with the proper management of his domestic affairs will bring him a better income than the salary of a judge and will not, therefore, subject himself to such inconvenience and loss of domestic comfort, four years out of five, for the honor of being a judge. If a judge could remain in the district for which he is chosen and thereby be in reasonable reach of his home and domestic circle he might sacrifice whatever his practice would be worth over his salary for the sake of the bench, and especially if he intended at the expiration of his term, if not reëlected, to retire from business. But if, being a judge, he must add to his other sacrifices that of wandering from home like a lonely old bachelor and be alienated from his family, and besides all this be judging over people four-fifths of the time whom he knows did not vote for him for the office, he must have a morbid sensibility, be a mere demagogue, or in accepting the office give ample proof that he is deficient in talent to procure a living at home and is therefore not fit to sit on the bench. SOLON ANOTHER CONVENTION [January 30, 1847] It was a great oversight in our legislature last winter not to have provided for the contingency of the constitution being rejected. Had not our legislature before it the example of Iowa, whose people had just then rejected their constitution? Why submit the constitution at all, if we are not left free to adopt it or reject it on its merits? Why present to us the question of adoption in such a shape as to leave no alternative, no retreat? Nay; the strongest argument, the only argument left in favor of it, is that we are cornered and must take this constitution or none. No man now ever pretends to defend it or advocate its adoption upon any other grounds. Is it freedom of choice where, like Mr. Hobson, we have only one to choose from? Is it not a charming commencement in independent government to have a constitution thrust upon us? If a band of Mexican robbers meet a traveler in a mountain pass and politely ask him for the loan of his gold watch, which he accordingly delivers up, we call it robbery. Unbiased volition is freedom; anything short of it implies necessity, compulsion, slavery. Freedom multiplies alternatives and opens the door of retreat. Tyranny destroys alternatives and cuts off all retreat. It commands battalions of living men to advance upon the imminent breach and enforces the command with the bristling bayonets of other battalions in the rear. When Cortez landed his Spaniards in Mexico he burnt his fleet, so that the only alternative left for his troops was to fight. It is to be hoped that we have no civil Cortez in our present legislature who will be disposed to cut off our retreat from an obnoxious constitution. This thing of being pricked onward is practiced upon the plantation and in the army, but we are not, thank God, quite prepared for it in Wisconsin. A bill is now before our legislature, providing contingently for another convention. If the constitution now framed should be rejected, this bill provides for another and more select convention at a period so early that if it be adopted by the people, Wisconsin may come into the Union as early as she might under the constitution already framed. People of Grant! Send in your petitions to the legislature for the passage of this bill. We have a sensible, reasonable, untrammeled legislature, who dare to do right and will listen to your petitions. The choice of a constitution is a matter that rises above all party considerations. The constitution is the stamp and impress of state character. It is the duty of every man to see to it at this hour that the "state receive no detriment." It is the hour of imminent peril. Let every man stand by his post, and when our ship of state is all ready for the launch, with her rigging and her white canvas all complete, without a strip of piratical bunting about her, or a solitary drunken buccaneer on her quarter deck, let her ride into the squadron of states, the pride and admiration of the world. THE CONSTITUTION [March 27, 1847] We have written and published against the. constitution all the objections to it that we deemed valid. The people in the western part of the territory have from the beginning taken it upon themselves to judge of the constitution. The intelligence of the mines cannot be misled. Our electors have read, considered, and decided the question for themselves. The flaming harangues of noisy stump orators and the frothy sophistry of the press have had little to do with the making up of their verdict. The calm, sober judgment of Grant County, at least, condemns the constitution. The people here have acted, for they have no leaders and no party organization to swerve them from the sober exercise of their judgment. Not a solitary speech has here been made against that instrument that we know of. Both of the presses have uniformly sought to place the question of its adoption upon grounds entirely above and indepen dent of parties, although Whigs are known to be far more numerous here than Democrats. What means the Argus at Madison, while it assumes the ground taken by the Democratic caucus at [the] capitol that this is no party question-while it walks the fence like a mountebank between the Democratic friends and the Democratic foes of the constitution to prate about the misrepresentations of the "neutral Whig presses" of Grant? If there is a press in Wisconsin more in state of "betweenity" than another, that press is the Argus, which is always crying "Good Lord" to Marshall and "Good Devil" to Moses. The Argus can look as many ways as its fabulous namesake. BUCKEYE'S VIEWS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL SITUATION [March 27, 1847] Mr. Editor: I find the opinion has obtained to some extent among the honest, industrious, and economical classes in this territory that in case the constitution is rejected, the enormous expense of another convention will have the effect to bring a heavy state debt upon us and make our taxes insupportable. I propose to examine the grounds for these fears upon the principle of economy and see whether we are to be losers in dollars and cents by rejecting the constitution and calling a convention to revise and amend. And permit me to give my humble opinion as to some of the most essential amendments which we may reasonably expect to be made by a convention called for that specific purpose. My opinion upon this subject is the result of a close and careful observation of the objections