Primary tabs

iii

Preface.

The addition of seventy-two years to Illinois history, and a fifth attempt to remodel her fundamental law, have made apparent the value of publishing the debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1847. Working in an atmosphere of "economy, retrenchment, and reform," the delegated representatives of the authority of this Commonwealth in 1847 decided to forego an official edition of debates and content themselves with newspaper versions. Many were aware of the service which a collection of debates would have rendered to other bodies similarly engaged in that time of constitutional reform; they were not so alive to their obligations to posterity and to their successors in constitutional amendment in Illinois.

The present volume is the result of an effort to reconstruct the records of this convention. The most complete single account available was found in the tri-weekly edition of the Illinois State Register; strangely enough, however, the weekly edition often contained more detailed accounts of certain addresses and debates. The reporters were not always prompt in their arrival nor were they always able to hear what was said. The Register, too, was not always ready to devote space to the utterances of party opponents. It left this obligation to its rival, the Sangamo Journal. No other papers in Illinois attempted to present a running record of the debates. Newspaper correspondents were at the convention in force but at best they were satisfied with

iv

making daily memoranda of the topics discussed, of the trend of the debates, and of the current political gossip. The version presented in this volume is the Register tri-weekly account supplemented in important omissions by items from the weekly edition and from the Sangamo Journal.

The preparation of this volume has been made possible by the cooperation of Mrs. Jessie Palmer Weber of the Illinois State Historical Library and of Dr. W. F. Dodd of the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau. The newspaper files used in the text were those of the Illinois State Historical Library. They have been supplemented for editorial work by the files of the Chicago Historical Society, of the Newberry Library, Chicago, of the Library of Congress, and of the Illinois Historical Survey. The index has been prepared for the practical use of students of political science by Miss Ethel Gwinn, working under the direction of Professor John A. Fairlie. I am especially indebted to Miss Nellie C. Armstrong, who, in the capacity of editorial assistant, has shown the greatest zeal and care in collating and proof-reading.

ARTHUR C. COLE
URBANA, ILLINOIS
January, 1920

xv

Introduction.

A little over two decades of development under its original charter of statehood brought Illinois to the point where it chafed at the restraints of its constitutional swaddling clothes. The movement for a new constitution, therefore, received definite recognition in the legislative session of 1840-1841 when a joint resolution to refer the question of a Constitutional Convention to the popular vote received more than the two-thirds vote required by the fundamental law. The Belleville Advocate soon listed seventeen reasons for a convention and in successive issues proceeded to explain them to its readers, who seem to have responded favorably to the program set forth. Most of the political spokesmen of the day, however, hesitated to place specific reasons for a convention before the voters with the result that the election of August 1, 1842, revealed a serious indifference on the part of the electorate and the proposition failed to secure the required majority.

Again in 1845 the General Assembly moved to submit the proposition to the electorate and this time the convention backers carried the day by a vote of 57,806 to 18,568. There followed a fight between northern Illinois and Egypt as to whether the census of 1840 or the figures of 1845 should be used as a basis

xvi

for apportionment. In this skirmish the northern advocates of the 1845 basis were successful in securing for their section the advantage of its rapid growth during the forties. On April 19, 1847, the election of delegates took place. By this time the party leaders were trying to define a strategy which would enable them to control the situation. The Democrats became more and more vocal on the importance of an anti-bank provision, of popular election of state officials, including even supreme court judges, of an effective veto power, and of insuring the infusion of pure democratic principles into the fundamental law. The Whigs openly accepted the popular demand for economy and reform; inwardly they nursed hopes of excluding foreigners from suffrage by a citizenship qualification and of inserting a clause permitting some sort of a banking system. The Democrats hauled out the obligation of party regularity while the Whigs concealed their ambitions in a subtle insinuating appeal to a "no party" stand. When at length the results of the election were tabulated it was found that while the Democrats had elected a safe majority with 91 out of the 162 delegates, the Whigs were represented in sufficient force to occasion a grave element of uncertainty in the work of the convention.

The Constitutional Convention which assembled at Springfield, June 7, 1847, included only 7 native Illinoisians. There were 26 New Englanders, 38 from the middle states, 35 from the South Atlantic seaboard, 41 from Kentucky and Tennessee, and 10 from Ohio

xvii

and Indiana. Here was eloquent testimony to the westward course of empire. Of the delegates, the farmers with 75 were most numerous, but there were 54 lawyers, besides 12 physicians, 9 merchants, 5 mechanics, and 7 others. It was a body of young men nearer in age to the two twenty-six-year-old delegates than the sage of sixty-six.

Several members brought to the convention valued experiences garnered in long and active political careers. The most conspicuous of these was Zadoc Casey, of Mt. Vernon, whose public services had already included a term as lieutenant-governor, and five terms in Congress. At the age of fifty-one, however, he seems to have lost much of his vigor of action, so that the quiet influence of his presence was greater than that of his utterances before the convention; there was complaint, indeed, that instead of participating in the debates and giving the delegates the benefit of his age and experience, he offered "nothing but continual croaking, adjourn! adjourn."

The group of more active participants in the convention debates included delegates in various stages of their public careers. William R. Archer, a rising young lawyer from Pittsfield, displayed qualities of leadership which explain his later political activity. Albert G. Caldwell, a Shawneetown attorney, Charles H. Constable, an influential Whig leader and state senator, were frequently on the floor of the convention. Thompson Campbell of Galena, who had for four years rendered capable service as secretary of state, was an

xviii

energetic and eloquent spokesman of the Democratic faith. John Dement, the Dixon delegate, by his activity qualified for his later services in the constitutional conventions of 1862, and 1869-1870. Ninian W. Edwards, an agressive veteran Whig legislator from Springfield, David L. Gregg, an influential Chicagoan of opposite stripe, Samuel S. Hayes, the twenty-six-year-old delegate from Carmi, and Lincoln B. Knowlton, the eloquent Peoria lawyer, were frequently on the floor. Samuel D. Lockwood of Jacksonville, and Stephen T. Logan of Springfield, two staunch conservative Whig veterans, honored the convention with the experiences of their long political careers. The young lawyer from Carlinville, John M. Palmer, at this convention laid the foundations for the brilliant career which lay ahead of him. Judge Walter B. Scates of Mt. Vernon, was one of the most active influences in the convention. James W. Singleton of Mt. Sterling, Archibald Williams of Quincy, and David M. Woodson of Carrollton, aggressively upheld the Whig cause against the attacks of various capable Democratic opponents, among whom were Francis C. Sherman of Chicago, and Hezekiah M. Wead, a lawyer from Lewistown.

The organization of the convention by the Democratic majority with Newton Cloud of Waverly as presiding officer, removed the potent influence of this preacher-farmer-legislator from the active counsels of the convention. The Whigs did not place a party candidate in the field but aided in the election of Cloud

xix

over Zadoc Casey. Henry W. Moore, a Gallatin County lawyer, was engaged to act as secretary and John A. Wilson as sergeant-at-arms.

The convention was now ready to proceed. The Sangamon County Whig delegates, Edwards and Logan, proposed, on the basis of economy, to ignore the legislative arrangement for the election of a printer with a fixed compensation and to let the work to the lowest responsible and capable bidder. They also opposed the election of assistant secretaries and of an assistant to the sergeant-at-arms. The Whig keynote, "economy, retrenchment, and reform," had already been sounded by Benjamin Bond of Carlyle, in a successful appeal to the convention to limit the number and pay of officers of the convention. The Democrats, unwilling to lose the fruits of their victory at the polls, challenged such economy and fought to rescind the Bond resolution; they claimed that all matters pertaining to the number and pay of officers had been settled in the legislative act which ordered the convention. They challenged the brand of economy that involved days of debate and a protracted session in order to save a few salary items, At length by sheer weight of numbers the Democrats won out and later elected the additional officers. The four days of debate on these preliminary questions seem not to have been entirely wasted. The discussion on economy developed into a consideration of the relative powers of the legislative authority of the state and of the convention; and while certain Democratic members regarded the Whig economy stand as involving

xx

a waste of time "spent in demagogueism, in making speeches for Buncome," others, like Campbell of Jo Daviess, agreed with their opponents that the discussion was worth while because of its value in clearing up questions and enabling members " to arrive at the true principles on which they should act."

The sixth day of the convention completed the preliminary work of organization. The rules of the convention had been agreed upon. Standing committees had been announced, and the order of procedure defined. The original constitution was to be read article by article and section by section and the amending propositions were to be referred for consideration to appropriate committees. On the fourth day, Woodson had presented a set of resolutions defining the authority of the three departments of state government; this proved to be an attempt, on the part of at least certain Whigs, to steal a march on their opponents, and after an extended debate the formal order of procedure was agreed upon.

On June 14, the question of the advisability of printing the debates was raised. Lanphier and Walker, who had been chosen official printers, were publishing in the State Register a record which, although fairly comprehensive, reflected the lack of formal obligation to present an accurate and complete account. The Register left to its rival, the Sangamo Journal, the opportunity of doing justice to addresses by Whig delegates. The reporters in any case defined their obligations in terms of journalistic practice rather than in terms of historical accuracy. But while the debate

xxi

brought out a substantial agreement that "the published reports of the speeches of members of this body, as found in the newspapers of this city, are very inaccurate and faulty," considerations of economy bore down the proposition for an official version; and the suggestion that the members personally contribute to the expenses of publishing the debates was never formally considered.

The convention of 1847 performed its task in a day when party allegiance weighed heavily upon the voter and his representative. The delegates in this case had been chosen primarily upon party lines altered to some extent by complex sectionalistic forces. The most fundamental force was the cleavage between the Democratic apostles of human rights and Whig championship of the rights of property. The Whigs trembled before the menace of "radicalism," of "Locofocoism;" the Democrats were kept in a state of terror by the incubus of "bankism" and its companion bogies. But sectional influences at times not only allayed these fears but even produced Whig "radicals" and Democratic "bankites."

The Whig delegates went to the convention with a strong conviction that it was their duty to "dull the edge of radicalism," to keep the new constitution from being made the "plaything of Locofocoism." From the very start radicalism seemed to show "its cloven foot in the proceedings of the dominant party," but the

xxii

Whigs were pleasantly surprised with the conservatism that revealed itself in a majority of the body. On many points, too, Whigs could not but yield to the democratic trend of the age. But on questions that permitted a party alignment they rallied their forces almost to a man.

The supreme test of strength between the convention parties came over the question of bank or no bank. The Democrats, who had for years been insisting that bank charters were "inconsistent with democracy or religion," who had sought to arouse the people against efforts to renew " the miserable rag system by which they have already lost so much," had raised this issue in the convention election. The Whigs, fearful of the "popular clamor" against banks, had evaded the question except in their own strongholds. The election revealed not only a remarkable showing for the Whig candidates but even the election of a considerable group of "bank Democrats." The tendency of leading Democratic spokesmen to turn the "bank Democrats" over to the opposition, no doubt consolidated the pro-bank party and made it a conservative force by which other Whig propositions were carried.

In organizing the convention the bank party had supported Newton Cloud, as favorable to banks under

xxiii

proper restrictions, over Casey, a straight-out anti-bank man. So the bank issue was in the foreground from the very start. Lines were drawn between those in favor of a complete prohibition of banks and those willing to accept a properly safeguarded general banking system.

On June 14, in spite of the fact that the convention had voted a regular order of procedure which made such action premature, anti-bank resolutions were introduced by Markley and Pratt and the rules suspended to permit their reference. From this time the bank question was almost daily before the convention, consuming a large share of its time and efforts. On fourteen days of the session it was the direct subject of debate and was almost as frequently linked with other questions that came up. On June 15, Hurlbut brought up a resolution in favor of the liberal New York system of banking. Opportunity was then afforded to take test votes which resulted in a rejection of both the New York system and the prohibition proposition. Only fifty-two Democrats and six Whigs from southern counties lined up for complete restriction; it was as much a case of northern Illinois versus Egypt as Whig versus Democrat. On June 22, Gregg of Cook County introduced resolutions to inquire into the expediency of a highly restrictive general banking law. The fight then centered on the question of absolute prohibition or a regulated system. The committee on incorporations finally brought in a majority report for restriction

xxiv

and a minority report for prohibition. In the first half of August this question was contested to a decision. The final result was an article prohibiting a state bank, but permitting the legislature to enact laws authorizing corporations or associations with banking powers provided that they should not go into effect until submitted to the popular vote.

The Whigs made their first offensive move in proposing a poll tax on June 16. They defended it on the basis that every class, and not merely the property holders, should bear a share of the public burdens. Democratic spokesmen exploded the assumption that non-property-holders did not contribute to the support of the state and condemned the tax as wrong in principle. After a long discussion the poll tax proposition was carried, 108 to 49, leaving the levy of the tax to the discretion of the legislature. The Democratic support of this proposition came largely from southern Illinois.

The Democrats had always charged their opponents with nativism; the debates at the convention of 1847 showed that this charge was not without a foundation of truth. This was first suggested in the proposal that "no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of Governor;" the Whigs generally took a stand in favor of this provision or of Logan's amendment requiring a fourteen-year residence period of naturalized citizens. The party line was even more sharply defined later when the

xxv

suffrage question came up and the Whigs insisted upon a citizenship qualification for all who should in the future immigrate to Illinois. The Democrats generally defended the right of foreigners to a voice in elections but defection from their ranks enabled the Whigs to carry their point for what they considered a true Americanism.

In the matter of the veto power the Whigs won another victory. The Democrats had come to the convention with a strong determination to provide for an effective gubernatorial veto sufficiently guarded from abuse. In general they preferred that a veto should be overriden by nothing short of a two-thirds vote. The Democratic leaders eloquently expounded their position and cracked the whip to bring their followers into line; but when the constitution took shape, the Whigs rejoiced in an arrangement which permitted the same majority which should have passed a law in the first instance, to enact it over the gubernatorial veto.

Most Whigs, as well as Democrats, had yielded to the democratic tendency toward a popular election of state officials, toward even an elective judiciary. Largely for political reasons, which received strong sectional reinforcement, they advocated the proposition of having the supreme court consist of three judges elected by the three respective sections of the state. The Democrats favored the general ticket system of election which would enable them to control the entire body by capitalizing their numerical superiority. After a long verbal battle it was agreed that the state

xxvi

should be divided into three grand divisions and the qualified electors of each division should elect one of the judges for a period of nine years, with the proviso that after the first election the general assembly might have the power "to provide by law for their election by the whole state, or by divisions," as it might deem expedient. This was clearly a compromise arrangement.

A lively skirmish took place over negro immigration into the state. A little corporal's guard of anti-slavery men went to the convention determined not only to incorporate a slavery prohibition into the constitution but also to remove any legal basis for acknowledging its existence in other states. The Covenanters of Perry County and citizens of Randolph County encouraged them with petitions praying the abolition of all civil and political distinctions on account of color and the motion by Whitney of Boone County to strike out "white" in the resolution defining the franchise arrayed the seven champions of negro rights against the 137 other delegates.

