she has become his wife. Nay, much less is there any good reason why the property which comes to a married woman by descent or devise from her parents or other relatives or friends should be at once taken by her husband and disposed of, and I may say in too many instances utterly dissipated and lost, not only against her wishes and consent, but very frequently leaving her helpless and destitute.

The above supposed case, sir, is not one drawn from fancy, but it is such as every practicable man sees daily in the ordinary occurrences of life. Now the provision in the constitution is simply this: "All property, real and personal, of the wife, owned by her at the time of her marriage, and also that acquired by her after her marriage by gift, devise, descent, or otherwise than from her husband shall be her separate property."

It would seem that no principle of equity or justice is violated by this provision. If any reasonable man will reflect deliberately upon this article, it is confidently believed that he can come to no other conclusion than that it is just, it is right, and should be adopted. But it is said (and in some high places) that this provision will lead to dissensions between the husband and wife, that "woman is to be transferred from her appropriate domestic sphere, taken away from her children, and cast out rudely into the strifes and turmoil of the world, there to have her finer sensibilities blunted, the ruling motives of her mind changed, and every trait of loveliness blotted out." Is this so? I have carefully looked over this article again and again, and, surely, I am totally unable to conceive any such consequences as likely to flow from it. Is there anything so horrible in the fact that a married woman is in the possession of a few hundred dollars' worth of property, which her husband cannot deprive her of without her consent? What worthy and well-disposed man would feel himself aggrieved or injured by his wife receiving a devise from her relations of any given amount of property even upon the condition that he should not dispose of it without her consent? It is most firmly believed that few, very few husbands would reject a bequest made to their wives upon this condition, even if they could. No, sir, it is my opinion that almost if not quite every married man in the territory would gladly see a bequest made to and received by his wife upon this very condition.

But there is another view of this question much more important. How often is it seen that a young woman at the time of her marriage and for a few years thereafter is situated happily, enjoying the prosperity of her husband for a season, which happiness proves only

illusory, when sooner or later disappointment, calamity, or dissipation overtakes her husband, and all her future prospects are blighted, and nothing but want, misery, and destitution are staring her in the face. How often, aye, indeed, how often are such unfortunate cases met with! And now suppose only for one moment that this provision of the constitution was in operation, and this same wife had had at the time of her marriage a portion of property which had "remained her separate property" and was still hers and under her control, or suppose she should thereafter receive such property by gift, descent, or devise. How different, indeed, would be her prospects! Who that shall witness such a case but will exult and rejoice that the constitution of his state provides this security for the "rights of married women."

On the other hand, if the husband be a prosperous and worthy man, how can the wife's property, being beyond his control, be a source of affliction or trouble to him? Certainly the yearly income from such property will in some way come into the hands of his wife, and if she does not place it in his possession she will use it either for herself or her children, in either of which cases he will be directly benefited by it. But the truth is, in almost every case of this kind the wife will give her husband the whole control of the income from her separate property, since she will have no good reason to withhold it from him.

It is said again in opposition to this article that “such a law exists in France, and that more than one-fourth of the children annually born in Paris are illegitimate." Mr. Editor, if there is any man in this community more deserving of pity than another, it is he who is capable of uttering such a sentiment in opposition to this provision! What, sir, is this but a direct and slanderous imputation against the virtue of all our women! Our mothers, our wives, our sisters, and our daughters are all, all included in this fell denunciation! Such an objection is unworthy any man; it is unfit for public refutation, and as such I shall leave it to rankle in the heart of him only who has had the boldness and effrontery to state it.

In conclusion (for my article is already much longer than I intended) I will only say that so far as I am informed and have understood, this article is one of the most popular provisions in the constitution and will secure many strong friends for its adoption.

Most respectfully yours, etc.,

AGRICOLA

SUFFRAGE AND THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE

[March 6, 1847]

While the object of every constitution should be to dispense its blessings generally among the people, yet in most of the states. unjust restrictions are thrown around some of the most intelligent of our citizens, by not granting those equal privileges that by nature they are entitled to. In the constitution under which we hope to live, the same equal rights are acknowledged as belonging of right to the foreign as well as the native-born citizens. Neither of them enjoy privileges that the other does not possess. The laws regulating the purchase, sale, and discount of property must under the constitution be general in its effects.

