Mr. Holliday was replied to by Messrs. Don Alonzo Jenkins Upham and A. D. Smith, whose great effort seemed to be to excel one another in playing the demagogue, opinions being equally divided as to which filled the character best. Mr. Upham's chief argument was that if a new convention should be held it would be composed of a majority of Whigs (a precious confession of the unpopularity of the last convention!) and a Whig constitution would be framed, "and who," exclaimed the Don, gracefully bowing till his head touched the floor, while the skirts of his coat swept the ceiling, "who would live under a Whig constitution?" Why we can tell the Don for his information that he has lived under a Whig constitution ever since he was born, the Constitution of the United States being Whig and nothing else. Following this worthy pair, Messrs. Smith and Upham, came Mr. Kilbourn in a manly, logical, and most effective speech, addressed to the reason, not the prejudices and passions of his auditors, and administering a most cutting rebuke to those who were attempting to force the constitution down the people's throats as a party question. Mr. L. P. Crary next appeared upon the stand and as this gentleman's name was attached to the call, and he was known to have expressed himself in favor of its object, it was supposed that he would follow in Mr. Kilbourn's footsteps and take ground for the new convention. But the very reverse of this happened. Whether it was that he had forgotten what side he meant to take, or (as is more likely) the habit of opposing everything Mr. Kilbourn supports controlled even his opinion and course on the present question, Mr. Crary, to the amazement of all (himself included), came out flat-footed in favor of the new constitution. After a moving introduction, in which he dwelt upon the wickedness of Whiggery, and the excellence of Democracy, and laid down the incontrovertible truth that his side of the question did not admit of common sense argument, he broke out into a highly poetic eulogium upon the constitution, closing with the words, "and I say, Mr. Chairman, in the language of the poet, 'with all thy faults I love thee still.'"

Here the audience, fearful that some accident, such as a blowup, or breakdown, might befall the speaker, interrupted him with cries of "Hold on, Crary!" "Don't hurt yourself!" "Let up!" etc., mingled with some less complimentary ejaculations, such as "Off! Off!" "Down! Down!" "Oh! Oh!" "Hustle him out," etc. Under this storm of compliments Mr. Crary sat down, and immediately The war which for a space did fail,

Now, doubly thundering, swelled the gale.
And "Holliday" was the cry!

Nor Holliday alone, for Mr. Coon, rising to speak at the same moment, and it being known that Mr. Coon came charged with a "regular" speech, from the "regular" Democratic headquarters, the Courier office, many were anxious to hear him. Accordingly, some called for "Coon" and some for "Holliday," each party trying to down the other by their stentorian efforts. Intermingled with these cries were to be heard every little while three groans for the "Constitution!" Three cheers ditto! "Down with the Whigs!" "Hurrah for the Democracy!" with a variety of cat calls, a confusion of tongues, and a clamor of noises which would have done credit to Tammany Hall itself. In the midst of the din, Judge Job Haskell, formerly of New York City, feeling himself "at home," rose to "a point of order!" But "order" was precisely what the meeting wouldn't have and the Judge was incontinently silenced.

Meantime, while confusion worse confounded thus prevailed in the body of the meeting, the officers were endeavoring to proceed with the business. A resolution disapproving of the new convention was offered in dumb show to the chairman, put by him in the same satisfactory way, and declared carried. A motion for adjournment immediately followed and was similarly disposed of, the chairman, suiting the action to the word, slipping out of the back door and a few others who were in the secret stealing out of the front. But though the officers thus deserted, the "rank and file" stood their ground, evidently with a determination to see the matter out before they broke up. By this time, too, most of the "disorganizers" had "hollered" themselves hoarse and being no longer able to render the service for which they had been engaged were marched over to the "American" by one or two of the file-leaders and treated all round. Taking advantage of this favorable juncture and still supposing that the meeting was all one way Mr. W. W. Graham moved that another chairman (whom we did not know) should be appointed and Mr. Richard Murphy named as secretary. This done, Mr. Graham offered a new resolution declaring that it would be inexpedient to call another convention until the constitution already framed should have been acted upon by the people. Mr. Holliday immediately moved as an amendment that the Democracy of Milwaukee County were in no wise identified with the constitution now submitted but on the contrary were opposed to it, and that it would be expedient for the legislature to provide for a new convention.

Here another incipient row commenced but was promptly stilled by the new chairman, who did his duty like a man, promising that every speaker should be heard in turn if all would keep quiet. Order

having been restored by the exertions of the Chair, a brief discussion ensued in which Messrs. Holliday, Graham, and Magone took part and then, the question having been taken, Mr. Graham's motion was voted down and Mr. Holliday's amendment adopted, each by large and decisive majorities. Having thus after three hours of clamor and confusion accomplished the object for which it had assembled the meeting quietly adjourned. Just before separating, however, on motion of Dr. Noyes, they voted by acclamation "fifty cents extra" to the members of the convention (Messrs Upham, Graham, Huebschmann, and Magone) who had distinguished themselves during the evening by their arduous efforts and services in behalf of the constitution.