Next, Bond of Clinton County brought in a resolution in favor of an article prohibiting the immigration of free negroes into the state. This precipitated a heated debate with dramatic scenes. Again party lines broke down and northern delegates wrestled against the power of southern and central Illinois. The committee on the Bill of Rights eventually brought in a section instructing the legislature to enact laws to prohibit negro immigration. It was later decided,

xxvii

however, to make an independent article of the negro immigration restriction with provision for separate ratification. A numerous minority tried to secure the adoption of clauses prohibiting the extension of suffrage to negroes and mulattoes, rendering them ineligible to hold office, and prohibiting the intermarriage of blacks and whites. It was pointed out, however, that this was an implied admission of their possession of such rights as citizens of Illinois and of the United States and such clauses were accordingly omitted from the constitution.

While the Illinois convention of 1847 worked at its tasks, war was raging between the United States and the Mexican republic to the south. Abraham Lincoln in behalf of Illinois Whiggery, claimed that the war had been "unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President." On July 11, 1847, the Reverend Albert Hale, pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church of Springfield, delivered two sermons in which he boldly proclaimed the injustice of the national cause and its demoralizing effect upon the nation. In the course of his remarks he was said to have stated that the volunteer, who was just then being welcomed back as a hero, had been transformed by the war into a "moral pest to society."

Mr. Hale was one of the local clergymen who had officiated in the convention at the opening prayers. On July 12, Akin of Franklin county denounced Hale's preaching before the convention and proposed that the clergyman "be excused from holding prayers in this convention for the future." The convention, however,

xxviii

by an overwhelming vote adopted a motion to table Akin's resolution. A long debate followed: the resolution was renewed, but John M. Palmer, a pro-war Democrat, moved a substitute declaring the principles of freedom of worship and freedom of speech and disclaiming "all censorship over the pulpit, or the opinions expressed therefrom, inasmuch as such censorship is in violation of the rights of the Rev. gentleman." The resolution virtually sustaining Mr. Hale was barely tabled (60-54), but the general declaration in favor of the principles involved was upheld (9-102). The convention then adjourned in order to proceed to Jacksonville to participate in the ceremonies attendant upon the funeral of Colonel Hardin, the Illinois war hero, in whose memory the delegates were, according to unanimous agreement, wearing crepe arm bands for a period of thirty days.

When Mr. Hale next appeared before the convention to offer prayer he was "grossly insulted and menaced with bodily injury by a member of the convention." On July 20, therefore, it was agreed that "whereas, it is alike due to the Convention and the ministers that we should not invite them to perform that duty unless we could secure them against such indignities," the custom of opening prayers should be discontinued, not "from any dissatisfaction with the manner in which they [the clergymen] have discharged their sacred duty, but solely from an unwillingness to subject them to a repetition of such indignities."

On July 22, Hale's assailant was given a further rebuke in a debate over a resolution concerning the

xxix

election of a chaplain, which was defeated because it might have been interpreted as the result of a desire "to get rid of our chaplains and to procure others." On July 26 the resolution of July 20 was rescinded and the president was requested to provide for the opening of the morning session with prayer.

By the middle of August the Whigs, with Democratic assistance, had carried every point upon which they had cared to make a stand. Democratic critics of orthodox stripe were completely disgusted. The correspondent of the Chicago Democrat suggested that the convention ought to be turned out "a la Cromwell:" "The truth is, the convention is too horribly conservative to be of much use. Liberal principles stand no chance whatever...True Republicanism is daily spurned and trampled under foot." There was also fear that the plan of apportionment for the senate endangered Democratic control of that body, if it did not actually turn it over to the Whigs.

After the convention had finished its work, zealous Democratic champions became more and more convinced that the new constitution was "a mongrel affair" likely to "make trouble." Inasmuch, however, as 131 out of 138 members of the convention had given a final endorsement to the new constitution, few were willing to come out into a position of open hostility. Whigs meantime proclaimed the document as worthy of support because it was not a party constitution.

xxx

Everyone agreed that many of its provisions were a decided improvement upon the old constitution, and this made it risky to reject a document wrought at so much expense to the state. To the average voter the strict regard for economy displayed by the convention was an important factor in attracting his support.

In the ratification election on March 6, 1848, the constitution was adopted by a vote of 60,585 to 15,903. The separate negro immigration clause was ratified, 50,261 to 21,297. The convention, confronting the huge indebtedness which spelled virtual bankruptcy for the state, had decided not only to practice economy but also to stabilize public credit. A two mill tax was therefore agreed upon with provision for separate ratification. For this feature there was little enthusiasm although it was adopted, 41,349 to 30,945. Thus with a narrow gauge economy was linked a device which later aided materially in the financial rehabilitation of Illinois.

1

I. Monday, June 7, 1847.

In pursuance of the provisions of the act of the General Assembly, approved Feb. 20, 1847, entitled "An act to provide for the call of a Convention," the delegates to said Convention, chosen under said act, assembled this day in the hall of the House of Representatives, in the state house at Springfield, at 3 o'clock, P. M.

Mr. SHERMAN called the Convention to order, and moved that ZADOC CASEY be appointed President pro tem.; which motion was unanimously adopted.

On motion of Mr. SCATES, LOUIS M. BOOTH was appointed Secretary pro tem., and J. A. WILSON, doorkeeper pro tem.

On motion of Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. CLINE was appointed assistant door-keeper pro tem.

Mr. THOMPSON moved that the names of the members be called.

Mr. SCATES suggested the propriety of having a magistrate to administer the oath to the members.

The CHAIR suggested that no oath was necessary; and he further suggested that, as the Secretary called the members by counties, they present their credentials.

On motion of Mr. DEMENT, Mr. MOORE of Gallatin county was appointed Assistant Secretary pro tem.

The Secretary then called over the list of delegates, who, as their names were called, presented their certificates of election; after which they were again called, alphabetically, and the Chair announced that there were one hundred and fifty-four delegates in attendance.

Mr. SCATES offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That each delegate of this Convention, before proceeding to the transaction of any business, take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

2

In offering the above, Mr. S. said, he was aware that the powers of this Convention are elementary, and that the members were not under any obligation to take an oath; yet, while there was no form of an oath prescribed for the members, he hoped they would take this one. — There was an apparent propriety in the oath, as no form of government they could adopt would be valid unless it corresponded with the constitution of the United States.

Mr. THOMAS was not satisfied with the oath proposed to the Convention by the gentleman from Jefferson. Where was the necessity for any oath? This Convention represented the sovereignty of the state of Illinois. Its members were not responsible to any power for the violation of the oath, if taken. No punishment could be awarded for a breach of it. He would remind the gentleman that there were constitutions adopted in other states before the United States had a constitution, and, therefore, he could see no obligation to swear to support the constitution of the United States. This was his present view, but if the gentleman could satisfy him that it was proper, he would vote for it.

Mr. MINSHALL said that there would seem a manifest propriety in taking an oath which, although it might be said, would impose no additional obligation, still could work no injury. Further, that as no form of government could be established by this Convention that would differ in character from that of the constitution of the United States, it appeared to him quite proper, though perhaps not necessary, to take an oath to support the constitution of the United States. He, however, would move, as an amendment to the resolution, the following, to be added thereto: "and to faithfully discharge the duties of their office as delegates of this Convention, for the purpose of revising and amending the constitution of the state of Illinois."

The amendment having been agreed to, the question was put on the resolution, as amended, and decided in the affirmative.

Mr. DAWSON moved that WILLIAM LAVELY, esq., be called within the bar to administer the oath.

Mr. LOGAN said, that for the purpose of economizing time, he hoped that the oath would be administered to the body collectively; which mode would save considerable time, and could be

3

performed by the members without leaving their seats, simply by raising the hand. He made a motion to that effect.

Mr. SCATES hoped the oath would be administered, if done at all in a more dignified manner than that suggested by the member from Sangamon. The plan suggested might save a few moments' time, but would not comport with the proper dignity which should accompany the administration of an oath. It reminded him of the manner in which the oath of allegiance was administered by the conquerers of New Mexico.

Mr. LOGAN then moved a division of the question; which was lost.

The members then were called to the desk by the Secretary, ten at a time, and the oath, as adopted, was administered to them by WM. LAVELY, esq.

Mr. SERVANT moved that the Convention adjourn. Negatived — yeas 53, nays 92.

Mr. BOND offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That we will now proceed to organize this Convention, by electing a President, one Secretary, and one Sergeant-at-arms, and that no other officers shall be constituted or appointed until it becomes necessary, in the opinion of the President and principal Secretary, to employ some competent person to assist the Secretary in the discharge of his duties; when the Secretary may employ a competent assistant, to whom shall be paid the sum of two dollars per day, while necessarily employed; Provided, the Sergeant-at-arms may, in his discretion, employ some able-bodied person to assist him in discharging his duties, to whom there shall be paid a sum of one dollar per day, for each day necessarily employed; and he may employ two active, orderly, and competent boys as messengers, &c., who shall each be paid the sum of fifty cents per day for the time employed.

In offering this resolution, he had but a few words to say. He intended no speech in support of it. If not all, many of us came here for purposes of economy, retrenchment, and reform. This proposition at this season can carry out that purpose. We can at this season of the year dispense with many officers; for after the Convention is organized, the Secretary alone can perform all the

4

duties of the office. We need, at least I think, but one Secretary; there is no necessity for an assistant. The resolution, however, provides for the employment of one when his services are required. — There is not the mass of business, nor the great amount of copying to be done, as is the case at a meeting of the Legislature. The Sergeant-at-arms, when he required assistance, was empowered to employ it, at two dollars per day. The resolution he understood would meet with entire approbation. The boys provided for by the resolution can easily be procured here, at the rate fixed — fifty cents a day.

The resolution, upon a division, was adopted. Under it, the Chair announced the next business to be the election of a President of the Convention, and suggested that the mode of electing him was as the Convention would direct.

Mr. WILLIAMS reminded the Chair that the act of the Legislature providing for a call of a Convention, directed that he should be chosen by ballot. We might, it is true, repeal the direction, but until it was repealed, he considered that we should conform to it. He moved that they proceed to elect by ballot.

The reading of the law was called for, and the Secretary read the 5th section of the act providing for a call of the Convention. The motion was then put and carried.

The Chair appointed Messrs. LOGAN, SCATES, and DUNLAP, tellers; and they, having received the ballots of the members, and counted them, reported as follows:

For NEWTON CLOUD, 84; ZADOC CASEY, 65; ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS, 2; CYRUS EDWARDS, 2.

Whereupon, the Chair announced that NEWTON CLOUD, esq., had been elected President of the Convention, and requested MESSRS. THOMPSON and HAY to conduct him to the chair.

Upon taking the chair, the President said —

Gentlemen of the Convention: It is but proper, on entering upon the duty assigned me by the choice just made, that I should return you my most sincere thanks for the honor you have conferred.

I enter upon the discharge of the duties of President of this Convention with much embarrassment, for I feel that I have a difficult and important duty assigned me.

5

I can only promise that my best efforts shall be made to discharge that duty faithfully and impartially, and that all the little ability that I possess shall be devoted to the despatch and furtherance of the public business. I will not allude, however remotely, to the great objects upon which we have been called to act, but will conclude by returning you again my sincere thanks for the honor you have conferred on me.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean moved to proceed to the election of a Secretary by acclamation.

Mr. THOMAS. We are not all in favor of the same man. I object.

Mr. DAVIS. I, then, move to vote for Secretary viva voce; which motion was adopted.

Mr. WILLIAMS nominated Mr. BURT of Quincy.

Mr. BALLINGALL nominated H. W. MOORE of Gallatin and the Convention proceeded to vote for Secretary.

Mr. MOORE received 91 votes; Mr. BURT, 59; scattering, 1; and Mr. MOORE was declared elected.

Mr. ALLEN nominated, for Sergeant-at-arms, Mr. J. A. WILSON.

Mr. CONSTABLE moved that Mr. WILSON be elected by acclamation, and, after some debate, withdrew the motion.

The Convention divided on the nomination, and Mr. WILSON was declared elected, he receiving 99 votes.

Mr. THOMAS moved the Convention adjourn. Lost — yeas 53, nays not counted.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved that the Convention proceed to the election of a printer.

Mr. LOGAN moved to lay this motion on the table, to enable him to offer a resolution in relation to the selection of a printer which motion was carried.

Mr. LOGAN then offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the printing of this Convention shall be let to the lowest responsible and capable bidder.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon offered, as a substitute: "That a committee of five be appointed by the President to receive proposals for the printing of the proceedings of the Convention,

6

and that they be directed to contract with the lowest responsible bidder, and report at as early a day as practicable.

Mr. SHERMAN asked, are we not getting along a little too fast with this resolution? The law provides that we shall elect a printer, and that law fixes the price to be paid, with which the Convention has nothing to do.

Mr. LOGAN said that, waiving for the present a discussion of the right of the Legislature to limit this Convention, look at the proposition in another way. Can we not receive the bids of all persons who may desire to perform this work, with the rates, &c., compare them with the rates allowed the public printer, and then can we not elect that one who will do it the cheapest?

Mr. DEMENT rose, not for the purpose, particularly, of opposing the resolution, but to inquire of some of the members of the last Assembly how far the words, "shall receive the same compensation as is allowed by the present Assembly," have effect upon this resolution. He did not intend to argue whether we have the power to go beyond the law, but how far, inasmuch as we had obeyed the restriction of the law in one case, the election of President by ballot, we should still go with that law. As soon as we had chosen the President by the mode prescribed in this law, we then, when the law requires no form of election, dispose of the others in the most summary manner. This was conceded by gentlemen for the purpose of conforming to the act of the Legislature; and he apprehended that the resolution now offered did come in conflict with those words of the act in relation to the printer, where it says "he shall receive the same compensation as the same officer receives from the present General Assembly." He moved to lay the resolution on the table, but withdrew it, at the request of

Mr. SCATES, who said that the act of the Legislature provided a compensation to be allowed for printing for the Convention.

The resolution stating what should be the officers of this Convention had been passed without debate; and he disliked to see resolutions spread on the record appropriating money without authority. Where have you the power to do so? He doubted very much if the members of the Convention could get paid for their services unless the Legislature had provided and appropriated

7

the means for that purpose. The constitution of the state expressly states how and by whom money shall be appropriated. The Legislature has fixed our pay; we can take less, but no more. The Legislature has provided a printer for us, and fixed his compensation, and states that he shall be elected by the Convention. The resolution now before us confers the power upon five members of this body to give the printing. We may receive the services of the printer, under that contract, but can we appropriate the money to pay for it? He disliked to do things where the power to act was of a doubtful character. He would like the resolution already passed, changing the pay of the door-keepers, rescinded, and the present one laid on the table. He moved to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. LOGAN demanded the yeas and nays; which were ordered and taken, and the resolution was laid on the table — yeas 82, nays 70.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess renewed his motion to proceed to the election of a printer.

Mr. WILLIAMS stated that one reason why the resolution of Mr. LOGAN had been laid on the table, was to enable members to reflect on the matter. He was for economy; and if there was any person willing to do the work cheaper than another, he desired to give it to him. He moved to lay Mr. C.'s motion on the table; which was carried.

Mr. EDWARDS moved that a committee of five be appointed to prepare and report rules and regulations for the government of this Convention. Agreed to.

A motion to adopt, for the present government of the Convention, the rules of the last House of Representatives, was laid on the table.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison offered the following resolution; which was adopted:

Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to call upon the clergy of the different denominations in the city, and to solicit an arrangement among them for opening every morning, by prayer, the meetings of the Convention.

