every respect with the other sex. By parity of reasoning it is right they should vote and be eligible to the highest offices of state or nation, and thus is dissolved at once the charm, the beauty, and the glory of the female character. But, say the advocates of this doctrine, this will never be carried out. Every woman who has a decent husband will of her own act make her husband the principal, the representative, and executor of her interest and estate. This is undoubtedly true and so it is that every woman who has a husband she cannot respect, who is the bane of her happiness, a curse to himself and all around, will do the same and when others scoff and despise she will weep and endure. And so their argument falls to the ground, and it is fairly proved that if a man really wishes to provide for his child against these contingencies he must to be safe (and as it is now done)leave property in trust for her benefit and use. But is it not true that the principle contained in this provision if carried out will tend to subvert the whole order of society? While it fails to give true elevation to the female character, will it not drag down and degrade the husband? And if it be not carried out to its fullest extent of mischief (and I have sufficient faith in the majority of the sex to believe it will not be) what other object will it serve except to cover fraud? The married ladies of this territory do not need or ask any such provision. It commends itself to rogues only, except it be a few tight-fisted fathers and superannuated mothers who look upon the marriage relation as a mere matter of convenience or at best as a mutual contract of separate parties, and not a sacred, indivisible union, and who look upon the husband (if he possess little of this world's goods) as the mere appendage of their daughter's happiness, who are by no means able to enlarge the boundaries of their affections, and are forever tormented with fear lest some extra advantages may incidentally accrue to him who is so unfortunate as to be their son-in-law. Away with such notions as these. We have been accustomed to look upon intermarriage as the grand assimilating principle, which is to make us one homogeneous people; that although we are now composed of every people and kindred and tongue under the whole heaven, so that our whole social system seems almost resolved to its original elements, when a few years have passed away new and strong ties will have sprung up, new relations will have been instituted, so that the whole will be bound together in a harmonious system. Shall we then, now that we are laying the foundation upon which society is to be built up, throw the apple of discord into families? What if it is covered over with gold, the results are none the less bitter. What Apelles shall then

arise sufficiently skillful to portray upon canvass the modern Venus with the wreath of gold, not of beauty or affections? No honorable rivalry will then make genius hesitate, but instead we shall have looks of scorn and words of bitter hate. Shall we then incorporate that into the constitution which shall cause that which has hitherto been the connecting link between different families to be the very means of arraying one family against another, the husband against the wife, and the wife against the husband? I trust this perpetual source of controversy in families, this fomenter of discord, and cover for innumerable frauds, will receive its quietus with the rejection of the constitution by the people.

THE CONSTITUTION-THE EXEMPTION ARTICLE

[March 9, 1847]

M

The exemption of forty acres of land with the improvements thereon, the value of which is not to exceed a thousand dollars, is a subject that has engaged since the adjournment of the convention a good deal of attention from men that will for a time at least come under its provisions. It was doubtless designed to please that class of voters, and to catch their votes, which, if it could do, would secure a pretty important class so far as numbers are concerned. Many of this class have taken the matter into consideration and have discovered how it will affect their business and their interest, and if we mistake not the signs of the times, a large proportion of this class will oppose the constitution.

Nothing that could be done will do as much to establish an aristocracy among the people as this section in the constitution. It will draw a distinct line of demarcation between the men who have but forty acres and those who happen to have an eighty or a quarter section of land. Consequently, if a man is known to have but forty acres of land and a house upon it, he must be by the natural course of trade denied a credit, while the man who has an eighty will have forty acres' security for what credit he may want, while the man who has one hundred and sixty acres will have one hundred and twenty acres' and of course will be able to obtain a larger amount of freedom in the transaction of business. Take away this provision, and all will come more on an equality. Men who have large properties will of course be entitled to a larger credit in doing business; but it should be in proportion to the property which they possess. Under this constitution it will not be so. The

man who has but forty acres may be worth much more than the man who has an eighty. The forty acres may be worth the $1,000, while the eighty may not be worth $300; yet the latter will be better able to obtain credit than the man who is worth three times as much, and all because he has his property in a larger amount of land. Now in all this we contend there is no equality or justice. This provision will be a curse to him and not a blessing.

Much is said about giving him an inalienable right in the soil. But this does not secure him any inalienable right. The legislature may in carrying out the details provide many ways by which the land may be alienated. The act itself provides that it may be sold on mortgage lawfully obtained, or upon any mechanic's or laborer's lien. Here are two ways, at least, by which his property in this land may be alienated. A mechanic who works on or who builds a house, a man who furnishes lumber for building on the land, the man who breaks up the land may by legislative action consistent with the constitution obtain liens upon the homestead, by which his title may be alienated. And worst of all, if by his perseverance, industry, and economy it should arrive in value to be more than $1,000, it is at once out of the pale of this law and enjoys no protection whatever. All the protection then that it enjoys is just enough to embarrass him in his business and to reduce him to a grade inferior in point of privilege to his neighbors, while in fact he may be worth more than the lord of eighty acres.