Such is a "plain, unvarnished" account of the meeting on Saturday. We were during the last half of the evening a "looker on" and must confess our amazement that men pretending to be Democrats should resort to such means as were employed on this occasion to gag the people and force them to swallow the constitution, willy, nilly. A decent respect for themselves, if not for their fellow citizens ought, it seems to us, to have restrained Messrs. Upham, Graham, Magone, and Huebschmann from any interference with the meeting and especially from any forcible attempt to stifle the public voice. Still more should a regard for the public peace have prevented Justice Matthieson, Constable Guerin, and others of our city authorities from aiding and abetting a row of the above description. How shall law and order be made to prevail, if those who are charged with the duty of maintaining are the first to trample them under foot! The contest was between the people and the officeholders, and as usual the latter were eventually worsted. We doubt not that, despite their desperate and reckless efforts, a like fate awaits them at the ballot boxes in April.

AN ARGUMENT FOR NEGRO SUFFRAGE
[February 16, 1847]

MARTINSVILLE, February 8, 1847 MESSRS. EDITORS: In the first words spoken by our infant nation this remarkable sentence occurs, referring to the then King of Great Britain: "He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only." Again of the same personage: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws,

giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation for (among other things) imposing taxes on us without our consent." And finally declares: "A prince whose character is marked with every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Was this declaration of our patriot fathers true? Was it indeed tyranny in the British king to rob any part of the people of a representation in the legislature? And was it inestimable to them, and formidable to none save tyrants? And was it true that taxation without representation was tyranny? It would seem it was then so considered, for it made a prominent item in the indictment against the reigning monarch that he assented to such taxation, and it was declared by American statesmen to be sufficient of itself to warrant a dissolution of their political connection. Then what apology can be urged when the same tyranny is attempted by a republican state? Or is it possible it was tyranny in the one and not in the other? Was it tyranny seventy years ago in George III of England—and the same thing now a righteous and rightful prerogative of the dominant power in democratic Wisconsin?

The constitution submitted to the people of Wisconsin robs a class of men born on our soil-it may be industrious and worthy-of all "right of representation in the legislature" or any voice in the election of their own rulers. It assumes the right to tax them without their consent. And all, forsooth, because their complexion is not the orthodox complexion of the state.

If it shall be said that we will exempt the colored people from taxation, what then becomes of the main if not the only argument against negro suffrage, viz., that it would invite an overwhelming colored population to our state? If the right of suffrage, while accompanied with taxation, should have that tendency, would not the inducement be much stronger if the same class of men should have the same right to hold any amount of property here, and that property forever free from taxation, though the right of suffrage be denied? There is no danger to the state in being just to all men. And every reason that can be adduced in favor of the right of suffrage for the white man applies with equal force to the black; and at least one other reason of great weight in favor of the latter, which has no application in the former case. It is that there is in society a strong and determined prejudice against the negro and his rights on account of his color. It is therefore the more necessary that he should be allowed to defend himself at the ballot box by assisting to elect such men to rule over him as shall rule in righteousness and mete out equal and exact justice to all men.

THE CONSTITUTION-THE LEGISLATURE

[February 18, 1847]

MR. EDITOR: Not deeming the question of the adoption or rejection of the constitution as political in its nature so far as concerns either the Whig or Democratic parties I hope you will allow one of your Democratic subscribers the use of your columns, in order briefly to express his views in opposition to a particular article of the constitution upon which, as yet, I have seen no comment in your journal. I refer to article 5, on the constitution and organization of the legislature. The first two sections are as follows:

"Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in a senate and house of representatives.

"Section. 2. The number of the members of the house of representatives shall never be less than 60 nor more than 120. The senate shall consist of a number of members not greater than onethird nor less [than] one-fourth of the number of the members of the house of representatives."

From these sections it appears that the legislature can never consist of less than 75, and may be increased to 160 members, either number much too large for the limited resources and small population of this territory. And as the legislature are themselves to fix their own number, we cannot but presume that at their very first session they will go up to the highest mark, and once there, they will never reduce it. The bank article, the exemption article, the judiciary article, every other article in the constitution may be altered for better or for worse by the legislature, but it is not in human nature for that body to cut down their own numbers. Assuming then that the number of members of the legislature will be 160, let us look at the results. Instead of a quiet, orderly session of forty or fifty days we shall have a stormy one of three or four months; instead of the passage of good and wholesome laws for the benefit of those they represent, their time will be consumed in useless debates and partisan squabbles, in speeches to buncombe, and idle attempts at self-glorification. In short, so large a body of men, composed of such discordant and conflicting materials as it necessarily must be, will not be likely to accomplish more business in a session of four months than our board of county supervisors, twelve in number, would do in as many weeks. It may be said that the pay is so small that members will be glad to dispatch business and adjourn as soon as possible. But not so. There are few of that class.