Mr. BALLINGALL offered the following resolution; which was adopted:

8

Resolved, That the Secretary prepare ballots, properly numbered, for seats for the members of the Convention, and that the members proceed thereafter to draw the ballots for their respective seats.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin offered the following resolution; which was adopted:

Resolved, That the editors and reporters of the newspapers published in this state be allowed seats within the bar of this hall.

On motion, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow, at 10 o'clock, A. M.

9

II. Tuesday, June 8, 1847.

After an appropriate prayer by the Rev. Mr. BARGER of Springfield, the Convention resumed its deliberations.

Pursuant to the resolution adopted yesterday, the members proceeded to draw the ballots for their respective seats in the hall.

Mr. BROCKMAN offered the following resolution; which was adopted:

Resolved, That for the comfort and convenience of the members of this Convention, the Sergeant-at-arms be instructed to have removed the railings from the hall, and to place the seats of members further back towards the corner of the hall.

Mr. WEAD offered the following:

Ordered, That so much of the resolution of the member from Clinton, offered yesterday, as provides for limiting the number and pay of officers of this Convention, be rescinded.

In offering this resolution, Mr. W. said, that he was of the opinion that the resolution which it proposed to rescind in part, had been introduced and passed yesterday without the members having had time for consultation, and without their being apprised of its effect. That resolution, if he understood it properly, limited the number of officers of the Convention, and fixed their salaries at a price below the rate provided for in the act of the Legislature. True, it allowed the employment of an assistant Secretary and an assistant Sergeant-at-arms. — He thought it most imprudent thus to limit, by resolution, the officers of the Convention, when that Convention were the proper judges of what officers they required. The Convention would require the services of two Sergeants-at-arms; one cannot do all the work, for his services would always be required within the hall, while another would be required to go elsewhere, and perform duties beyond the hall. I object to our granting the Secretary power to

10

name a deputy when he shall deem it necessary. That right belongs to this Convention only. The saving proposed by this resolution is but a small matter; the people of the state of Illinois do not require such economy — the cutting down of the salaries of two small officers. Our object is other than a legislative one; it is to revise the constitution of the state of Illinois, and not to fix the compensation of her officers. We may place in the constitution that the Secretary and Sergeant-at-arms, hereafter to be appointed, shall not receive beyond the sums provided in the resolution, but can we, by a mere resolution, enact a law? — But the resolution does not intend that it shall be incorporated into the constitution we came here to revise and adopt; and is it any part of our duty to meddle with the pay they shall receive?

The Legislature might pay them, or fix the sum that they should receive at what amount it pleased; it might appropriate them nothing if it pleased, for it was a matter entirely with that body.

It had been said that this provision might be placed in the constitution, but how? This resolution contemplates no such thing; it has reference merely to the officers whom we shall employ, and for the payment of whose services the Legislature has already made an appropriation. By what reason, right, or justice, then, can we fix the amount of their pay?

Is it economy for members — or do they think that the people require such economy — to reduce the pay of officers who will have to labor the whole day in the faithful discharge of their duties to earn one dollar per day, when we take four for ourselves. The saving contemplated would reduce the taxes but little; it is a matter the people are not looking at. I hope the Convention will not rise until it has reduced the expenses of from over $200,000 per annum to something less than one hundred thousand dollars. Let them but pursue a course to effect that object, and not commence on this matter. Let them reduce the tax below sixty-five per cent. on personal property; let them reduce the county taxes, of which but little is used for county purposes, and let these small officers alone.

He considered that the resolution had been passed without being understood by the members of the Convention, and he

11

regretted it; for he considered that it frequently took longer to undo a wrong action than to defeat or avoid it in the first instance.

Mr. BOND said that he had offered the resolution, and it was only because it had been offered by him that he rose to say a few words in reply to what had fallen from the member from Fulton. That it had not been discussed was very true, but he did not think that there was any discussion necessary upon it; it bore on its face — in the very words of it was expressed the great objects of its introduction — retrenchment and reform.

We have come here for the purpose of retrenching and reforming the expenses of our government, and he did not think of coming here to carry out one thing and do, in fact, another. He thought straws showed which way the wind blew. He was for economy in all proceedings of the Convention, and would show his sincerity if the gentleman would introduce any proposition to reduce the pay of members, he would vote for it. The resolution had not been intruded upon the Convention: it had been offered in good faith, and he believed it ought to meet the approbation of the Convention. He asked, who, when the constitution under which we now live had been adopted in the first instance, had fixed the pay of members? The Legislature telling this Convention what to do, is like the preacher telling God what is right.

He was confident the resolution was not understood: it did not interfere with the pay of the Secretary or Sergeant-at-arms — they still receive the pay allowed them by the Legislature; but it only prescribes what shall be paid to their assistants, whom they are authorized to employ when their services are required. He had experience in the duties of Secretary of legislative bodies, and he was convinced that one person could perform all the duties of that office for this Convention. There was not that mass of copying, nor that interminable labor to be performed as in the Legislature. Also, one Sergeant-at-arms could perform the work of that office; but if not, the resolution allowed him to employ an assistant, at one dollar per day — and plenty could be procured to do the work at that rate; even here they could be procured, as well as by searching from the southern border to the most northern counties for men, who were to be brought here to fill these offices

12

especially reserved for them. No fires were to [be] built; various other duties usually performed by the Sergeant-at-arms could be dispensed with. Nor would that officer have to go round looking up the members of the Convention, as was often the case in the Legislature. He hoped the gentleman from Fulton would aid in reforming the constitutional expenses of the government. Let him come forward with his proposition to lower the salaries of all, and he (Mr. B.) would vote as low as the gentleman from Fulton dare.

He would like to reply to some of the logic of the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. SCATES,) if he really knew what kind of logic it was that he had used yesterday. He (Mr. B.) had read none, and he was disposed to inquire of Mr. S. what kind he had read. He had understood the gentleman from Jefferson to say that we could reduce the pay of the members, but not of the officers of the Convention.

Mr. SCATES. I did not say that we could reduce the pay of the members; the gentleman did not understand me.

Mr. BOND resumed, by stating that he had misunderstood the gentleman. He had occupied more time than he had intended when he commenced. The resolution was intended only to govern the present officers of the Convention; and a more proper time would arrive for the discussion. A committee had been appointed to prepare and report rules and regulations for the Convention, and they will no doubt report what officers are necessary. When they did so, then would be the proper time for the discussion of this question.

Mr. MINSHALL asked, if the resolution to rescind was in order. Would not the proper way be to move to reconsider?

The CHAIR ruled that the resolution to rescind was in order.

Mr. WEAD said, that it had been insinuated in the remarks of the gentleman that he had argued that this resolution had been intruded upon the Convention. He had said no such thing; nor would any language used by him justify such a construction. He had said, however, that it had been passed without the members having had time for reflection. He could not see any reason why the Convention should not rescind the resolution of yesterday. We had been sent here for the purpose of retrenchment and reform

13

of the evils of the old constitution. Was one of the evils of that constitution an allowance of four dollars to our Sergeant-at-arms? We save, by this resolution, four dollars a day in the pay of Secretary and Sergeant-at-arms. Did the people require this of us he would vote for it; but he was satisfied that they were willing that we should allow them liberally for their services. Mr. W. was as willing as Mr. B. to reduce the county expenses by every means in their power, from over $650,000 to less than $300,000.

He was not familiar with the duties of Secretary, but judging from the vast amount of business yesterday, he considered that it was impossible for one to do it alone. Gentlemen should remember that this is the largest body ever convened in Illinois, and that more officers were required than in any other that has met before. — He considered the doctrine, that we had a right to fix the pay of members or officers otherwise than as directed by the act of the Legislature, as perfectly preposterous. That we had the right to regulate future officers' salary, by engrafting a direction in the constitution, was perfectly right, but to regulate their pay by a simple resolution of the Convention was out of the question.

Mr. BOND read a portion of Mr. SCATES' remarks, of yesterday, as reported in the Register, as going to establish that he was not alone in his understanding of Mr. S.'s remarks; to which Mr. SCATES briefly replied.

Mr. LOGAN said there was nothing in the question itself, as to what pay should be allowed the Secretary and Sergeant-at-arms that was worthy of the consumption of the time of the Convention; but there was the same principle in it which affected a large class of other questions of more importance, and which should be settled.

Gentlemen, he had observed, in his experience, were never able to find the starting point where retrenchment should commence. All economy, he always found, was commenced in small matters. You may look around in vain for a large one; whenever you raise your arm to strike, why the answer comes, "that is a small matter, let it alone." We must make one strong blow. Now is the time. The subject is not, it is true, a large one, but we must commence. I am in favor of commencing now, because of the peculiar circumstances in which the people of Illinois are situated. I am in favor

14

of meeting that situation and carrying the work of retrenchment throughout all its ramifications. Our state is loaded with a heavy debt, under which the people and their property are groaning. The people call on us to save, in the expenses of their government, not hundreds, but thousands. Speak not to them of liberality till our state is in different circumstances. Liberality ceases to be a virtue when it postpones justice! Whenever we are obliged to lay a tax upon the country too heavy for the proper support of the government of that country, I am for striking at the root of all unnecessary salaries — reducing them. An enormous debt is overhanging us. We are taxed to the full measure which the people can endure. We must pay the large debt we owe, and which is fast becoming a burden not only upon us, but will be on those who shall follow us. Our creditors are demanding payment of our debts; can we talk of liberality? Liberality is incompatible with the present situation of the country. Were the whole people gathered here, they would have no right to give salaries beyond what is strictly necessary. I am for saving every dollar that can be saved. It is necessary that proper officers should be chosen and paid to perform the functions of government; and I am willing to pay in every department only just sufficient to procure the services of such men. It is not proposed to reduce the pay of the principal secretary, and he is allowed to employ an assistant when his services are necessary. One will be sufficient, another would be supernumary [sic]. At the commencement there was of course a greater press of business — of resolutions; that is all over. Hereafter we will have committees to prepare the business. Discussions upon the great questions will commence and occupy the greater part of the time. The question of a bank will come up and be discussed; there will be no bills, no petitions, no local legislation. We will have but little use of the Secretary, and less of his assistant. The resolution contemplates the employment of an able-bodied assistant and two boys — what do you want with more of them? Two boys can receive the propositions of 162 members as fast as they can be presented. We should give salaries only sufficient to procure the services. Can we procure them at the prices contained in the resolution? My word for it you can. I want this to be a precedent for everything else.

15

There is a section in the constitution of Vermont, which sets forth that every man should have some profession and mode of life, and should do everything in his power to aid the government; that when his assistance to the government works injury to him in his business, he should be remunerated; but when the salaries of officers are used as a source of profit, that then they should be cut down and reduced. If this is a correct principle it should govern us. Are not these offices sought for profit? — The very fact of the applicants seeking and desiring them proves it, not to speak of their electioneering. I could scarcely get along the street with the constant applications, and I cannot comprehend how my democratic friends survive it at all. If we can get persons to do the work, that is evidence that the prices are high enough. If we cannot, why then we can raise them.

My constituents desire the most rigid economy in all things, which will enable them to pay off their just debts. I am not for stopping here, but for continuing it for all time to come, or until we are relieved from debt. — Now is the time. Let us begin and apply the principle to ourselves and our officers; let it operate now. — There is no use in procrastinating. We have been insolvent long enough; we have delayed payment of our just debts long enough. Apply all you can save to the liquidation of the state debt.

The next question was the power of this Convention. An oath to support the constitution of the United States had been proposed and taken, because we can do nothing in contravention of that instrument, and because there was no other power to limit us. Where is the limitation of the power of this Convention over the treasury? Point it out.

Mr. WEAD explained.

Mr. LOGAN resumed. It was said yesterday that we could draw no money from the treasury because the constitution pointed out the manner in which it should be done. I differ in opinion on this matter. We have the power to prescribe the powers and duties and salaries of all officers. Can we not fix in the constitution that money shall be paid from the treasury only on general principles? The Legislature has appropriated the money to pay us and our officers; to be paid on the certificate of the President.

16

Can we not say that our officers shall not draw the money? Can we not, by resolution, control the certificate of the President? Have we no power, except what is expressed in the act? Does that give us the power to make rules and regulations for our government? It does not, yet we have appointed a committee to report such rules, and we will adopt them.

This resolution is right in itself. It advertises the men employed what they shall receive. If we are sincere in our professions of economy, don't let us differ as to the mode, the how, or where, but let us preserve the principle, and carry it out at all times. Let the gentleman who proposes to rescind propose his plan to economize, and I shall not be found wanting. Is there anything said in the act that we shall not amend the constitution by a resolution? Not a word. There are many things to be done in this constitution which are but temporary provisions. In our present constitution, the judges of the supreme court were to receive $1,000 a year, for a certain time, payable quarterly. The Convention that formed that constitution made this appropriation, and no Legislature could repeal it. We may district the state for the next Legislature, and make many other alterations of a temporary character. I don't care for the form — for the mere saving of a few dollars; but I contend for it as a principle, and intend it as a precedent. But when the state is in debt, and there are, in those countries now visited by famine, many widows and orphans who hold our bonds, and are undergoing the utmost privations because the interest of our debt is not paid, I say again, this is not time for liberality.

Mr. BALLINGALL moved that the Convention adjourn till the afternoon, at 3 o'clock. Carried.

AFTERNOON

Mr. HARVEY moved to strike out all after the word "resolved," in the motion of Mr. WEAD, and insert "that the members and officers of this Convention shall receive the sum of $2.50 per day, each."

Mr. PALMER of Marshall moved to amend the proposed amendment, by striking out the words "and fifty cents."

Mr. DEMENT rose to offer an amendment; but the CHAIR

17

ruled it out of order, there being an amendment to an amendment pending. He then stated that he did not believe, nor did he think any other member believed, that any resolution of this body could prevent the members, or such of them as would demand it, from receiving the sum of four dollars per day — as fixed by the Legislature. He denied the position assumed by the gentleman from Sangamon (Mr. LOGAN,) that the acts of this Convention would be paramount to any law of the land, until it had been approved and ratified by the people in the manner prescribed by the law. In case, asked Mr. D., we did make an enactment, where would be its power or its force, or its binding obligation on any one, if the constitution we shall adopt is rejected by the people? It appeared to him that the powers of this Convention had been narrowed down to a mere power to propose amendments, or a substitute for the present constitution of the state; and what we may do may pass as a dead letter from our hands, and be received with the contempt of the whole people.

He had heard much talk about economy; and the gentlemen who had made speeches on that subject might have spoken in all sincerity, or it might be to add to their already well established reputations for eloquence and speech-making.

He was of opinion that the Convention could appropriate no money, unless the clause making the appropriation is made a component part of the constitution; nor could the money thus appropriated be drawn from the treasury until the constitution containing the appropriation had been approved and ratified by the people. It was proposed by this resolution to pay the Secretary four dollars per day, under the law, and the assistant but two dollars.

He was satisfied that we could not alter the salaries of our officers from the sum fixed by the Legislature, without making that resolution, or proposition containing this alteration, a component part of the constitution, and submitting it to the people for their ratification. Our mere enactment has no force whatever. — Our constitution, if we can dignify it by such a name, will not be obligatory, in the least, on any one here or in the state, until it shall have been approved by the people. And he begged members not to encumber that instrument, which they had convened here

18

to frame, with these small and trifling sections, all of which would endanger the adoption of the constitution. He said, that upon all of the great and important subjects which would engage the deliberations of that body, they were familiar with the feelings, sentiments, and opinions of their constituents, and were ready and, prepared to vote upon them; but upon these little questions, which had never been the subject of thought among the people, the members of the Convention could not say what were the sentiments of their constituents; and by voting for their incorporation with the constitution, they endangered its adoption. Had we not, then, better go home and leave these light and trivial matters for future legislation, and not have these appendages, upon which we know nothing of the sentiment of the people?

Mr. D. then read, as a part of his speech, the proposed amendment that had been ruled out of order; it was to the effect that the members should contribute a portion of their pay, for the purpose of employing and paying the Secretary and Sergeant-at-arms at the rate of four dollars per day. He said there were one hundred and sixty-two members present, who were drawing four dollars per day, and employed in a discussion upon the question whether our door-keeper shall receive two or four dollars a day, while that very discussion was a tax of two hundred dollars an hour upon the state. The gentlemen, in their zeal for economy, strike at the pay of these petty officers, who have no interest or responsibility other than to perform their duty and receive their pay; yet it was said that the mere reduction of their pay was to accomplish wonders — relieve the state from all debt, feed the starving sufferers in Ireland, and many other like brilliant acts.

Now, he would remind them that, by dispensing with half an hour's debate upon this question, enough would be saved to pay the whole additional expense. The speeches of the gentlemen — and he would not be understood as meaning to say they were not well worth the money — would, then, if dispensed with, pay the whole expenses.

He then proposed that the members should come forward and voluntarily surrender a respective share of their own pay, and give it to the door-keeper. But in case they were to have speeches he was willing to stake their own pay on the fact whether our

19

actions meet the approval of the people; and was willing, if the people do not accept the work of this Convention, and return the constitution on our hands, that we take it, and not receive any other payment for our services.

This would show our sincerity in speaking so much of economy. He hoped, therefore, that they would elect these officers, and a printer, and complete the organization of the Convention, and proceed with the business. Speech-making cost $100 every thirty minutes; let us organize without further debate, and for the future economize both time and money.

Mr. HAYES moved the previous question.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess asked if the previous question was in order? We had adopted no rules.

The CHAIR said it was in order.

Mr. WILLIAMS rose to debate the propriety of taking the previous question.

Mr. BALLINGALL called to order; and a discussion ensued as to Mr. WILLIAMS' right to proceed.

The CHAIR decided in his favor.

Mr. W. said, that he thought, when he came here today, we were ready to proceed with the business; that we were sufficiently organized to have started other important questions. But there were important questions involved in the present one, which he thought should be discussed now and at once. They would have to be settled at some time.

MESSRS. PALMER of Macoupin, THOMAS, LOUDON, and LOGAN continued the discussion on the propriety of taking the main question, a more detailed report of whose remarks we regret our inability, from want of room, to give in our present number.

Mr. HAYES then withdrew his call.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond promised, as he desired to present a few remarks, to do as others had done — to speak of everything else save the resolution before them. He did not think the Convention had the power or right to appropriate money from the treasury. The present constitution of the state, which was the supreme law of the land, gives the Legislature the power to call a Convention, and under that constitutional power this Convention had been

20

called. He apprehended that if the Convention had the power to appropriate money in one case, they had the same power to do so in all. The constitution directs the manner in which money shall be appropriated; that constitution, and every law under it, is yet in full force. Suppose we make an appropriation and attach it to the constitution we shall frame, and that constitution is rejected by the people, what becomes of the appropriation? He understood the Legislature had power to call a Convention, and they had done so, and made provisions for its comfort and convenience by law. — The constitution says, "no money shall be appropriated out of the treasury except by law." Can we ascend higher than the constitution? If we can, I ask for the book, for the law and the precedent. I come here to effect the election of judges by the people, limiting the sessions of the Legislature to once in four years, and then for sixty days only, and for settling their per diem. I can't say we will do so, nor that the people will ratify what we really will propose to them. He asked again where was the authority for this Convention to make laws, or what act of theirs would be binding unless ratified by the people? When we formed our present constitution we were a territory, and the instances of appropriation spoken of by the gentleman from Sangamon were embodied in the constitution, and presumed an adoption thereof by the people.

Mr. PALMER of Marshall, after some preliminary remarks, said he could not think any gentleman would deny the right of the members, under the present embarrassed state of affairs, to take but two dollars a day; and that our officers, who will be fully as patriotic, will follow our example and give their services for the same amount of compensation. He hoped the members would reduce their own pay. They could not reduce the pay of their officers, of the judges and all others, and then go home to their constituents with four dollars a day in their pockets. He had brought money with him to pay his board and all other expenses, and was willing to take but the two dollars. He was old, but hoped not to be laid in his grave till all our debts had been paid.

Mr. P. followed the question at some length, but we not having room, must close our report of his speech for the present.

21

The previous question was again moved, but withdrawn at the request of

Mr. SCATES, who moved to lay the whole matter on the table, to enable the committee on Rules to report; which was agreed to.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison, from the committee for that purpose, reported a series of rules and regulations for the government of the Convention; which were read and adopted.

Mr. SERVANT moved that 300 copies of the rules just adopted be printed.

Mr. SCATES advocated a smaller number, but suggested that we had not yet chosen a printer, and therefore moved to lay the motion to print on the table. Carried — yeas 73, nays 62.

Mr. WILLIAMS, in order to give the President time to appoint the committees moved that the Convention adjourn till to-morrow, at 10 A. M. Carried — yeas 79, nays 61.

22

III. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1847

Prayer by Rev. Mr. BERGEN.

MESSRS. HURLBUT and CHOATE, delegates to the Convention, appeared this morning, presented their credentials, and were qualified.

The Secretary then read the journal.

Mr. DEMENT moved to admit within the bar of the Convention the Governor of the State, Secretary of State, and Judges of the United States and State Courts.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved to amend by adding "and all ex-officers of the state."

Mr. KNOWLTON moved to add "and all officers and soldiers just returned from the Mexican war."

Mr. DAVIS of McLean moved to add "and all members of Congress."

Mr. WHITNEY moved to lay the resolution and amendments on the table. Carried.

23

Mr. SINGLETON offered a resolution stating the powers of the Convention to be limited.

Mr. ARCHER offered the following amendment:

"Resolved, That this Convention has assembled for the purpose of revising, altering, or amending the constitution of this state, and that the powers and duties of said Convention are limited, after its proper organization, to such objects only."

"Resolved, That, with a view of entering upon the discharge of the duties assigned to said Convention, we now proceed to the election of an assistant Secretary and assistant door-keeper and printer, any resolution heretofore passed to the contrary notwithstanding."

In offering the above, Mr. A. said, that he did so with a view of presenting his opinions upon the matter that had occupied the Convention for the past day or two. — In so doing he was very anxious to pay all respect to the opinions and views of those with whom he differed, and without reflecting in the least upon their motives or views. He held true economy to consist, in some measure, in the employment of the means sufficient to accomplish the end.

The act of the Legislature has provided officers for this Convention, to enable us to carry out the objects for which we have convened. He thought another Secretary and Sergeant-at-arms necessary; and if the Convention, from the want of either one of these officers, were detained a single day beyond the time they would otherwise have concluded their business, the expense attendant on that delay would be far more than the additional expense of these officers. He was of opinion that the powers of the Convention were expressed correctly in his amendment to the resolution of the gentleman from Brown. — The question of economy in the pay of the officers of the Convention, or of the members thereof, formed no subject in the canvass in the county which he (Mr. A.) had the honor, in part, to represent. He contended that the Convention had no legislative powers; that in the way of economy he would go as far as any other in retrenching the expenses of the state of Illinois. The original resolution submitted whether there should be a Convention, and the act calling the Convention contemplated no such purpose as that we were to

24

have legislative powers; and none other than to alter and revise the constitution. Mr. A. would go with any of them in putting down to the lowest rates, that would command talent, the salaries of all officers.

Mr. McCALLEN offered the following as an amendment to the amendment: Strike out "printer," and insert, "that the Secretary be instructed to receive sealed proposals at his desk, until 10 o'clock, A. M., to-morrow, for the printing for this Convention; and that the President proceed at that hour to open said proposals, and award the printing to the lowest responsible bidder."

Mr. SCATES moved to lay the whole subject on the table.

Mr. CONSTABLE appealed to him to withdraw his motion,

Mr. SCATES declined.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess hoped that it would be withdrawn, and that the vote by which the rules had been adopted would be reconsidered.

The vote was then taken on laying the subject on the table, and decided in the affirmative — yeas 72, nays 67.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond submitted some amendments to the rules; to which

Mr. LOGAN offered an amendment.

Mr. PRATT offered an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WEAD moved to lay the resolution and amendments on the table; which was carried.

Mr. ROBBINS offered two resolutions in relation to the number and selection of the standing and select committees, and advocated their adoption.

Mr. DEMENT opposed the resolutions.

Mr. WEAD moved to lay them on the table, and print; after-wards withdrew the motion to print, and the resolutions were laid on the table.

Mr. ARMSTRONG offered a resolution in relation to additional committees to be appointed. Laid on the table.

Mr. DEMENT moved to take up the resolutions offered by

Mr. SINGLETON, and the amendment; and, after debate, they were taken up.

Mr. BROCKMAN advocated the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Pike to the resolution of the gentleman

25

from Brown. He denied that the Convention had any legislative powers; nor any power save that expressly granted by the Legislature. The Legislature had defined the pay for our officers, and we had no power to change it. He was for retrenchment whenever that subject came properly before them. He hoped they would immediately elect a secretary, a sergeant-at-arms, and a printer, which officers were necessary. He advocated a full and immediate organization of the Convention, and that it should at once proceed to public business.

Mr. SINGLETON said, that he had offered the resolution in order to bring before the Convention the true question — its powers. He thought the power of a Convention was merely to propose alterations and amendments to the constitution, and that the people had the right and the power to make the changes. We had no power to change the law, but we had the power to propose the change, and the people to make the change. — It was true that, to some extent, the people are here in their sovereign capacity, but it was only to inquire whether they should change their law. The Legislature is just as sovereign as this Convention. This body is clearly bound by the act of the Legislature. The people are represented in that body as much, if not more, in their sovereign capacity as in this. The people never intended these matters relative to the compensation of officers should come before us. There was no power by which men are obliged to take the four dollars per day, when they think proper to take less. He believed the Convention wanted an assistant secretary and another sergeant-at-arms, and would vote for their election, and was willing to give them the pay provided by law. He had offered the resolution for the purpose of bringing the true question before the Convention. If there had been no provision in the act of the Legislature for the pay of the members, the number and salary of its officers; if these matters had not been settled for us by the Legislature, he would then be able to discover the propriety of the discussion; but as all had been done by that body, he could see no propriety in it. As to the pay of the members, he was determined to take the four dollars a day, and no less; and would not be afraid to go before his constituents and tell them he had done so.

26

On motion of Mr. CONSTABLE, the amendment proposed by Mr. McCALLEN was laid on the table — yeas 87, nays 56.

The question recurring on Mr. ARCHER'S amendment;

Mr. LOGAN said, that he was inclined to take the vote just had as decisive of the intention of the Convention to choose the officers, and upon that subject would say no more. But the resolution offered by the gentleman from Brown presents a principle which he considered a heresy in politics, and as there were two propositions before them, he preferred the amendment of the gentleman from Pike. If the Convention were to say that it was bound to do as bid by the Legislature, it would establish a most dangerous precedent; and if they were obliged to follow the direction of the Legislature in any one case, they are bound to do so in all. — The constitution says a Convention may be called "to amend, alter, and revise" — not to propose amendments; alterations, and revisions. If the Legislature be right in saying the Convention has only the right to propose a constitution, they have the right to say what amendments, alterations, &c., shall be made. He considered it wrong in principle and bad as a precedent. If either of the propositions were to be passed, he preferred that of the gentleman from Pike.

Mr. SINGLETON contended that the Legislature had the power to regulate, to some extent, the manner in which the Convention should be organized, and to direct its government in all things that do not go to the proposed changes in the constitution. The present constitution gives the Legislature power to call a Convention, and the Legislature has provided for that call, and says we must come here, not with power to make changes, but to propose changes to be acted on by the people. They have no right to say to us what changes shall be made, but state in what manner they shall be made.

By the constitution, the legislative powers of the state are described to be vested in a House of Representatives and a Senate, who, together, shall constitute a General Assembly. Their powers are not limited, but they may exercise any power not expressly limited by the constitution of the state, the constitution of the United States, a law of Congress, or a treaty. Had they a right to say that the changes proposed by this Convention

27

should be submitted to the people? If they had no right, I want a direct vote on the matter. If they had, I am bound by what they have done.

This Convention has those necessary, natural, inherent powers of self-protection that all deliberative bodies possess; no other power but what is derived from the Legislature, save the power of self-defence.

Mr. PETERS said, that he had and would continue to vote against any and every proposition which would recognize any restriction of the powers of this Convention. We are here the sovereignty of the state. We are what the people of the state would be if they were congregated here in one mass meeting. We are what Louis XIV said he was — "We are the state." We can trample the constitution under our feet as waste paper, and no one can call us to an account save the people. A resolution had been passed by the Legislature presenting to the people the question of a Convention or not. If a majority of the people chose a Convention, then the law directed the Legislature to call that Convention, and then its functions ceased. If they had named no officers in their act, could not this Convention have selected as many as they pleased? If they had said we should have no officer but a President, could we not have gone on and elected a secretary and what officers we thought necessary? We can change any organic law of this state that we please. My proposition is that we have the power to adopt a constitution which, from the day of its passage by this body, will be the supreme organic law of this state, without any reference to the people. However, such a course as that might not be advisable. — But there are many things which I could not refer to the people, for instance, the council of revision, and that because we know the sentiments of the people on them already.

I am for economy. But I make no speeches on the subject for home consumption. I am for allowing the members of this body but two dollars a day.

Here the Convention adjourned til[l] 2, P. M.

28

AFTERNOON

Mr. DAVIS of Massac commenced by taking ground against the superiority of the powers of the Convention as against the enactment of the Legislature — the law-making power, established and recognized by the supreme organic law of the state yet in force. He reviewed the history of the act of the Legislature providing for a call of this Convention, and argued that it was both constitutional and proper. As to economy — though in favor of it — he scorned to consume the time of the house, so valuable, by making speeches about it. He had voted to lay the proposition — to let the printing out — on the table, because, in his opinion, they had convened there for nobler ends than debiting about such trifles; they had convened to amend the organic law of the state, so that it would conduce to their prosperity and happiness. He understood the provision in the present constitution, relative to the salaries of judges, very differently from the gentleman from Sangamon. — The provision was made in the constitution that they should receive a certain salary, but the Legislature of 1819 made the appropriation whereby the pay, thus fixed and established in the constitution, could be drawn from the treasury. And it was by virtue of their act, and not of the provision in the constitution, that the money was paid out. That very same Legislature, sir, made an appropriation to pay the members of the Convention that framed the constitution; they fixed it at four dollars a day. The officers and others were also paid by the Legislature, who made the appropriation for them all. Not a man in that convention of 1818, nor out of it, ever understood that they could draw any money under the provisions of the constitution, until the Legislature had made the necessary appropriation. He regretted, and it was universally regretted, that a gentleman gifted with such powers, and from whose experience and ability so much was justly expected, whose eminent talents should lead them and aid the Convention in its important duties, should have suffered himself to be led off into a discussion of subjects so foreign to the matter before the Convention. He alluded to the gentleman from Sangamon.