This is the point in the progression to which our progressive democracy has arrived. A plebeian or inferior order is to be established. We believe that most of the people of the territory know their rights and interests better. Some of our Shylocks contend that credit is not what we want-that it would be better not to have credit at all. We appeal to our neighbors who have but forty acres, and ask them whether they are willing to be placed by the law in a condition that they cannot get credit under any circumstances. Are you prepared to say now that you do not and never will want credit? We admit that it is better at all times to keep out of debt, when we can, but from what we have seen of the world, we come to the irresistible conclusion that there are circumstances where a little credit is of vast importance, and we should hesitate long before we would lift our hands to deposit a vote that would cut us off from the privilege of a lawful credit with our neighbors and reduce us to the condition of barbarians.

MR. O'CONNOR ON RIGHTS OF MARRIED WOMEN

[March 16, 1847]

The article securing certain rights to married women in the proposed constitution of Wisconsin instead of being an original idea of our western ultraists was a rejected provision filched almost verbatim from the files of the conventional proceedings of the late convention in New York, which found its way there through some kindred spirit who was unfortunately elected to that body. Its absurd and dangerous provisions drew out the eloquence and sound reasoning of which a majority of that honorable body was composed, and on a reconsideration a quietus was put upon it by its rejection by a respectable majority. We would respectfully call the attention of all to the speech of Mr. O'Connor, as one of the voices from the Empire State. Voters of Wisconsin, weigh well this unwholesome provision before you allow it by your vote or your neglect to vote to become a part and parcel of our fundamental law.

Mr. O'Connor called up the motion on reconsidering this question. He remarked that the sudden manner in which it had first been brought up had prevented full discussion, had allowed no time for deliberate reflection, and led the convention to form a hasty judgment. He had not argued the point then, but rather than permit so important a resolution to be passed sub silentio, he would endeavor to compress within the allotted fifteen minutes argument enough to induce reflection. And he was sure that due reflection would induce a majority to reverse the former vote. He regarded this section as more important than any which had been adopted— perhaps than all the rest of the constitution. If there was anything in our institutions that ought not to be disturbed by the stern hand of the reformer, it was the sacred ordinance of marriage and the relations arising out of it. The difference between the law of England and that of most other nations was that it established the most entire and absolute union and identity of interest of persons in the matrimonial state. It recognized the husband as the head of the household, merged in him the legal being of the wife so thoroughly that in contemplation of law she could scarcely be said to exist. The common law of England was the law of this country, and both were based upon the gospel precept "They twain shall be one flesh." Pure as its origin-the fountain of Holy Writ-the common law rule upon this subject had endured for centuries; it had passed the ocean with our ancestors and cheered their first rude cabins in the

wilderness; it still continued in all its original vigor and purity and with all its original, benign tendency and influences, unimpaired by any change of climate or external circumstances. Revolution after revolution had swept over the home of married love here and in the mother country; forms of government had changed with Protean versatility, but the domestic fireside had remained untouched. Woman, as wife or mother, had known no change of the law which fixed her domestic character and guided her devoted love. She had as yet known no debasing pecuniary interest apart from the prosperity of her husband. His wealth had been her wealth, his prosperity her pride, her only source of power or distinction. Thus had society existed hitherto. Did it need a change? Must the busy and impatient besom of reform obtrude without invitation its unwelcome officiousness within the charmed and charming circle of domestic life, and there, too, change the laws and habits of our people? He trusted not. He called not only upon husbands, but upon brothers, sons-all who held the married state in respect-to pause and deliberate before they fixed permanently in the fundamental law this new and dangerous principle. No change should be made in the rules affecting husband and wife. The habits and manners built upon these rules and arising out of them could not be improved and ought to be perpetuated. The firm union of interest in married life, as established by the common law, occasionally in special instances produced deplorable evils, but its general influence upon the members of society was most benign. This was exhibited in the past history of England and in our own country and was visible in the existing condition of our people. Why change the law, and by a rash experiment put at risk the choicest blessings we enjoy? Husbands in America are generally true and faithful protectors of their wives; wives in America are generally models for imitation. The least reflection must convince that this state of manner amongst us results from the purity of our laws for domestic government. These laws ought not then to be changed lest manners should be changed with them. The proposition came in an insidious and deceitful form; it came with professions of regard for women. and thus won a ready access to the favor of all good men; but like the serpent's tale to the first woman, it tended if it did not seek to degrade her.

He thought the law which united in one common bond the pecuniary interest of husband and wife should remain. He was no true American who desired to see it changed. If it were changed and man and wife converted as it were into mere partners, he believed a