What objection has the Sentinel and Gazette to this article? Is it too liberal to our foreign population? Is this article wrong, and should the constitution be rejected because it has been inserted? By it all foreigners twenty-one years of age and upwards are entitled to vote, first declaring their intention to become citizens pursuant to the laws of the United States, provided they have resided one year within the territory or state previous to the time of voting. Does the Sentinel and Gazette object to this? We say this article is right, and so will the people say at the ballot box next April when they adopt the constitution by a thumping majority.

THE EXEMPTION CLAUSE

[January 20, 1847]

"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."

The above is one of the provisions in the new constitution, against which the federal press in the territory takes the strongest grounds. Some of their most potent arguments are that it will destroy credit, throw open the door to fraud, and retard the collection of debts. We believe the effect will be quite the reverse, but let us for one moment examine the subject. All debts of whatever character that were contracted previous to the adoption of the constitution most certainly cannot be affected by it in any particular, the same property always remaining liable for the payment of the debt, that was liable at the time the debt was contracted. Any provision in the constitution of any state or any law enacted by the legislature of any state which could alter or vary this principle would be rendered nugatory by article I, section 10, clause first of the Constitution of the United States, which expressly declares

"that no state shall pass any ex post facto law or laws impairing the obligation of contracts." Hence we perceive that the objectionable provision can in no wise affect the rights or interests of those who have or may give credit previous to the new constitution becoming the organic law.

Let us now inquire what will be the probable result after that period. The basis of credit is either character or property liable to execution, or both. If character alone is the basis of credit, then it follows of course that the pecuniary circumstances of the applicant for credit will not be inquired into, for he of whom the credit is asked relying confidently upon the integrity of the applicant feels that he would not wrong him by entering into any engagement which he would not be able to meet. If property alone is the basis of credit, then certainly the pecuniary circumstances of the applicant only would be inquired into. Now if character and property both form the basis of credit, which is nine times out of ten the fact, both will be inquired into the character as far as it is good, and the property as far as it is tangible will have weight and no further. Therefore we cannot conceive how the creditor, if he exercises ordinary prudence, can be defrauded or deceived by anything contained in this provision, for surely, not having in the first instance placed any reliance upon the property exempt, he cannot suffer wrong or disappointment in not receiving from it any benefit.

Again, suppose the debtor creates liabilities which he is unable to meet. Would it not be to the advantage of his creditors that he be allowed to retain his humble homestead? We answer most decidedly in, the affirmative for the very obvious reason that it would leave in his hands the means with which he would almost necessarily accumulate property which his creditors (if he would not voluntarily) could compel him to apply to the liquidation of his debts.

But on the other hand, strip a man of his all, surround him with the officers of the law ready to deprive him of every dollar as soon as acquired, and that man will either coolly and deliberately turn scoundrel and set himself about devising plans to evade what he deems harsh and tyrannical laws, or broken in spirit as well as in fortune will hopelessly lie down in his rags and there miserably die, his last moments embittered with the knowledge that he leaves his family houseless and homeless to the tender mercies of a cold and unfeeling world that never showed him sympathy. The spirit which actuates opposition to this provision in the constitution is not new; it is the same that the philanthropist in every age of the world has been obliged to contend with when urging forward any measure

calculated to benefit and elevate the laboring classes. It is the same spirit that in New York so strenuously and vehemently opposed the law abolishing imprisonment for debt; and the same arguments that were used by the opponents of that measure are now urged openly and boldly by the enemies of this. We trust in God that their opposition may prove as futile and the result as glorious. We call upon every friend of humanity and equal rights to sustain this measure. We call upon the rich to sustain it in the name of justice and for their own honor. We call upon every poor and laboring man to give it a noble and determined support, in duty to themselves, in duty to their families, in duty to their class.

THE COURIER CRITICIZED BY ANDREW E. ELMORE

[January 27, 1847]

Mukwonago, January 23, 1847

SIR: In answer to an article of the (I suppose Southport) American in your last paper you give as reasons for supporting the constitution, among others, that “It was framed by Democrats; it will receive the almost unanimous support of the Democratic party; we believe the people will adopt it because the universal Whig party oppose it."