The gentleman who had made the most strenuous and potent

29

argument against the law of this Legislature was, if he had not been greatly misinformed, in the last General Assembly, one of its foremost and ablest supporters. If that law is wrong now, it was wrong then; and why did he support it then? He (Mr. D.) took a different view of this matter than that of gentlemen who, from friends and advocates of the law, had become its denouncers.

Mr. SCATES offered an amendment — that the Convention should proceed to the election of a printer, assistant secretary, and door-keeper. He said this discussion had taken a wide range — first it was the employment of a door-keeper, then the question of retrenchment, then the powers of the Convention. He wished, however, as all had the same object — economy — in view, that they could see the means to accomplish it in the same light. There might be an economy of time as well as money. The question originally was to rescind; from which sprang the question of the powers of the Convention, and economy — questions which did not belong to the original question. While gentlemen were discussing this matter, they had made declarations and pledged themselves to carry out the principle of economy in all things that should come before the Convention. When this came about he expected to be in the first rank; none should go higher and none lower in the scale of economy than he. He advised, then, an organization of the Convention as soon as it could be affected, though he did not desire to cut off any gentleman who might wish to discuss this matter. He questioned, doubted, and denied the power of the members to bind themselves, or their officers, or officers of the government, by any simple resolution of the body; because, if not embodied in the constitution, it was not and could not be a law — therefore, it was not obligatory.

We have no legislative powers. Resolutions appropriating money by dollars and half dollars is the administration of government which we have no power to do.

Suppose we say in our constitution that a certain amount of money shall be paid our members and officers for their services, will it be any more than an inoperative, inchoate act, until our acts shall be confirmed by the people? Let the President of this Convention issue certificates to these men and boys for their services,

30

will the Auditor, though he may have our resolution on his table, pay any attention to it, or refuse to pay what the law of the state directs? What an aspect would we present if these boys, receiving certificates under an appropriation made by this Convention, and the chief officer of the State obeying the behests of the law, and setting at defiance the supreme constitution-making power, refuse to pay them but in the manner directed by the act of the Legislature! What remedy? It is true you might invoke the power of the courts of justice, obtain a mandamus to compel him, &c.

Here we are — one hundred and sixty-two members, gravely driving half dollar bargains with messengers and boys. To attempt to undo the act of the Legislature by our resolution is impossible. — We might as well go back and overhaul all legislation had under the constitution, as this very law. The gentlemen are disposed to make the compensation of these offices so low as to take away the inducement to seek the office. He was disposed to go as far as any; but he thought that the Convention could not fix the price so low but that men will seek it. Men sometimes seek office for the honor of it. The pay of the soldiers in the army is but $10 per month — and the post is not a very desirable one at that, yet we have witnessed the scramble that has taken place to get in the army; and there has been as much anxiety to get into the ranks as to get into the offices of this Convention. He hoped the Convention would now elect these officers and complete their organization.

He regretted that so much time had been spent in demagogueism [sic]; in making speeches for Buncome; in making speeches, for effect upon the constituents of members and others, about economy. In introducing ridiculous resolutions for this purpose, he had witnessed the same at almost every session of the Legisiature, and he asked why had they been introduced here? It had been shown that these speeches about economy of cutting down the Door-keeper's pay cost more than would pay all the officers of the Convention for their services. — It was useless to continue thus, at an expense of over six hundred dollars a day — of one hundred an hour — we should only have such discussion as would aid us in our schemes of retrenchment, as much as we pay for it.

31

He who first threw this gauntlet is responsible; on his head rests the extravagance who first introduced this useless matter. This is not the place to make a flourish — nor is it a place for abstractions like those on your desk. I cannot subscribe to them; they are but abstractions, why introduce and discuss them here?

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, that as there was some disposition to close the discussion, he would take the present opportunity of expressing his views in relation to the matter under discussion before the Convention, and he deemed that he was not doing more than he had a right to do. Those who complained so much of the great consumption of time, its cost and its waste, should remember that they had occupied their full share of the time that had been consumed in making speeches themselves. They should remember that there were many here who had never before been members of a deliberative body — he was one of them — and who were unacquainted with many things that were more familiar to others. He had come here to receive information on many points, and was in favor of a free and full discussion of every subject matter that came before them. — Others had come with written constitutions in their pockets, which, if the Convention would adopt, as no doubt the gentlemen desired it would, they might go home at once, and make great economy of time.

He thought it his privilege, though one of the humblest members of the body, to express his views upon every subject that he deemed necessary to discuss; and the exercise of that privilege, which is guarantied to every delegate, would not be influenced by the time it would consume. He should pursue that course which his conscience dictated, regardless of what it might cost, or the time it might occupy. If he did not do so, he would not be true to the trust confided in him.

He considered that every subject should be properly understood before they came to any conclusion; he was opposed to the hot haste that some were desirous to follow.

Gentlemen had made statements in this Convention, had made speeches that would be spread before the people, which

32

might lead to prejudicial results as to other delegates in that body. He was unwilling that this should be, unless along with them we spread the views of those who happened to differ with those gentlemen.

He did not believe in the omnipotence of this body. It was necessary, before we could come here, that there should be some legislation; that the Legislature should arrange those matters which should be done before we could convene. Could the people — the entire people — meet here at Springfield, the seat of government, and, without the previous action of the Legislature prescribed by the constitution, proceed to adopt the constitution?

No, sir, they could not. We meet here by the authority of a supreme power, which has given vitality to this Convention? Are not the regulations of that supreme power binding and imperative on us? Suppose a case: Let a vacancy occur in this Convention — how would it be filled? Could this Convention pass a law setting a day for the election of another to fill the vacancy? I hardly think any delegate would say it could. I apprehend it is not in our power to do any such thing. We must abide by the law which has called us here for a particular purpose. During the canvass for the members of this Convention, the tree of public sentiment has been shaken, and the fruits are now collected in this hall, and I am in favor of selecting the good and sound of them, and of engrafting them on the constitutional stock. The Convention of the state of New York sat for four months, and complained that they had not sufficient time to discharge their duties; and I suppose no gentleman will dispute that there was as much talent in that Convention as in this. Yet the Legislature that called them together had limited the time of their sitting to four months, and they, proclaiming that they had not sufficient time to perform the duties assigned them, adhered to and obeyed that law strictly, as imperative upon them. We are sitting here making an organic law for ourselves and for our children; the duty is most important, and I am opposed to hasty action. — I want to deliberate, to reflect — time to have the aid of others' experience and views to aid me. I desire all the aid and advantage to be derived from a full and free interchange of sentiment of every delegate of this Convention.

33

It has been said that the officers could be appointed by resolution, and such a resolution had been adopted the first day of this Convention. I have heard gentlemen of this Convention, who were members of the very Legislature that passed this law, and who voted for it, now come forward and denounce the law as inoperative, and declare we are not bound by it. They go further and declare the Convention is above all law. Strange, strange, that gentlemen in the Legislature should vote for a law, and now get up here and denounce it, declaring that they had no power to pass it.

Mr. LOGAN. The gentleman will allow me to say that this law was passed before the Legislature had fixed the pay of its members, and when I voted for it I had no idea the Legislature would fix that pay at $4 a day.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then I would ask the gentleman if he did not vote for the law which allowed members their present per diem?

Mr. LOGAN. No, sir. I asked to be excused from voting. I had motives of delicacy to induce me to do so, which I need not repeat. I did not vote at all.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, then, the gentleman says he did not vote against the bill, for reasons best known to himself.

Mr. LOGAN. I hardly think the gentleman desires to misrepresent me.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Certainly not, sir.

Mr. LOGAN. I did not say that I did not vote for reasons best known to myself; but I did say from feelings of courtesy towards members who came here from a distance, and who might have supposed that, from the fact of my residing at the seat of government, I might be influenced in my vote. That was the reason, sir. I would have voted against it if my vote would have had any effect.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, the gentleman cannot clear himself yet. He permits money to be taken out of the treasury, does not vote against the law, but quietly permits it to be passed, and now gets up here and denounces the appropriation contained therein as extravagant. — Now, he had acted wrong, put the matter in any shape. If he, (Mr. C.) considered a principle wrong, he would be derelict in his duty if he did not resist it to

34

the utmost of his efforts. This would have been his course if he had been in the General Assembly. Were these assistant officers necessary? If they were, why not vote for them? If they were not, vote them down. But, no; they must have a discussion upon saving a dollar or two in the wages. They must listen to this everlasting retrenchment, whose ghost he really expected to see stalking about that hall, and shaking its gory locks at those who were so continually invoking it.

We are now in debt, say gentlemen. We are all satisfied of that. How are we to get out of it? Why, say they, cut down the pay of the door-keepers, and employ a few boys as pages! A gentleman delivers a speech full of commiseration for the widows and orphans who hold our bonds, and who are suffering from famine in foreign lands, and declares that we should not have a door-keeper, because we owe them money. I am willing that that speech shall go there, and the gentleman receive full merit for his commiseration for their suffering; but I want another speech of that gentleman to go along with it. I want then to know that when an appropriation of $20,000, at the last session of the Legislature, was made for the completion of a magnificent building in Springfield, the same gentleman advocated it most strenuously, while at the same time these widows and orphans were famishing because we did not pay them our debts; and that he now is endeavoring to cut down two dollars a day from the salary of a man to wait on the delegates. Let these facts all go together, and then they can form a true idea of the sincerity of his commiseration for the widows and orphans! What would be said of a gentleman who was in debt, largely, to a number of widows and orphans — always a fine subject for tears — who would erect a magnificent building worth $20,000, for his own comfort and convenience, and then say to his servants, I owe a large debt to some widows and orphans who are famishing in a foreign land, and to enable me to pay them, I must cut down your pay one-half; to enable me to relieve their sufferings, I must lay a contribution on you?

Look across the way, on the other side of your street, and you will behold a magnificent edifice, with large fluted columns, and Italian marble floors, erected at a time when ‘widows and orphans’

35

held their paper, which they could not, would not, never intended to redeem. — [Applause.] Was the gentleman's voice heard then? — Let us, let them, let these ‘widows and orphans’ judge of the sincerity of the commiseration by facts. The time will come, the jay is not far distant, when we may read, on the massive open panels of the door of that institution, this inscription, in chalky whiteness — "This house to let." Yet it is hoped by some that out of the ashes of this institution, another, phoenixlike, will arise, with more brilliant plumage on its wing, a voice more finely toned to delusion, but with a keener glance of vengeance in its eye, greater strength in its pinion, and more power to destroy in its talons, which shall out-Herod its ancient ancestor; but I trust that ere this phoenix shall begin to live, these ashes to feel vitality, the fiat of this Convention will scatter them to the four winds of heaven.

The sins of omission are not so bad in the sight of the people as those of commission. He would prefer, then, to stay within our proper undoubted bounds, rather than to venture on doubtful questions.

Where is the restraint upon our powers? If we can appropriate one dollar, we can ten. So far as altering, amending, or abrogating the old constitution is concerned, we are (Mr. C. said) sovereign. But when we go beyond that duty, the constitution is as binding upon us as ever. That constitution says no money shall be appropriated except by law. Who can make the law? Can this Convention? If the Legislature had not appropriated the money we could not receive one cent; nor can we say that any member of this body shall draw less than four dollars a day, as provided by the law of the Legislature.

He had been an attentive observer of the proceedings of the Legislature of late. I have watched the progress of their economy. I have seen them, when a bill for the reduction of their own pay was before their body, voting for its passage, and, when it was on its way to the Senate, trembling, like Balthazar of old, with their knees shaking one against the other, with very fear that the senate would pass their own bill. I have seen them running to and fro, electioneering with Senators to defeat the measure they dared not vote against.

36

Mr. LOGAN. I hope the gentleman does not allude to me as one of them.

Mr. C. No, sir, no. The gentlemen have a great desire to have a starting point in their economy, and I have always noticed that they make small officers like door-keepers the starting point. When the magnificent building was proposed to be finished in Springfield, they found that that would not do for a starting point — "you must commence with the door-keepers." This, sir, is saving up pennies with one hand and scattering dollars with the other, while "widows and orphans" are famishing in foreign lands. He had heard a member in the Legislature declare that, during the whole session, he had not voted for an appropriation of a single dollar; yet that same man quietly pocketed the four dollars a day for his services.

The gentleman from Sangamon had read an extract from the constitution of Vermont, which stated that the salaries of officers should not be so high as to induce persons to seek them. That same gentleman, however, when the proposition was to raise the salaries of the judges, voted for it. Did he do this because there were no applicants for the office? No applicants in Illinois for judgeships! As regards the salaries of the judges, he was in favor of making them sufficiently large to command talent. Would any lawyer, he asked, who had by his talent and ability raised himself into standing and reputation, and whose practice allowed him to make $1,500 a year, accept a judgeship at one thousand? — Certainly not, particularly if he had a family to support and children to educate.

He would always be in favor of fair and reasonable salaries to all officers. While we should not be prodigal on one hand, we should not fix the pay so low that it would not command talent. If low, men would seek it; if high, men would seek it; but if the pay were reasonable, men of talent would present themselves, would come into competition, and the people would elect them. He fully concurred with the opinion that this Convention could not compel a single delegate to forego one cent of the four dollars a day allowed by the Legislature. He was willing to contribute his share towards paying these officers, if the Convention would not elect them, but not one cent upon compulsion.

37

Let the members obtain the certificate from the President, and go to the Auditor with them, and, though he has the resolution of this body on his table, he will not refuse to pay them what the law allows. If he does, get out a mandamus to compel him. He admitted that if the law of the Legislature in any way directed this Convention as to what charges should be made, so far it would be inoperative — would not be binding. Was it the intention of any delegate to adopt a constitution as the organic law of the state without submitting it to the people? He was certain there was not, and therefore could see no propriety in discussing the point.

The resolution of the gentleman from Pike states the object of this Convention to be to alter, amend, and revise the constitution. I admit that for this purpose and object, the power of the Convention is omnipotent, but no farther.

In conclusion, he hoped that after every gentleman had expressed his opinion who desired to do so, we would proceed to the organization of the Convention. — He was not for hot haste in any thing. The time taken up in discussing preliminary matters was not altogether lost; nor had there been more of it here than in other Conventions.

Mr. WOODSON thanked the gentleman from Jo Daviess for the very liberal views he had expressed. He agreed with him that there was no necessity for haste. The matters that had been discussed would, at some future time, have been presented to us; and he considered it as well that they should be fully discussed and settled now. They had taken a wide range. He regretted that one gentleman from Fulton, who had participated much in the discussion, had thought necessary to move, to-day, upon every question that was presented, to lay on the table; thereby cutting off all opportunities for debate. Gentlemen had complained about the consumption of time. One of them, from Lee, had entered into a calculation upon the subject; and if we apply his calculation to his own speeches, it would appear that he had already cost the state $2,000. The only speeches that had been made on their side were those by the gentleman from Peoria and Sangamon. The Convention had voted down the proposition to have the printing let out to the lowest bidder, and that without

38

debate. The gentleman from Fulton had expressed his determination to cut of[f] all debate, by moving to lay every proposition on the table, until the Convention had organized.