The same probation of a year's residence to obtain the qualification of an elector is meted out to both, the foreigner being required, in addition, to take an oath to support the national and state constitutions. Those, however, of our foreign-born citizens who were possessed of the qualifications of electors for delegates to frame the constitution are by special provision "entitled to vote for or against its adoption and for all officers to be elected under it, without any additional oath." We hope that every foreign-born citizen will examine this provision and remember it when he is about to exercise the high privilege of a freeman that this constitution gives him. Everyone will admit that this provision is as perfect, as liberal, and as just as any citizen could demand. Can anyone whose citizenship is thus constitutionally created and acknowledged hope to be benefited by a change? If, as we admit, all our rights are secured, why endanger these rights by making them an open question for another convention? They will not be extended; they cannot be improved; and any change or modification of the present suffrage and elective franchise article must be at the expense of the rights and liberties of freemen, who by the mere accident of birth first saw the light under another sun.

There is an objection, a deep-seated opposition to this article in the hearts of many of the opponents of the constitution. It is not publicly pretended by its enemies, lest those whom they would unjustly deprive of the elective franchise may be led to examine the present constitutional provisions upon this subject. This is studiously avoided, while every fanciful objection that ingenuity and

misrepresentation can suggest is presented to the foreign-born citizen as a governing motive why he should join the ranks of his bitterest

enemy.

We hope that every citizen will read the whole constitution that he may be delighted with its beautiful features; but above all, let those that the constitution alone makes citizens "read, learn, and inwardly digest" this suffrage article and be convinced that their rights are now perfected and that the danger of an alteration is attendant upon their voting against the constitution.

We do not believe that in point of liberal principles another convention would go as far as the late one. Some of the delegates would contend that this suffrage article was popular with the people and hence must be altered to suit their views. To touch it is to injure, to alter is to destroy the acknowledgment of rights now guaranteed our citizens. Will the friends of the constitution see that this suffrage article is properly presented and understood?

RESOLUTIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION [March 6, 1847]

A meeting of the citizens of Dane County favorable to the adoption of the constitution was held pursuant to call at the supreme court room on Saturday, February 27, to take into consideration the propriety of organizing a Constitutional Club, and to adopt such other measures as might be deemed necessary to secure the adoption of the constitution in Dane County. The call of the meeting having been read, on motion of T. W. Sutherland, Wm. N. Seymour was called to the chair, and Ira W. Bird and Daniel N. Johnson were appointed secretaries.

On motion of J. G. Knapp a committee of five, consisting of Messrs. J. G. Knapp, H. W. Yager, Chester Bushnell, H. A. Tenney, and John Nelson, was appointed by the Chair to draft and report a series of resolutions expressive of the sense of the meeting.

The committee having retired, R. W. Lansing Esq. made some remarks, which he concluded by submitting the following resolutions, which were on motion laid on the table until the report of the committee shall be received:

"Resolved, That we view in the constitution a spirit of compromise and of liberal principles best adapted to all the present and future wants of the people, and as our delegates have shown by their extraordinary devotion to their wishes, welfare, and happiness, in protecting and guarding their interests their great regard and

respect for the people we, as a part of the whole community of that people, will most heartily and zealously respond to their devotion by giving the constitution a bold, vigorous, and untiring support regardless of the declamations and denunciations of demagogues, monopolists, sharks, sharpers, and political gamblers of every description.

"Resolved, That the constitution as a whole strikingly exhibits the preeminent powers and varied talent of its authors, illustrative of the fact that Wisconsin minds are not inferior to other sections of our country, and that we have reason to be justly proud of her distinguished sons, and should therefore requite their earnest endeavors to advance the good of the people by a free, full, and unbiased confirmation of the constitution.

"Resolved, That the article on the organization and functions of the judiciary contains several important and desirable improvements on the old system, and among these may be noticed, first, the creation of a supreme, circuit, probate, and justices' courts; second, the election of judges and justices by the people, who shall reside in the circuits for which they shall be elected; third, the election of a clerk of the circuit court and district attorney in each county; and fourth, the imposition of a tax on all civil suits commenced in the supreme or circuit courts, to pay the salaries of the judges, and that for these wise and wholesome provisions the constitution should receive, as it highly merits, the united suffrages of a free people.

"Resolved, That we will give the constitution an undivided support, and will use every fair and honorable exertion to procure its adoption, and that we call upon our fellow citizens, without distinction of party, sect, or name, to come forward and aid us in our laudable endeavors to ratify and confirm the constitution, so admirably adapted to all the wants and necessities of the people, and so well calculated to protect and foster their every interest.

"Resolved, That the constitution in many respects is well worthy the admiration and serious consideration of all good citizens, as being eminently calculated to advance the true interests, and to protect and cherish all the rights and privileges of the farmer, mechanic, and laborer, and to save them from a premature loss of their hard earnings, upon which, too often, the sharper and shaver glut themselves with impunity. That among the various provisions of the constitution not already enumerated may be mentioned the following, that is to say: