SELECTIONS FROM THE PRAIRIE DU CHIEN PATRIOT VIEWS OF "OLD CRAWFORD FOREVER"-No. 1 MESSRS. EDITORS: As the time is approaching when we shall be called upon in the exercise of our franchise to vote for or against this important instrument, it is proper for us to scan its merits and demerits, so that we may vote advisedly if we do it at all. The instrument itself is admitted by its most sanguine friends to have defects, and even great defects, but these they hope to have amended at some future day so that the instrument may at some future day become perfect. Of such hopes I have none. If it is adopted now with all its deformities, it is extremely doubtful whether the constitutional majorities requisite to an amendment can ever be obtained. I would sooner expect the sovereign people would become tired of its utter impracticability and call a convention to adopt an entirely new one. My present object, however, is to call the attention of the people of "Old Crawford" to the glaring injustice done us by that instrument as to representative and senatorial districts. With a population of 1,444, we are tacked on to Richland County where I suppose (there being no returns) the population to be 400, making in all 1,844, to entitle us to one representative! But yet this notable instrument gives Calumet, with a population of 838, Manitowoc with a population of 629, Winnebago with 722, Sauk with 1,003, Portage with 951, and LaPointe with (supposed) 400 one representative each! If it be said that these small counties were so districted that as much as possible each county should form a district, then I ask in the name of the seven wonders of the world why Crawford County could not have formed one by itself as well as smaller ones, Richland being tacked upon Sauk, to which it joins as well as upon Crawford? Sauk has but 1,003 souls, while Crawford has 1,444, and if Richland was joined to Sauk, both would not equal Crawford in population. Why then tack Richland upon Crawford to equalize, while the adjoining county east of us has a still less population than we have? But there is another thing of grave importance to us. There is no direct communication from Crawford to Richland. Though the two counties join, there is no road other than an Indian trail leading directly from one to the other. All our communications with that county must be through Grant and Iowa counties. The election returns and all other mail matter must pass through Mineral Point and Lancaster and may be two weeks on the way. The mail from Lancaster to Blue River and from Mineral Point to Muskoda goes but once a week. There is no postoffice in Richland County; their postoffice is at Muskoda; and if mail matter reaches that office one day or one hour after the mail has started then it must lie there a week and then be a week on the way to this place. But there is a road from Richland County to Sauk and direct means of communication between them. Why not then join those two counties in one district, instead of Crawford and Richland? Another glaring absurdity in this representative districting is attaching St. Croix and Chippewa counties. This same notable instrument which does this provides, if Congress will sanction it -and it prays for that sanction-that the western boundary of the state shall come so far east of the St. Croix River as to leave all the settlement and indeed the whole county of St. Croix out of the state, which would leave Chippewa County, with a supposed population of 300, entitled to one representative. And to climax the absurdity of the whole, LaPointe County with a supposed population of 400 is entitled to one representative anyhow, while old Crawford, the second county organized in the territory, with a population of 1,444, must be attached to another county with which we have no communication whatever, not even in hunting, to be entitled to the same privilege. But all this is a mere trifle to the way we are used up in the senatorial districting. In this we are joined in with Marquette, Columbia, Portage (up in the Wisconsin pinery), Sauk, Richland, Chippewa, St. Croix, LaPointe. This entire district contains a population of 8,974 and is entitled to one senator, while Green County with only 4,758 has the same. Waukesha County has two senators at a ratio of 6,896 people; Walworth has two senators at a ratio of 6,719; Grant has two at a ratio of 6,017; and Rock has two at a ratio of 6,202. It is admitted that in forming districts entire counties are to be preserved as much as possible. But when several counties are to be attached for that purpose, there can be no necessity or justice to extend them over half creation and running up their ratio to a higher number of people than half the other districts formed in the state. Columbia County includes and lies east and south of Winnebago portage, and Marquette lies east and north of it. All our communication with them must be through Madison by a distance of one hundred and fifty to three hundred miles; and from their weight of population would rule, control, and use us up in the election. If Columbia and Marquette, which together have a population of 2,957, were taken off of this district, we should still have a population of 6,017, and if St. Croix is turned out of the state by the new line, we should still have 4,598-nearly equal to Green County. Now if Green County with a population of 4,758 is entitled to one senator because she could not conveniently be attached to another county, why should not Crawford have the same indulgence? In the Brown district there is a population of 10,032, which has one senator. Now if Fond du Lac was taken out of that district and joined to Marquette and Columbia, both of which join it, the three counties would have a population of 6,502, and would leave the Brown district with 6,488. This to be sure would be forming a new district and make 22 instead of 21 senators. But as this wise document does not limit the number of senators, only so as not to have more than one-third nor less than one-fourth the number of representatives, the convention could have easily made one district more, and still been