Mr. WEAD explained that such was not his object.

Mr. WOODSON resumed. He considered that the Convention had sovereign power. Gentleman may speak of demagogueism, but he, when a principle was involved of such importance as that advocated by his friend from Sangamon, was of opinion that it was immaterial what the cost was, if the discussion would enable them to arrive at the true principles on which they should act. He had no idea that what he would say would have much effect upon the Convention; he spoke with great mistrust of his own power and abilities. He denied that this Convention was a creature of the Legislature — that it had called the Convention into being. They had been called there by a preliminary act of a former Legislature, on which the people had passed. — He contended for the right of the Convention to say whether the constitution they might adopt should be submitted to the people or not.

Mr. W. pursued the subject at some length, and we regret that from the want of space we cannot give the whole of the report of his speech furnished us.

Mr. WHITNEY advocated, briefly, the immediate organization of the Convention by the election of the remaining officers.

Mr. KNOWLTON had been astonished and amused at the course which had been pursued by some gentlemen during this discussion. While he admitted that there was such a thing as economy of time, he would remind gentlemen that even the world was not made in a day. He knew a man where he came from who had a constitution already written out, which, if he had thought of bringing [it] with him, might have been adopted, and they could now have been on their way home. He spoke at much length upon the importance of small matters when a great principle was concerned, and urged the necessity of always meeting them with an ample discussion. He would tell the gentleman from Jo Daviess that if the ghost of murdered Retrenchment came

39

into that hall, the gentleman from Jo Daviess would never be troubled by him. He would never be called upon to explain, with Macbeth, ‘Avaunt! shake not thy gory locks at me, I did it not;’ because no one would think of accusing that gentleman of anything connected with retrenchment. Mr. K. continued the subject much further, alluding particularly to the desire of his constituents to have the enormous allowances made for printing reduced.

Mr. Archer replied briefly to Mr. K. and urged the views presented by him when he offered his amendment.

Mr. GREEN of Tazewell said that he had come here under the expectation of meeting civilized men in Convention; men that had been, at least, decently educated. But, no; those whom he had heard had given way to the use of that weapon called sarcasm. Gentlemen had forgotten that courtesy which should teach them to speak to and of each other more respectfully. This he said had been the impression made on him. He said that if he had come into the hall while one of them was speaking, he would most certainly have thought that a certain young man had fancied himself a David; that on the other side of the room had sprung up a Goliath; and this young man was prepared with his small pebble and sling to kill the monarch of the Philistines.

He had heard the law expounded by judges, doctors, and readers of the law, and had heard as many opinions of what the law was as he had persons discuss it. — What was to be done? When doctors disagree who shall decide? Mr. G. denied the power of the Legislature to control or limit the powers of this Convention. He hoped to hear no more about omnipotencey [sic]. There was no omnipotence among frail men — even if there were one hundred and sixty-two of them.

Mr. LOGAN said it was not his wont to discuss questions after he had ascertained that such discussion was to have no effect. But he desired to say a few words in reply to what had been said concerning himself. Gentlemen had cast out insinuations upon the motives which had governed the actions and speeches of others; they might do so, for they had no effect upon him; he passed them by as the idle wind, which he regarded not. It had, also, been said that speeches had been made for Buncombe, &c.;

40

but he could assure gentlemen that he had as little use for such matters as any others.

He had stated, when he first spoke, that the door-keeper and secretary were the trifling matters, and should not have contended on that point if it had stood alone. The gentleman from Clinton had offered this resolution, and he should have been the object of the gentlemen's wrath. They had, however, permitted his friend to escape, and had poured out all their vials of wrath on his (Mr. L.'s) head. When he saw the vote this morning, he considered and was satisfied that the matter was decided; but the gentlemen had continued their attacks upon him.

He had no desire to turn upon these gentlemen with angry feelings, for the truth was that there was no truth in anything that had been said of him, except what the gentleman from Jo Daviess had said. He cared nothing for the falsehoods; but when there was truth in the attack, he was disposed to admit its effect.

He had not the least idea that the Legislature would raise the pay of the members above $3, and when they said $3.50, and sent it to the Senate, he was astonished. The Senate increased it to four dollars, and it came back to the House. He was disposed to vote against it, but in consequence of the motives of delicacy and courtesy mentioned before, and because he had just succeeded in getting through an appropriation of twenty thousand dollars, for the purpose of clearing away the dirt and rubbage scattered around this square, he interposed no objection to the per diem fixed. He felt he had done wrong, and he now candidly admitted that he was wrong in not voting against that which he considered wrong in principle. The law allowed some of the judges $1,500 and others $1,000, and to make them all alike, and as they were to remain in office but a short time, he had voted to pay them all alike.

He still urged that the Convention should exercise the strictest economy. The state was insolvent. He had, in consequence of endorsing for a friend, become insolvent himself. He had practiced retrenchment in all of his expenses of living until he had paid every cent he owed. The state should do the same. He was willing to jeopard his popularity, and would go as far as any man in so doing, by making the people pay her debt.

41

Mr. ARCHER'S amendment was then adopted.

The question was taken on the final adoption of the first resolution, and it was carried — yeas 87, nays 64. The second was also adopted.

The Convention then proceeded to the election of an assistant secretary; when, H. G. REYNOLDS received 84 votes; J. M. BURT, 60; J. S. ROBERTS, 5; and Mr. REYNOLDS was declared elected.

The Convention divided on the nomination of Mr. R. WOODRUFF, as assistant door-keeper; when he received 86 votes, and was elected.

The Convention then divided on the election of a printer, and MESSRS. LANPHIER & WALKER received 88 votes, and were elected.

On motion, 200 hundred [sic] copies of the rules were ordered to be printed. And then the Convention adjourned until 9 o'clock, to-morrow.

42

IV. Thursday, June 10, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. DRESSER.

Mr. MINSHALL presented a resolution setting forth proposed amendments to the present judicial system of the state; which was,

On motion of Mr. MANLY, laid on the table.

Mr. DUNSMORE presented a resolution. Adopted.

Mr. WOODSON presented a resolution that the Conventionshould meet at 8, A. M., and adjourn at 12, M., and meet again at 3, and adjourn at 6, P. M., each day.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess thought that sessions of six hours each day were enough in this crowded hall, and this season of the year. He was in favor of meeting in the forenoon, and allowing the afternoon for the committees.

Mr. SINGLETON thought it would be more conducive to the health of the members that they should be in the hall during the heat of the day.

Mr. SCATES was in favor of short sessions each day, and that the committees should have sufficient time to perform their work. He would vote to meet at nine, and leave the Convention to regulate its time of adjournment.

Mr. SHUMWAY opposed the resolution.

Mr. ROBBINS was in favor of the proposed hour of meeting, but opposed to the fixed hours of adjournment, as such would

43

lead to much inconvenience to the Convention. He offered to meet at 8 A. M.

Mr. PALMER moved to lay the resolution and amendment on the table. Carried.

Mr. CONSTABLE offered a resolution providing that the Convention should meet each day at 8, A. M., and 3, P. M.

Mr. ROBBINS moved to strike out "3, P. M." Lost.

The resolution was then adopted.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison offered a resolution increasing the number of committees. Adopted.

Mr. HAYES offered a resolution providing for a submission to the people of every amendment to the constitution, separately.

Mr. DEMENT moved to refer the resolution to the committee on the Revision and Adjustment of the Constitution.

Mr. CONSTABLE moved to lay the motion of reference on the table; which was carried. The resolution was then laid on the table.

Mr. ADAMS offered a resolution calling on the Secretary of State for certain information relative to literary matters and the state of the school fund. Adopted.

Mr. PETERS offered a resolution to amend the rules by adding that there shall be [a] "committee on Townships." Laid on the table.

Mr. HARVEY offered a resolution to increase the number of committees by adding a "committee on the State Debt." Laid on the table.

A resolution was offered, and adopted, providing for a "committee on Legislative Business."

Mr. DAVIS of Massac offered a resolution that a quorum of this Convention, to do business, shall consist of two-thirds of the delegates elected, (108 members to constitute a quorum.) Adopted.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved that 200 copies of the constitution of the state be printed for the use of the Convention. Adopted.

Mr. WOODSON presented a preamble and resolution setting forth various proposed alterations in the state government. Laid on the table.

Mr. SCATES offered a resolution requiring information from

44

the revenue clerks of the different counties; which, after some debate, and various proposed amendments had been voted down, was laid on the table.

Mr. ARCHER presented a preamble and resolution relating to several proposed amendments to the constitution, and moved their reference to a committee.

Mr. CONSTABLE moved to lay the motion to refer and the resolution on the table. Carried.

Mr. SCATES presented a resolution that a select committee should be appointed to apportion the business among the several standing committees.

Mr. KNOWLTON moved to lay the resolution on the table. Which was carried.

Mr. WHITNEY moved to adjourn till to-morrow, at 9, A. M., to enable the President to appoint the standing committees.

Mr. BALLINGALL inquired of the Chair if that time would be sufficient.

The CHAIR replied that he did not think he could appoint them before Monday next.

Mr. WHITNEY then withdrew the motion to adjourn.

Mr. McCALLEN offered a resolution providing that the standing committees should be chosen proportionately from the congressional districts.

Messrs. WHITNEY and ADAMS opposed the resolution; and, on motion, it was laid on the table.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond offered a resolution in relation to the judiciary. Laid on the table.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin offered a resolution on the same subject. Laid on the table.

Mr. EVEY offered a resolution regulating the powers of the General Assembly, the pay of its members, &c. — Laid on the table.

The Convention then adjourned till to-morrow, 9 A. M.

45

V. Friday, June 11, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. HALE.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a petition, received by him through the post office, praying certain reforms in the judiciary department of the state government; which was read, in part, and laid on the table.

Mr. NORTHCOTT presented a resolution proposing to give the Legislature power to levy a poll-tax, to be appropriated to certain purposes. Laid on the table.

Mr. ROUNTREE presented a resolution establishing a court of record, and abolishing certain other offices. Laid on the table.

Mr. JENKINS offered a resolution providing for the election of state and county officers, their salaries, members of the Legislature, and their per diem. Laid on the table.

Mr. SCATES presented a resolution limiting the power, salaries, and term of office of the Executive, members of the Legislature, public printer, and other officers, and moved its reference to a committee of the whole Convention. He had embodied in it a series of questions which would occupy the time of the Convention hereafter, and he proposed that we should now go into committee where we might at once enter into a discussion of all the various subjects; and that the several committees might thereby be aided

46

in arriving at the views of the Convention upon each subject. As there were no standing committees to which these resolutions could be referred, he hoped they would adopt his suggestion, and refer them all to a committee of the whole.

Mr. ECCLES agreed with the gentleman from Jefferson, and supported his proposition.

Mr. JENKINS opposed it, as the debate on these questions would have to be all gone over again when the subject came properly before the Convention. He moved to lay the resolution on the table. Carried.

Mr. ROBBINS presented a resolution, that the delegates from each congressional district should meet to-day, at 2, P. M., and appoint from their number a select committee of two from each district, to aid the Chair in appointing standing committees of the Convention; and supported his proposition with some remarks.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved to lay the motion on the table; which was carried.

Mr. SHIELDS offered a resolution, changing the time of holding state elections from August to November. — Laid on the table.

Mr. ARCHER offered three resolutions — I, that the secretary should be authorized to procure such well-bound books as were necessary for the keeping of the proceedings of this Convention; 2, that he should be authorized, when necessary, to employ a copyist; the purport of the third the reporter could not catch. On motion, the two last were laid on the table.

Mr. Palmer of Macoupin moved to amend the first, by authorizing the employment of an additional secretary to do the copying.

The resolution and amendment were then withdrawn.

Mr. THOMAS renewed the resolution.

Mr. LOUDON denied the necessity of the resolution.

Mr. SINGLETON moved to amend the resolution by adding that a committee shall be appointed to Inquire into the propriety and cost of employing a person to report the proceedings of the Convention for the state.

Mr. THOMAS hoped the amendment would be withdrawn, as it had no connection with the subject matter of the first.

47

Mr. SINGLETON thought the subject was an important one, and that something of the kind should be adopted; but for the present withdrew his amendment.

Mr. KITCHELL moved to amend, by striking out all after the word "resolved," and insert "that the Secretary of State be requested to furnish the necessary books, and that the Convention proceed to the election of an assistant secretary, whose duty it would be to do the copying."

Mr. WHITNEY moved to lay the subject on the table.

The question was taken on laying the amendment oh the table, and decided in the affirmative — ayes 87, noes not counted.

The motion to lay the orig[i]nal on the table was then withdrawn.

Mr. KINNEY of St. Clair moved to amend by providing that the additional secretary perform the duty of copying the journal.

Mr. ARCHER stated that he had not withdrawn his resolution because it conflicted with the resolution adopted yesterday. He thought very differently. He also considered that the Convention had an implied right over its officers, and power to direct their duties.

Mr. KINNEY of St. Clair gave his reasons for offering the amendment. He questioned the power of the Convention to appoint officers other than by the name stated in the law of the legislature; at least, that such officer[s] could be paid without an appropriation by the legislature.

Mr. SCATES said, that the Convention had a right to employ any officers necessary for the transaction of business, but they would have to wait for their pay until the legislature should make an appropriation for the purpose. He opposed action in the matter at the present time, because there was not sufficient copying yet to be done to afford a man sufficient employment. He hoped they would postpone the matter. He moved to lay the matter on the table. Carried.

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough offered a resolution providing that no negro, Indian, mulatto, or other person of mixed blood, or one-eighth blood, should attain, have, or use the rights of citizenship under the constitution this Convention should adopt.

48

Mr. THOMAS moved to postpone the resolution till the first of December next. Carried.

Mr. BROCKMAN offered a resolution that no new county shall be hereafter organized by the legislature, unless it shall contain an area of 400 square miles.

Mr. WORCESTER offered a resolution providing for the election of state and county superintendents of common schools, &c.

Mr. SHUMWAY moved to amend, by prohibiting the legislature from borrowing at any time any of the college or seminary funds.

On motion of Mr. PETERS, the resolution and amendment were laid on the table.

Mr. BOSBYSHELL offered, as an additional rule, that no member, when addressing the Convention, shall speak over one hour. Laid on the table.

Mr. KNAPP offered a resolution proposing, as a part of the new constitution, that no county shall be entitled to more than two members, &c. Laid on the table.

Mr. GEDDES offered a resolution providing that all elections hereafter shall be by ballot; to which was offered an amendment, that no one should vote at such elections except free white male citizens and such unnaturalized foreigners as had heretofore exercised the privilege. Laid on the table.

Mr. WEAD offered a resolution calling for information from the Auditor about the public debt, the means present and prospective of paying the same, &c.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond, believing no such information could be obtained, moved to lay it on the table, but withdrew the motion.

