網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

successful. We have heard that there are spurious copies of the constitution afloat printed in German. Not satisfied with meeting the question of the adoption of the constitution openly, they have resorted to fraud as a natural expedient. Here where they are known their efforts will prove harmless and their disinterestedness [be] properly appreciated; but they hope to create an impression upon the minds of those who have recently settled among us, and who, unacquainted with the inconveniencies of a territorial government, may not trace the cause of their Old Hunker opposition to the effect upon their purses. We have a strong feeling that upon the adoption of the constitution every county, more particularly Dane, should do its duty. It was here that we first urged upon the people the principle of an elective judiciary and a homestead exemption, and notwithstanding the determined opposition of the Argus and its editors both these principles were engrafted upon the constitution. We are not placed in the hypocritical position of supporting a constitution, to many articles of which we have been and still at heart are opposed. They all meet with our hearty support. They involve principles dear as life and for which, since our first number was issued, we have ever been contending. And the arguments that we offered in favor of the humane provisions that are now constitutionally endorsed we but here renew, feeling confident that the hearts of the independent freemen of the territory are with us, and that they will sustain the principles which we then as now believe to be for the best interests of the people of our adopted home.

THE EXEMPTION

[February 27, 1847]

Great efforts are being made by the interested opposers of the constitution to confound and mislead the public mind in regard to the application of the new principles set forth in that instrument. The opinion of "one of the judges of the supreme court" has been quoted from the Council to the barroom, accompanied by all the circumstances of its high source to give it weight among the many who are not familiar with the dark sinuosities of the law. The sophistry of high functionaries passes the more current as we have not the benefit of practical experience to confound them. But we would ask the public before taking the ipsi dixit of His Honor to apply the test which the law allows in regard to witnesses in our courts as to his personal interest in this contest, and as he will be found to be an incompetent witness read the article and make

The

the application themselves by the rules of common sense. judge says that if the amount held by the debtor exceeds the number of acres or the amount in value prescribed, then the whole may be taken on execution. This is a construction without a parallel. The exemption laws of nearly every state have the precise reading of "not exceeding in value, etc.," and yet we will venture to affirm that no one ever thought before that a plate or a blanket over that amount would subject the debtor to the loss of the whole. The whole thing is perfectly absurd and only shows the desperation of the officeholders in fighting for their "bread and butter." Here is the section referred to: "Section 2. Forty acres of land, to be selected by the owner thereof, or the homestead of a family not exceeding forty acres, which said land or homestead shall not be included within any city or village and shall not exceed in value one thousand dollars, or instead thereof (at the option of the owner) any lot or lots in any city or village, being the homestead of a family and not exceeding in value one thousand dollars, owned and occupied by any resident of this state, shall not be subject to forced sale on execution for any debt or debts growing out of or founded upon contract, either express or implied, made after the adoption of this constitution, Provided, That such exemption shall not affect in any manner any mechanic's or laborer's lien or any mortgage thereon lawfully obtained, nor shall the owner if a married man be at liberty to alienate such real estate unless by consent of the wife."

But the judge further says that this constitutional enactment precludes all legislative action upon the subject of exemption, and as in it no provision is made for personal property, it leaves the poor debtor who has no real estate entirely at the mercy of his creditor, to the last rag of clothing and the last morsel of bread. If such is the case, then we must acknowledge that the mysteries of the law cannot be conveyed or comprehended by the English language, for the wholesome exemption laws which now exist almost any common sense man would suppose were amply secured by the following section of the schedule: "Section 2. All laws now in force in the territory of Wisconsin which are not repugnant to this constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitations, or be altered or repealed by the legislature."

THE PERSONNEL OF THE OPPONENTS

[February 27, 1847]

It might be well for the people, especially the laboring classes, to inquire what classes of persons are the most active in their endeavors to defeat the constitution. Does the opposition come from the hard working and producing classes, or does it come mainly from those who contrive to feed at the public crib and speculate out of the misfortunes of their fellow men? Does it come from the poor and the toiling thousands, or does it come from the rich-the would-be bank speculator and monopolist? Does it come from the quiet and unaspiring portion of the people, or from the officeholders and office seekers? These are inquiries of no small importance, because the true answers to them indicate the opposition as being led on by those whose business interests are not identified with the elevation and independence of the masses. The leaders of the opposition who are now striving to move heaven and earth for the overthrow of the constitution we have reason to fear are actuated by other motives than the universal good of the people. In support of these allegations let facts be adduced. Is it not a fact too notorious to admit of denial, that the legal profession, in proportion to numbers, present a larger array against the constitution than the agricultural and mechanical classes of the people? Does this condition of things arise from the fact that the profession as a body are more deeply imbued with the principles of benevolence for the welfare of their fellow men, and that from their avocations in life they are possessed of a greater share of the milk of human kindness than other classes of the community? Is it not fair to suppose that the profession are possessed of like passions and frailties as other men, and that they are equally likely to be controlled by personal interest, is it an interest that prospers most where strifes, contentions, and litigated disputes are best guarded against by the wise provisions of the law? Certainly not. As well might a farmer contend that a barren field will yield him a more productive harvest. than a fertile soil.

Is it not a fact equally true that a large proportion of the men of wealth-speculators and monopolists-oppose the adoption of the constitution? Those who have an insatiate thirst for riches and for amassing vast possessions naturally oppose every arrangement in the organic law of the government which guarantees to the

laboring man an unmolested right to a sufficiency of property to enable him to enjoy some comforts of life and to educate his family. Honorable Marshall M. Strong, the champion opposer of the constitution, admitted on the floor of the Council the truthfulness of the assertion that "the merchants and business men of the territory are generally opposed to the constitution." And this the honorable gentleman seems to think is a good reason why the farmer, mechanic, and laboring man should vote against the constitution. Indeed, is the intelligence of the territory embodied in the merchants, business men, and speculators? Have they such a tender regard for the welfare of the laboring thousands that they care more for their interests than for their own? What say you farmers and laboring men? Will you vote against the constitution because it is an instrument that does not suit that class of persons who speculate for a livelihood and live on your earnings? Do you believe such persons care more for your prosperity and happiness than for their own? We believe that the farmers and mechanics of this territory are fully competent to judge of the merits of the constitution, and we trust they will not be governed by the opinions of business men and monopolists. We hold that the state or nation contains the most real independence where every citizen as far as possible has a right in the soil. If you would have a people enjoy a freedom of action and opinion, allow every citizen to become an independent freeholder. Slavery both mental and physical predominates most where the few monopolize the right of soil and where the interests of the laboring and producing classes are held at the mercy of the rich.

Is it not a fact equally true that the officeholders under our territorial arrangement. judges, clerks of courts, etc., as well as the office expectants, oppose the adoption of the constitution? Have these men so much love for the people that they give themselves no rest, and toil day and night to prejudice the people against the constitution? Are not some of these officeholders giving their time and money for the purpose of stirring up dissatisfaction and inducing the people to believe that the adoption of the constitution will prove ruinous to their interests? Why are not farmers and mechanics traversing the country for the same object? Is it because that farmers and mechanics have less benevolence of feeling and care less for the good of the dear people than the well-paid officeholders? Is it not also true that those who are known to be office expectants are taking unwearied pains to defeat the constitution? The constitution now before the people is particularly unsuited

to office aspirants who expect to succeed by other means than an appeal to the suffrages of the people; it makes every office of any prominence or importance elective. Political jugglers had much rather try their fortunes by bringing influences to bear on the appointing power than hazard their pretensions by coming directly before the people. It should be distinctly understood that one of the avowed objects among the leading opponents of the constitution is to deprive the people of a considerable portion of the elective privilege which the present constitution if adopted would confer.Southport Telegraph.

"AGRICOLA'S" VIEWS ON RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN [February 27, 1847]

BERIAH BROWN ESQ.,

Editor of the Wisconsin Democrat,

SIR: The constitution recently agreed upon by the convention and to be submitted to the people on the first Tuesday in April next is undergoing an active discussion in the public press and among the people. As one of the citizens of the territory, feeling a deep interest in this question, I am desirous of submitting the following observations to the public through your paper.

I do not propose to go into an examination of the whole constitution; that would be too tedious for my purpose altogether. But in looking over the constitution I have been forcibly impressed with the article securing the "rights of married women" as one of great importance, the benefits of which can hardly be foreseen or anticipated. This article, so far as my experience goes, is new, in this country at least. It is nevertheless so plain and simple in its provisions that it is believed very little if any difficulty will occur in carrying out its objects.

That woman has long been regarded by the common law as a mere slave (so far as civil privileges are concerned) to her husband's will cannot be denied. It is true that the husband is justly recognized as the head of his house. But does it follow that his wife is to be utterly cut off from all privileges and rights, so far as her own property is concerned? I mean that property which was hers at the time of her marriage, or which comes to her by will or descent afterwards. There certainly is neither reason nor justice. in taking the property which today belongs to a single woman and appropriating tomorrow, without her consent, and against her own wishes, merely by the will of her husband, simply and only because

« 上一頁繼續 »