raised to the constitution and the wishes of the people relative to those objectionable features. In the first place we may reasonably expect an amendment of article five, so as to reduce the number of members of our legislature-say to 60-20 would no doubt be too small a number, while 100, the number authorized by the constitution to compose our first legislature, is certainly entirely too large; and don't forget that the number at any time may be increased by the legislature to 160. To avoid both extremes in this matter is certainly the most politic. I have conversed with many of my fellow citizens upon this particular proposed amendment and have found them invariably of the opinion that this number would be sufficiently large for the next ten years. Now let us make a calculation and see how the case will stand upon the score of economy. The mileage of 40 members (the number we consider surplusage) at the average mileage of the members of the convention will amount to about $680; add to this $120 for stationery, etc., which is a very moderate estimate, and we have $800. The per diem allowance is $2, which will in 40 days amount to $3,200, making the aggregate $4,000 in a single session of 40 days, saying nothing about small incidental expenses, such as for papers, postage, etc. Multiply this by ten, the number of years we propose to have the number 60 to answer, and we have the very pretty sum of $40,000 useless expenditure under this creature called a constitution-I say creature for the reason that some of its features seem to transcend the bounds of formation, and hence the propriety of the term chosen to cover the case. And again suppose our legislature at their first sessions should think proper in their wisdom to increase their number to the extent of their authority. The unnecessary expenditure in ten years will amount to about $100,000. I have lived long enough and have observed closely enough to satisfy myself that legislative bodies are frequently composed to a considerable extent of cool, calculating politicians, in whose affections the interest of the dear people does hold with undisputed sway, but that little commendable spirit called "self-aggrandizement" finds a place and hence a reason to fear that within one year after the adoption of the present constitution our legislature will consist of 160 members. The number we propose is larger in proportion to the number of inhabitants than many of the state legislatures are, from which we hear no complaints of their numbers being too small. In the next place we may reasonably expect the article on banking so amended as to leave the matter in the hands of the people. For I hold that members of a convention called to amend the constitution will be morally and politically bound to amend in the precise manner indicated by the public will as made known through the ballot box independent of their own peculiar views or wishes, and certainly public sentiment cannot be mistaken on this subject, that it is in favor of the people governing themselves. In the next place we may reasonably expect the article on the rights of married women and exemption to be entirely erased from the constitution. For I find the people generally concede this to be a fit subject for legislation, and should not be incorporated into our constitution. We now reason a little upon the probable length of time it will take a convention to effect the amendments herein enumerated, with many others, which would no doubt be made, which will tend greatly to make the instrument perfect. If 125 men (laboring under many disadvantages, which another convention would not, which fact every observing mind must acknowledge) in 73 days produced the present constitution; how long will it take say 50 men-to amend the same, in a few particulars, and the mode particularly pointed out by the people. Not being skilled in the "double rule of three" or the "rule of five," I will guess 18 days. And now for the expense. The expenses of the late convention and the fitting up of the capitol were $29,977.48. Well now we have another plain question in arithmetic-if the expense of 125 men for 73 days was $29,977.48, what will be the expense of 50 men for 18 days? I will again guess and say $2,956.68. Necessary cost of publishing 20,000 copies of the constitution in the English and 10,000 in the German and Norwegian languages, as per estimate of the editor of the Milwaukee Sentinel and Gazette, about $3,111.70. For translating into the German and Norwegian languages, and for other necessary and incidental expenses, say $741.62, making the whole expense just $4,000, which I am satisfied is a liberal estimate. I invite the attention of adepts in the science of numbers to these guessings; they may be wrong, for I never attended a guessing school. Now, fellow citizens, don't forget these calculations in your zeal to get into the Union, or for economy, and particularly the certain $40,000 and the probable $100,000, to be drawn from you in the next ten years, to be uselessly squandered under this constitution. Beware of those political demagogues, who are traversing the land, singing the siren song: adopt the Constitution and you shall have it amended just to suit you. Remember what our Savior was promised by his Satanic Majesty if he would fall down and worship him. Is it to be presumed, if the Savior had complied, that the Devil would have been as good as his word? Certainly not, for he had not the power nor disposition-but he would have conquered the Savior. And if we adopt the constitution as it is, political demagogues would have conquered us, and will laugh at our calamity, and mock when we express fears that all will not be well with our lovely Wisconsin under (to use the words of a worthy citizen of Grant) "this tyranical, illegitimate, swindling concern," called a constitution. Now let us compare the two modes of amending. A convention would be called for that particular purpose, and a majority vote would pass any amendment while the duties devolving upon the legislature are manifold, and it requires a two-thirds' vote of all the members elected to effect a single amendment. And it is proved by past experience that an important measure can seldom be carried in a legislative body by a two-thirds' vote. I well recollect that over three thousand of your fellow citizens petitioned your legislature at its last session to make provision for another convention in case the constitution should be rejected. How were your rights regarded, |