numbers of Whigs voted for the constitution.

The constitution being defeated, it is a consolation to us that a majority of our party voted against it, inasmuch as it bars the conclusion that the objectionable provisions which caused its defeat were not those which recognized and carried out the established principles of the Democratic party. So far as the Democratic party were responsible for all the principles contained in the constitution, by the large majority which they had in the convention they have undoubtedly met with a defeat. But the party is not responsible for all

the principles contained in that instrument. The Democratic members of that convention were elected to frame a constitution upon sound Democratic principles and not to invent new, untried, and unsound principles and saddle them upon the party as Democratic principles and they have met with a severe and merited rebuke from their own party for attempting it. Had they adhered strictly to sound Democratic principles, although those principles might have been more fully applied and carried out than has been usual in other states, they would have been triumphantly sustained by the popular voice.

But unfortunately our party had become too strong, and unprincipled demagogues from all parties had saddled themselves upon us from mere mercenary motives and succeeded in elbowing their way into the convention. Here they found themselves without political principles, destitute of political character, and neither possessing nor deserving the confidence of any party, and their only alternative was to construct a crazy raft from the slabs and edgings of all parties, constructed upon new and peculiar principles, and despite the warnings of old, tried, and substantial Democrats many an honest, simple-hearted one was induced to take passage. The captain and officers of this miserable craft must needs do some great thing which would give them notoriety and put them ahead, and "Hurrah for the homestead exemption and the rights of married women!" was the cry. And "Hurrah for the exemption and rights of married women!" was echoed from the piebald crowd. Listen to no reasons, suffer no discussion, down with all amendments, down with the Old Hunkers, hurrah for the Tadpoles, and with their own motley crew aided by a few honest-minded Democrats who ought to have known better they succeeded in bullying through these miserable humbugs, and actually made so much noise about them as to shake the confidence of some sensible men that these measures could not be popular with an intelligent and reflecting community!

Well, the constitution was completed, enrolled, signed, and submitted to the people-a noble instrument in the main, but blotted and marred by these unsound and pernicious principles, got up and crowded into the document for the special glorification of a few soulless, brainless demagogues and renegades. Sound and intelligent Democrats at this juncture found themselves in a most awkward and unpleasant predicament-under the necessity of endorsing or condemning the soundest and the rottenest principles indiscriminately.