Mr. WEAD said, his desire in presenting the resolution was to obtain all the information possible, with a view of putting in the new constitution some provision to liquidate the debt. He

49

said that, even if all the Auditor knew of the matter had been reported, they could get that much information at least. The Auditor could tell them what property the state had, what means she had of paying the debt, and when the debt was payable. If it should turn out, (and this information would be of some assistance to them in coming at some conclusion,) that a low tax would pay the annual interest and finally the debt, they could decide on the measure.

The state was laboring under the stain of not having provided for the payment of the interest on her debt, and his constituents felt more interest in that than in any other matter.

Mr. LOGAN was in favor of the resolution, but he suggested that part of it was misdirected. It would be as well, indeed more proper, to address the first part of the resolution to the Fund Commissioner. The amendment suggested was accepted.

Mr. Z. CASEY suggested that they could perhaps obtain more information by directing the inquiry to the Governor, who had returned from the east, where he had gone in relation to some matters connected with the state debt. He no doubt possessed the information.

Mr. LOGAN said, that he had spoken under the impression that the Governor had not returned.

Mr. WEAD accepted the suggestion as an amendment.

Mr. SHUMWAY moved to add, that he be requested to inform them of the result of his negotiation; which amendment was accepted.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin suggested that it would be proper to amend by asking the information so far as the Governor might deem did not conflict with the public interest.

Mr. WHITESIDE said, neither the Fund Commissioner or the Auditor could furnish the information called for by the resolution. Those officers had been called upon before, and there were no materials in their possession upon which they could report. He suggested some other officer.

Mr. Z. CASEY said, the Governor, if required to furnish the information, could call upon all the different officers to furnish him with what each particular branch of the government had charge of. He hoped the resolution would pass.

50

Mr. DEMENT hoped the resolution would pass; and by calling upon the Governor for the information he possessed, we could receive all that was possessed by the various officers under his control.

The resolution was then adopted.

Mr. GRIMSHAW offered a resolution calling upon the various county clerks for information in regard to the revenue of their respective counties, &c. Carried — yeas 78, nays 22.

Mr. WOODSON offered, as an additional rule, that no standing rule of the Convention should be rescinded or suspended, except by a vote of two-thirds. Lost — ayes 39, noes not counted.

Mr. SCATES moved that the rules adopted by the Convention some days ago be referred to a committee of the whole, for the purpose of amending or altering them.

Mr. THOMAS asked if the rules had been adopted by the Convention for their government; and, if so, had the vote by which they were adopted been reconsidered?

The CHAIR replied that the rules had been adopted; that the vote adopting them had not been reconsidered; and that he did not think it in order to refer the rules, as moved by the gentleman from Jefferson.

Mr. DEMENT inquired if any delegate were to propose an amendment to the rules, whether it would not be in order to refer that amendment to the committee of the whole; and, being answered in the affirmative, said he hoped they would follow the suggestion.

Mr. Z. CASEY said, he thought there was no necessity for the Convention to go into committee of the whole to amend the rules. They were the rules of the Convention, adopted by the Convention, and governed by the Convention could do with them as they pleased. — They had adopted them, and, at any time, could alter or repeal them. If you refer the rules to the committee, they govern there as well as in Convention, and you could do no more there with them than here. He thought it better and easier for the Convention to amend the rules than by referring them.

Mr. WOODSON agreed with the gentleman from Jefferson last up. He was satisfied that gentleman was right. The

51

Convention could, by a bare majority, amend the rules, and there was but little to be done in amending them.

Mr. DEMENT said, that he was not anxious to get the matter into committee of the whole, but as the gentleman from Jefferson had expressed a desire to that effect, he had only made a suggestion as to the proper means of arriving at his object. He had voted against the resolution requiring a two-third vote to amend the rules, because he knew the rules had been adopted without discussion, and that, perhaps, some members desired to have them altered. He was satisfied with them, and, when they had again been voted on, would be in favor of the two-third rule.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond had been informed that the rules had been adopted by the Convention; there was no necessity of a further discussion of them. If it was desired to amend, let the proposition be made and voted on.

Mr. SCATES had no other desire in moving to go into committee of the whole than that of economizing time. He had no intention to propose any amendment, nor was he in favor of changing any of them, except, perhaps, the number required by the 6th rule to demand the yeas and nays. He might vote to reduce it from ten to a smaller number.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin said, that as gentlemen had expressed themselves satisfied with the rules, he would move to reconsider the vote by which the two-third rule had been rejected. He had voted against it because gentlemen desired to discuss and amend the rules; there being none such now appearing, he was for having stability in them. He made the motion to reconsider.

Mr. LOGAN thought it too soon to adopt the two-third rule in regard to amending the rules. He hoped the members would allow the rules to stand a little while longer, until they should have time to try them and see how they answered. He knew little or nothing about rules — he was no connoisseur in them; he wished to try what they had adopted; and if they found anything wanted amendment, they could adopt it.

Mr. PALMER withdrew his motion to reconsider.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to strike out "ten," in the 6th rule, and insert "four."

Mr. LOGAN said, this thing of calling the yeas and nays

52

occupied great time, and he was sure there could arise no questions where it was in the least important to have them, but ten members could be found who would second the demand. He could not conceive a case where this would occur. There was no charm in the numbers ten or four, and he thought ten was small enough.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison opposed the change because, from experience, he knew the time uselessly occupied and wasted in calling the yeas and nays.

The CHAIR suggested that it was necessary to reconsider the vote by which the rule had been adopted, as it was not in order to amend what had been passed.

Mr. MINSHALL moved to reconsider the vote by which the rules had been adopted, and asked the unanimous consent that it be passed now, and not lay [sic] over for three days.

Mr. PRATT thought the proper way to bring the rules before them was to suspend the 17th rule, which required three days' notice of every motion to reconsider.

Mr. LOGAN hoped they would be taken up by unanimous consent; they had nothing else to do, and they might as well dispose of that matter.

Mr. SHUMWAY thought still, that, even by unanimous consent, they could not be taken up on a motion to reconsider; and he moved to suspend the 17th rule, to enable them to do so.

Mr. PRATT agreed with the gentleman last up, and pressed the matter on the attention of the Convention.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed the reading of the rules one at a time, and that all propositions to amend should be made then.

The CHAIR ruled that they could take a vote on the motion to reconsider by unanimous consent.

Mr. WILLIAMS was willing to take the vote now, as he hoped they would get to the discussion of the great questions' they had been sent here to settle. It would be time enough to amend the rules when we had discovered that we had been too hasty in adopting them. — If the majority thought proper to change the number in the 6th rule, and put it in the power of a few to demand the yeas and nays, they could at any time do so, and he would not now object to a vote on the matter; but he was not in

53

favor of lessening the number; on the contrary, he would prefer that it was greater.

Mr. BUTLER moved the previous question.

The CHAIR said that, upon reflection, he thought the motion to suspend the 17th rule was the proper one.

Mr. POWERS advocated the suspension.

The question was taken on suspending the 17th rule, and agreed to.

Mr. DEMENT called for the reading of the rules.

Mr. Z. CASEY proposed that they should read the rules one after another, commencing at the first and continuing on till done with them; and that members, having amendments, should offer them at the reading of the rule they desired to amend. He said that, as an excuse to the Convention for having interfered in this matter so much, he would state that he was a member of the committee that had reported these rules, and he was somewhat surprised that this Convention adopted them so hastily. It was an unusual thing, and he had considered it somewhat of a compliment to the committee, who had drawn them up in a great hurry.

Mr. PALMER of Stark said that it was, in his opinion, premature to revise the rules of the Convention at this time. He was willing to retain them as they were until it appeared that there was something in them which impeded the progress of the Convention in the transaction of its business.

Mr. THOMAS said, he hoped the vote would be taken whether the Convention was satisfied with the rules, as they stood at present, or not. As to the number which should be in the 6th rule to demand the yeas and nays, he was in favor of 20 instead of 10. It reminded him of an anecdote which he had heard in the Legislature when it sat in Vandalia. The House of Representatives gave one of its members leave of absence till the first of March, because he called the yeas and nays so often.

Mr. BALLINGALL was in favor of an amendment to the 10th rule; he was in favor of striking from that rule the exclusion of the yeas and nays from the proceedings of the committee of the whole. In committee, the most important questions would be decided, and put in the constitution they would adopt, and yet their constituents could not tell how they had voted.

54

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon offered two additional rules; which were adopted.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond called for the reading of the rules,

The PRESIDENT then read the rules one after the other, pausing between each for propositions to amend. At the 12th rule,

Mr. McCALLEN moved to substitute for the rule as it now stands, the following: "All standing committees shall be appointed by the President, to be chosen alternately, two members from each congressional district; and that such committees shall, by ballot, select their own chairmen." The amendment was lost.

Mr. ROBBINS moved to amend the 16th rule, by adding thereto — "and each member, while speaking, shall confine himself to the subject matter before the Convention."

The House was dividing on the amendment, when the yeas and nays were demanded, and ordered.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison said, the amendment was entirely unnecessary. It was the duty of the President to confine the members to the question before the Convention.

Pending the call of the yeas and nays, the Convention adjourned till 3, P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. ROBBINS withdrew his call of the yeas and nays.

Mr. PRATT renewed the call.

Mr. HAY moved to amend the amendment, by limiting all speeches to thirty minutes. The amendment to the amendment was laid on the table — yeas 80.

The amendment was then laid on the table — ayes 85, noes not counted.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to amend the 17th rule, by striking out all after the word "Convention," in the 3d line. Lost.

Mr. PALMER moved to strike out all from the word "except" to the word "twice," inclusive, in the 18th rule. Lost.

A rule, that the rules of the Convention might be suspended or amended in part, or in whole, by a vote of two-thirds, was offered by some member (name not known to the reporter) and adopted; also, a rule that a motion to adjourn, the previous

55

question, to lay on the table, to refer, to postpone, and to postpone indefinitely, should always be in order, to be decided without debate, and should have precedence in the order named, was adopted; and then the rules were concluded.

Mr. WILLIAMS hoped that the resolutions offered yesterday by the gentleman from Green (Mr. Woodson) would be taken up, by the Convention, from the table, and that we would now proceed to the discussion of the principles contained in them. By so doing, we would be approaching nearer a decision of something. Without this, there would be nothing for us to do.

The motion was carried, and the following resolutions were taken up:

Resolved, That the government of the state of Illinois shall consist of three co-ordinate departments, each independent of the other; and that the powers of the government should be so divided and so distributed among these departments that neither of them could, without the consent and co-operation of at least one of the others, injuriously affect either of the great rights of personal liberty and private property.

Resolved, That the necessary distribution of power for this purpose is into legislative, judicial, and executive departments: the first is to prescribe general rules for the government of society; the second, to expound and apply these rules to individuals in society; the third, to enforce obedience to the judgment and decrees of the second, and see that the laws are faithfully executed.

The propriety of arguing and discussing these resolutions, at the present time, was urged by Messrs. WILLIAMS, LOGAN, SERVANT, DAVIS of Bond, BROCKMAN, and MINSHALL, and opposed by Mr. PALMER of Stark.

[Mr. WILLIAMS said, that it would be perceived that if we now proceed to the discussion of these resolutions, and interchange our sentiments and views upon them, and come to a decision on the subjects contained in them, that we will decide the three great questions — the executive, judicial and legislative departments — to be decided; and that after that we would have but little more than a bill of rights.

It is important that the Convention should commence the discussion.

56

If we took but a single question at a time, and every member who desires to do so would express his views and propose his amendments, we would soon get through; and in this way we will have done the most of what we came here to perform. I move, then, that we take them up — these two first resolutions and discuss them coolly and calmly, and then proceed to the discussion and decision of the others.

Mr. SERVANT said, that if the Convention was disposed to economize both time and money, he would suggest to the gentleman from Adams, to permit these resolutions to be laid on the table, to have them printed in bill form, so that members would be enabled to understand and see these resolutions before them and in such a way that they might examine and weigh the matters contained in them. He thought that some of the propositions contained in these resolutions could not be better nor more in accordance with his views; and to others, also contained in them, he was opposed.

He was in favor of taking up all the great questions one at a time. For instance, in the first place, we might discuss the proper number of senators and representatives to constitute our General Assembly, the length of time they should sit, whether annual or biennial sessions, the per diem to be allowed them, &c. After we had fully discussed this branch of the government, we might proceed to the Executive department; take up the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, discuss the proper time for them to hold office, their salaries, powers, &c. Then we might pass to the Judiciary, settle the number of judges, the length of their terms of service, if elective, their salaries — both supreme and circuit courts, and all matters connected with them.

It would be idle for any committee of this Convention to disregard the expressed views of the members. If gentlemen would not speak of the time consumed in debate but had proceeded to the organization and pursued the legitimate business of the Convention; if they who spoke most of the economy of time, had not themselves consumed, some of them, five, four, three, and two hundred dollars worth of time, much might have been done. It was not too late yet to retrace their steps. Let them then go to work, perform the business they were sent here to transact, and

57

then they would not be afraid to go home to their constituents, who would receive them with approval of "well done, good and faithful servants." Let us do this; let us take up and discuss these great questions, and after we shall have expressed our opinions upon them, nothing will be required but a committee of revision to prepare them in detail, and then go home.

Mr. PALMER, of Stark, said that he held in his hand the act of the Legislature which called them together to revise, alter and amend the constitution of the State. We had met under that call. He also held in his hand the present constitution of the State. He supposed the proposition to amend would begin with the first article of that constitution, and that, pursuing a similar plan as that followed in relation to the rules, we would go down, article after article, section, after section, until we had gone through with it, amending it as we went along in every place that we thought it needed amendments. This, it seemed to him, would be the proper course; to follow the other would be to act as if there was no constitution of the State now in force nor in existence. He hoped they would take it up article by article, and amend it so far as they thought it required to be done. Then, after having gone through with it and made all the amendments necessary, let members propose new articles, to be added to the constitution, and we could adopt such as we thought proper and conducive to the general welfare and prosperity. He appealed to his friends and fellow-citizens of the Convention to adopt this course. These resolutions were nothing but the expression of individual opinions, to have them printed would cost the State a great deal of money, and if they were printed there would be others to be printed, for all of which the State would have to pay.]

Mr. WILLIAMS said, it had been suggested to him that it would be just as well to lay these resolutions on the table, and have them printed, and made the special order for Monday next.

[Mr. LOGAN. I can see no benefit in postponing this matter. Why not begin now? What else have we to do? Why not proceed

58

in the discussion of the questions proposed in these resolutions? Why not hear the different opinions, views and sentiments of the members and melt them down — amalgamate them into one? Hear the views of gentlemen on these principles, in opposition to them, and the modifications of them. Here are assembled one hundred and sixty-two members, each has an opinion; we had better have them melted down one into another — modify one member's opinion by that of others. He hoped they would select some subjects — he did not care what — and proceed now, this very afternoon, to the discussion of them. They had nothing better to do; nothing else to do.

Mr. DAVIS, of Bond, said, that the remarks of the gentleman from Sangamon were very applicable. He, too, hoped they would proceed to the discussion of the various subjects that were open to them, and which must be, in some form or another, discussed. There must, at some time, be an opinion expressed on these subjects. There was the election of the judges, how the courts should be organized, the naturalization laws, the great question of banks. These are questions upon which the Convention would have to act. There were 162 members of the Convention, all had an opinion, they must at some time be reduced to one opinion — why not commence, then, the discussion this afternoon? Take up the judiciary — it may be the first question; take up the legislative department, that may be the first question. Let us get an opinion on any one of these subjects. Take either of them up and discuss it, and then pass on to the others, and until in this way we ascertain the sense of the Convention upon them all, and the work will be done.