Now, sir, it appears to me that those reasons for supporting the constitution are like those of the Sentinel for opposing it—very pitiful. No matter how bad anything may be coming from the Democrats, support it-seems to be the doctrine of the Courier. No matter how good it may be, if it comes from the Locofocos-oppose it, that of the Sentinel. Honest men who think despise such principles. It is not true that the universal Whig party oppose the constitution. That those who prefer that their party should be successful, if needs be at the expense of their country's welfare, oppose the constitution is true; but the mass of the producing Whigs with whom I have conversed go for its adoption, because, as a whole, it is a document worthy of their support and eminently calculated to place the producer where he should be-on a level with the "business man"; and because it is emphatically and truly a constitution for the man that works-the "toiling thousand." A majority of the Whig delegates to the convention, after its completion, openly proclaimed they would support the constitution and left Madison with this sentiment. I have heard from two of them only since the adjournment, and one, the veteran Drake of Columbia, is, my informant says, doing battle manfully for it, and who will accuse him of being anything else than a Whig?

Those delegates who were friends of the constitution when they left Madison and oppose it now will be branded by all honest men as they deserve, base, cowardly, and treacherous, for they prefer their party's success to their country's welfare.

I know that hundreds-I believe thousands-of Whigs will support the constitution, and in their name I demand that this communication be published wide as the slander that called it forth.

Our friend Elmore is too quick in his application to make a good sermoniser. However, we acknowledge the justice of his position

and the truth of his remarks. But while we acknowledge so much, we claim that our object has not been to make the adoption of the constitution a partisan measure. In the first number of the Courier which was issued after the adjournment of the convention we recommended the constitution as worthy the support of Democrats. This, instead of giving offense to any, was intended for all who believe in constituting and administering government for the great-· est number. We have urged the adoption of the constitution upon the ground that it goes further in protecting the rights of the masses than any state constitution which has heretofore been framed. In charging the "universal Whig party" with opposition we intend to be understood, in the usual acceptation of the term, as meaning the leaders of that party. The facts warrant us in saying that it was a deliberate and thoroughly concocted party scheme to oppose the constitution at all events, even before it was known what its details would be. This is proved by the course of the Sentinel, which commenced its attack upon the convention during the first week of its sitting, and also from the fact that all the Whig papers simultaneously attack the constitution without particularizing their ground of opposition. The town leaders of the "universal Whig party" have sent forth their fiat to the masses; it remains to be seen whether it will be obeyed. That there will be independence enough on the part of the people to consult their own interests in the matter we do believe and therefore confidently predict the adoption of the constitution.

CONCERNING THE "LORD'S DAY" CAUCUS

[January 27, 1847]

MUKWONAGO, January 26, 1847

To the Editor of the Milwaukee Courier:

SIR: The accompanying communication was sent to the editor of the Sentinel on the day of its date. It has not been published therein as requested. Will you insert it in the Courier as an act of justice to me?

Yours, etc.,

ANDREW E. ELMORE MUKWONAGO, January 21, 1847

To the Editor of the Milwaukee Sentinel:

In your daily paper of the fifteenth instant, you call the attention of your readers to a communication of C. M. Baker and make sundry comments thereon. I have read the letter of Mr. Baker and your comments with attention and have been forced to the conclusion that your course in relation to this matter is, to say the least, ungenerous.

On Sunday evening, December 6, 1846, a caucus of the Whig members of the convention was held in the room in the capitol occupied by the Clerk of the District Court and the territorial Treasurer, the object of the caucus being to determine what course the Whigs should pursue on a certain measure to benefit the party. I have it from good authority that you are not ignorant of that fact. Your denial of any knowledge of such caucus will, however, to me, prove perfectly satisfactory, and it will no doubt afford you much gratification to lash these "Sunday Caucus" Whigs as they deserve.

If you are altogether governed by motives of justice and a sense of duty you would of course be pleased to have me write you the facts in relation to the way the single district system was killed and how very handsomely one of the "Sunday Caucus" Whig members of the convention managed to put off his "fifty cent extra" scrip, and how this same gentleman from an ardent supporter of the constitution when he left Madison was transformed into an opponent.

Your very gentlemanly phrases, "rump convention," etc., the people duly appreciate, and, so far as my knowledge extends, are making converts for the constitution, as men who think for themselves appreciate such things rightly.

I request you to publish this communication, because it is well known I was present at the caucus on Sunday evening, December thirteenth, 1846, and I like manliness and hate hypocrisy.

Yours, etc.,

ANDREW E. ELMORE

THE ELECTION OF JUDGES

[February 3, 1847]

An elective judiciary, it has been said, cannot be independent in their opinions. Judges dependent for their continuance in office upon popular favor will be biased in their opinions by the prejudices of the community. The first and obvious reply to this remark is that it applies with equal force against every elective office. Disguise it as we will, it is nothing more nor less than an argument against all elective governments. It is an argument which if carried out to its full extent in practice would result in the overthrow of republican institutions. Would not the advocates of hereditary power employ precisely the same reasoning to prove that we should have an hereditary executive? Would not they say that a king is independent and has no hopes or fears to restrain him from doing