with[in] the constitutional limits, and not have done such glaring injustice in the case. It is admitted that when the country is but thinly populated a greater extent of it must be connected in order to form election districts, and it is admitted that all the counties in this district except Columbia and Marquette are the most contiguous of any others. that could be joined together for this purpose. But where is the necessity of attaching Columbia and Marquette to Crawford and St. Croix while the district would have a fair ratio of population without them? Was it gerrymandering? If so who did it and for what purpose? We are all Democratic to the backbone; the convention was so, also, and that with a vengeance. What part or portion then of the district is to be neutralized by the other, when all are on one side? Or was it all done without due regard to our rights? Indeed as the matter now stands old Crawford is used up and soon to be forgotten. The heavy part of the vote in the district will be some one hundred and fifty miles east of us, of which we can have. no knowledge till the papers from Madison bring the news. And as to St. Croix and LaPointe, they had about as well be attached to Michigan, Texas, or California; they would have about as much communication, common interest, and feeling with the one as with the other. Now the question is: Are we of Old Crawford prepared to vote for an instrument which fastens upon us forever such an unjust, unnatural, and impolitic burden as this? We might as well give up our right of franchise for senator and let Richland represent us in the lower house and annex ourselves to Minnesota. Let every voter in Old Crawford bear in mind that if he votes for the constitution as it now stands he literally votes his county into political oblivion as to senatorial representation and greatly hampers the county in its representative election. OLD CRAWFORD FOREVER VIEWS OF "OLD CRAWFORD FOREVER"-No. 2 [February 29, 1847] 28 Of Internal Improvements-the provisions of the constitution contrary to the established Democratic doctrine on the subject of monopolies, and the great injustice done by it to the new and sparsely settled counties. MESSRS. EDITORS: Article XI on page 40 of the constitution now submitted for our adoption or rejection provides as follows: viz., "Section 1. This state shall encourage internal improvements by individuals, associations, and corporations, but shall not carry on or be a party in carrying on any work of internal improvement, except in cases authorized by the second section of this article. "Section 2. When grants of land or other property shall have been made to the state, especially dedicated by the grant to particular works of internal improvement, the state may carry on such particular works, and shall devote thereto the avails of such grants so dedicated thereto, but shall in no case pledge the faith or credit of the state or incur any debt or liability for such work of internal improvement." That I may not be misunderstood, I will here say that to the last clause above quoted, prohibiting the state from pledging its faith or credit, I make no objection. My objections lie against other parts of the article which I shall notice in the sequel. The first thing that strikes the mind in reading the above article is that "this state shall encourage internal improvements." By this we understand that it is the policy of the state and to be the 28 The paper is printed with this date line. The correct date for this and the succeeding article is March 2, 1847. policy of the state to encourage this all-important branch of business. To the correctness of this position all parties agree. The situation of our country-new and but just opening and developing its resources-the want of facilities to reach suitable markets for the surplus produce of our farms, mines, and forests, and the great advantages enjoyed by other states from such works all go to show irresistibly that internal improvement is the correct policy to be pursued by our young and thriving state. But the great question is, What kind of internal improvement do we need, or is best suited to our circumstances, and how shall this be accomplished? It has been the acknowledged and established doctrine of the dominant party in the Union since General Jackson made war upon the United States Bank that monopolies, such as association and corporation, are dangerous to the true interests of the country and should, therefore, not only not be encouraged but should be put down. Now what does this article of the constitution provide for? Why, in plain English, for the greatest of monopolies. Internal improvements shall be encouraged by individual associations and corporations. To illustrate. Take the acts of our last legislature incorporating two railroads, one from Sheboygan to Fond du Lac, say about forty miles long; and the other from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, say about two hundred miles long. Now the cheapest railroad I have read of cost about $12,000 per mile, which for two hundred miles would amount to $2,400,000, and for forty miles $480,000. The capital stock of these roads must be taken, if taken at all, principally by foreigners. It is not believed that $500,000 can possibly be raised in the state for these roads. The reason is we have no surplus at all—and what we have can be more profitably invested in trade or improvements of our own--and means interest will govern such in such matters, and one for the sake of a public good will invest his money where it will be less productive than it otherwise might be. It follows, then, that foreigners-that is people of other states or other nations-will own the capital stock if it is owned at all. Now a monopoly is the sole power of doing a thing. And the owners of these roads, if ever made, will have the sole power of conveying goods, produce, passengers, etc., on their roads. The stockholders invest their money therein to be productive of profit: and as the stockholders will and must in the nature of things have entire control of these monopolies they will in the nature of things |