Mr. BROCKMAN was glad to see the desire of gentlemen to get on with the work of the Convention. The best way of serving their constituents was to be doing the work they had been sent there to perform. There were three leading questions upon which they would be called to act — the executive, legislative and judiciary departments of the State — upon either of which we might have an immediate discussion. Every delegate had an idea of a constitution in his mind, and of what it should be. By commencing the discussion now we might get through the labors of this Convention in six weeks; but if we get along only as we have done

59

we would not get through in six months. Let us get up those resolutions, and then perform our duty by discussing them, which is certainly no more than we owe to our constituents. He felt that this was his duty as he had sat there in his place and saw the time wasted away unprofitably. There was time enough, left, and he hoped it would be occupied in a proper way.

Mr. BALLINGALL hoped the motion to print would be adopted. They could be printed by tomorrow forenoon, and the time between now and Monday would be little enough for the President to appoint the standing committees.

Mr. MINSHALL was in favor of going on now. There are no committees appointed yet, and we have nothing to do. Let us get at the sense of the Convention upon some of these points, and then the committees will have nothing to do but carry out our views. We all understand what the constitution should be; there is no delegate present but does, or is presumed to, know what the general features of the constitution should be. He earnestly hoped the Convention would go on with the discussion.

Mr. ROUNTREE thought the motion was very unnecessary. We had passed a resolution to print the constitution, which we would soon have before us on our desks. There were five days already wasted, and we have done nothing. Let us have a starting point; and if we would but commence to hear the views of gentlemen on any of the questions before us, we would have done much. He was in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Stark.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is very well to have the old constitution printed, but no delegate would suppose that we are to take it up, and do no more than to add to and strike from it.

He thought Monday next a good day to commence the work in earnest. Let us have good feeling among the members — no crimination nor recrimination about what is passed, nor about what has been said by any of the members. He could see no reason for it. Let them do the work for which they had come there, and that, too, methodically; and if they went to work thus, in the second week, no one could complain. We thus could do

60

the work in a shorter time than in any other way. — The delay of one day was not much; and then take it up, and go to work in good temper until it was done.

Mr. WHITNEY liked the feeling that had been displayed by gentlemen to expedite the business of the Convention. But he did not think they could expedite matters much by commencing this evening. If we had these resolutions printed and before us, we could then understand, by reading them and examining the language ourselves, better than if we had only heard them read from the secretary's table. We cannot get through the discussion of these questions in a few days, nor, perhaps, in a few weeks.

Mr. HARVEY moved a division of the questions to print and lay on the table.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond was not opposed to the mere motion of printing these resolutions, but in them were not contained all the questions which would come before the Convention. They contained propositions relative to the judiciary and Legislature, but the questions of banks, the right of suffrage, the naturalization law, were not contained in the resolutions. There was a large number of resolutions on the table, and to-day we print these two resolutions, and to-morrow other gentlemen will call up their resolutions, involving questions upon every subject, and then will come motions to have them printed also.

Mr. KITCHELL said, that the great difficulty in the progress of business appeared to him to be in the presentation of too many questions for discussion at one time. Here was a series of resolutions, with a long preamble, partaking of the character of a speech, and members could not be expected to discuss or vote upon propositions in such a shape. A naked question only should be presented. Let it be the abolition of the Council of Revision. There was hardly a member but was prepared both to vote on, and discuss that proposition; and then so on with others. Let the questions be put nakedly to the Convention, and the members were prepared to meet them. Let them be presented with the question of altering the mode of appointing the judiciary, and the various other questions, singly, and they will be prepared for them.

Mr. LOGAN concurred with the gentleman last up, and had drawn up something which would present to the Convention a

61

single point, something tangible, which they could all understand. It was a proposition to amend the resolutions of the gentleman from Greene.

The CHAIR ruled the amendment out of order, while a motion to print and lay on the table was pending.

Mr. Z. CASEY desired to make a single suggestion. Would it not facilitate the matter to refer the whole resolutions to the committee of the whole, and make them the order of the day for to-morrow? Let all the resolutions that had been offered be referred to the committee, and then make something out of the whole of them if you can. When the committee had got them into shape, let that report be printed. He would not make the motion, but merely the suggestion to the Convention.

Mr. ARCHER could not vote upon important principles set forth in a series of resolutions without having had time for reflection and examination. He did not desire to vote upon subjects which he might, upon reflection, have wished he had not done. We had a most important duty to perform. We were making laws for ages to come. He had heard the resolutions read once at the secretary's table, and could form but a general opinion of them; he only recollected part of them. He desired to postpone the discussion of them until they could examine them. He agreed that we should work with good feeling. We should cast no reflection upon gentlemen who might have offered a resolution or anything else in the Convention. All were anxious to perform the duty that had been assigned them by their constituents; and he could not believe that anyone had offered a resolution here for the purpose of killing time. He felt that he had a duty incumbent on him to go at once to the business of this Convention. In view that he might understandingly assume the responsibility of voting on the propositions, he thought that he should have time for examination. He agreed that they should vote on every proposition singly.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin. The proposition now before them was to debate a certain series of resolutions containing several propositions offered by the gentleman from Greene. It was very proper for those who agreed with the views contained in those resolutions to desire their discussion. But other gentlemen had

62

presented a class of resolutions of antagonist character in principle. The discussion should be so comprehensive as to include a debate upon propositions of both sides. We ought to have them all before us, and, after a full discussion of them all, select such views as are best from the variety before us. We ought to have the most light we can. What advantage would it be to discuss a proposition containing but one view of a question, unless at the same time we had the antagonist principle set forth in the same shape?

To discuss the question, how many members the Senate and House of Representatives should contain, what need have we of having any printing done? He hoped that if any were printed, the Convention would have them all before them.

Mr. LOGAN said that, if there were any gentlemen ready to discuss any other questions, there could be no propriety in delaying. He had sent to the Chair an amendment to the resolutions of the gentleman from Greene, which presented a single point. The resolutions of the gentleman provided that the judges should be elected and hold their office for six years. His amendment proposed that they should be elected one for four years, one for eight, and one for twelve years, having a change every four years, but to have the term finally at twelve years. This amendment would present the question, and to his view, and in his estimation, a very great question, whether the judges of the supreme court should be elected at different times, or all at once. He thought these matters might be discussed at once.

Mr. WILLIAMS then withdrew his motion to lay on the table.

Mr. THOMAS suggested a reference of the whole matter to the committee of the whole, as there these questions might be discussed singly. He suggested this plan of operation to gentlemen, as there seemed to be a disposition to act now. He moved a reference of the resolutions and amendment to the committee of the whole; which was agreed to.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole — Mr. SHERMAN in the chair.

Mr. BALLINGALL wished to inquire of the gentleman from Greene, what he meant by the words in the resolution, "that

63

neither of them could, without the consent and co-operation of at least one of the others, injuriously affect either of the great rights of personal liberty and private property."

Mr. NORTON said, he had been in favor of laying the resolutions on the table and printing them, to enable members to understand them correctly. One person would understand them one way, and one another.

Mr. HARVEY moved to strike out the sentence.

Mr. WOODSON said, he would explain the meaning. Suppose the Legislature should pass a law to hang a man without a trial by his peers — without the approbation of any tribunal. Is it possible that any law should be recognized as a law until passed upon by the judiciary?

The Legislature can pass no law affecting life or liberty without the co-operation of a co-ordinate branch of the government.

Mr. WILLIAMS explained further, by saying that the Legislature might pass a law that a man should be hung without trial, and send a committee out to execute it; they are precluded from so doing by this provision. — They pass laws affecting the rights of private individuals, and this provision is introduced to prevent an abuse of that power. Why distribute the power of government into several branches? Because one branch of the civil magistrates may become corrupt, and there should be some provision in case that, if one branch should become corrupt, the other should control it.

Mr. DAVIS of Bond. The gentleman from Greene says, in the proposition before us, that no one power can affect life or liberty without the co-operation of another. He does not say which one. Suppose the Legislature did pass a law to hang a man without a trial by his peers, and that it should obtain the cooperation of the Governor, that would be another branch of the government — but not the right one, I should think!

Mr. Z. CASEY would suggest to the gentleman from Greene that his proposition did not materially amend the constitution. It would appear, said he, that that article of the constitution is not essentially amended by the proposition of the gentleman. In his mind, they should not attempt to amend the constitution unless they obviously did amend it. The old constitution, as he

64

had hinted before, was, in many parts, better than any thing new they could adopt. We had better let it alone unless we did materially amend it.

Mr. WOODSON. If the proposition does not materially affect the constitution, there can be no harm in it; nothing objectionable — nothing to fear in it, if it contains essentially what is in the constitution. It is only declaring our opinion that what was in the old should be in the new.

Mr. BALLINGALL moved that the committee rise and report that they had had certain resolutions under consideration, had made no progress therein, and ask leave to sit again.

The PRESIDENT took the chair, and the chairman of the committee so reported. Several members then rose, and declared that it was not their understanding of the report that was to be made. The chairman was allowed to amend his report.

On motion, the Convention adjourned till Monday next, at 9 o'clock, A. M.

65

VI. Monday, June 14, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. PALMER.

Messrs. GREGG, of Cook and LASATER, of Hamilton appeared, were qualified and took their seats.

The president announced the standing committees of the Convention; which are as follows:

Executive Department — Messrs. Lockwood, Rountree, Vance, Manly, Swan, Sharp, Huston, Evey, Worcester, Hay and Frick.

Judiciary — Messrs. Scates, Logan, Henderson, Ballingall, Hoes, Harlan, Farwell, Minshall, Wead, Davis of Massac, and Hurlbut.

Legislative Department — Messrs. Dement, Williams, Dale, Constable, Thompson, Zadoc Casey, Witt, Servant, Marshall of Mason, Peters, Judd, Rives, Pace, Powers, and Heacock.

Bill of Rights — Messrs. Caldwell, Grimshaw, Cross of Winnebago, Trower, Webber, Knapp of Jersey, Sim, Carter, Atherton, and Hunsaker.

Incorporations — Messrs. Harvey, Dummer, Bosbyshell, Edmonson, Green of Tazewell, Anderson, Kinney of St. Clair, Allen, Whitney, Spencer, and Lasater.

Revenue — Messrs. Zadoc Casey, Thomas, Green of Clay, Knox, Laughlin, Palmer of Marshall, Stadden, McClure, Eccles, Jones, and Vernor.

Elections and Right of Suffrage — Messrs. Davis of Massac, Green of Jo Daviess, Marshall of Coles, Brown, Geddes, Ballingall, Hawley, Armstrong, McCallen, Oliver, and Knowlton.

Finance — Messrs. Sherman, Davis of Montgomery, Hogue, Archer, Robbins, Dunlap, Blakely, Brockman, Pratt, Mieure, Harper, Roman, Hatch, Adams, and West.

Education — Messrs. Campbell of Jo Daviess, Edwards of Madison, Shumway, Smith of Gallatin, Palmer of Macoupin, Pinckney,

66

Matheny, Choate, Harding, Churchill, Turner, Tutt, Robinson, and Shields.

Organization of Departments, and Officers connected with the Executive Department — Messrs. Archer, Gregg, Edwards of Sangamon, Miller, McCully, Lander, McCALLEN, Church, Akin, Loudon, Kinney of Bureau, Sibley, Kenner, and Moffett.

Division of the State into Counties and their Organization — Messrs. Jenkins, Lasater, Blair, Markley, Simpson, Graham, Mason, Cross of Woodford, Turnbull, Canady, and Hill.

Militia and Military Affairs — Messrs. Whiteside, Morris, James, McHatton, Deitz, Holmes, Kreider, Huston, Tuttle, Smith of Macon, Dawson, Moore, and Jackson.

Revision and adjustment of the articles of the Constitution adopted by this Convention and to provide for the alteration and amendment of the same — Messrs. Edwards of Madison, Scales, Logan, Alien, Knowlton, Butler, Singleton, Holmes, Caldwell, Norton, Farwell, Gregg, Woodson, and Thomas.

Miscellaneous Subjects and Questions — Messrs. Crain, Bunsen, Campbell ofMcDonough, F. S. Casey, Colby, Cross of Woodford, Dunn, Dunsmore, Lemon, Lenley, Nichols, Smith of Macon, and Northcott.

Law Reform — Messrs. Hayes, Knapp of Scott, Woodson, Thornton, Kitchell, Davis of McLean, Bond, Norton, Thomas, Kinney of St. Clair, and Edwards of Sangamon.

[Mr. CALDWELL requested to be excused from service on the committee on the Bill of Rights; which was granted.]

Mr. DEMENT moved that 200 copies of the rules be printed. Carried.

The president laid before the Convention a communication from the Secretary of State, on the subject of common schools. Laid on the table.

Mr. SHUMWAY introduced a resolution containing the following propositions:

1. That the new constitution shall prohibit the Legislature from imposing, continuing or reviving a tax — creating a debt — making, continuing or reviving any appropriation of money or property; or which releases, discharges or commutes any claim of

67

the State except by yeas and nays, duly entered on the journals; and three-fifths of either House shall be necessary to constitute a quorum upon the passage of such acts.

2. That no appropriation shall be paid out of the State treasury, except in pursuance of law, and within a certain period after its enactment.

3. That the Legislature shall not grant extra pay to any public agent after such public service shall have been performed, or contract entered into for the performance of the same.

4. And shall also have power to make deductions from salaries of public officers, who neglect the performance of any public duty assigned them by law. Referred to committee on Legislative Department.

Mr. DEMENT offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the order of proceeding in the amendment, revision or alteration of the present constitution of this State, shall be the reading of the articles and sections thereof, in their order, and referring them, together with such amending propositions as may seem expedient, to appropriate committees, for their consideration.

Mr. D. said, that this resolution, or one similar to it, should be adopted in order to establish, as early as practicable, some system by which the business of the Convention could be expedited.

Mr. BROCKMAN moved to strike out all after the word "resolved" and insert various amendments to the constitution.

Mr. ROBBINS was in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Lee (Mr. DEMENT.) He thought that if every member should at once present all his views upon every subject embraced in and connected with the constitution, it would take several months to get through. He thought the original resolution was calculated to establish a systematic mode of procedure. He moved to lay the amendment on the table. Agreed to.

Mr. PALMER supported the resolution. He was for establishing order. Without it they could not proceed with dispatch in the business for which they had been called together. Order was the first, law of nature. He thought that the submission to the consideration of the Convention, of skeleton constitutions embracing every subject, was calculated to delay action. The

68

multiplicity of ideas and propositions, thus presented, would keep them here, they do not know how long.

Mr. KINNEY offered a substitute to the resolution, the substance of which was as follows: — That so much of the constitution as relates to the executive, the judiciary, and legislative departments, be referred to the committees on those subjects, and so also, in regard to questions of finance, education, elections, corporations, &c., each subject being referred to its appropriate committee. — He also embodied in his resolution, instructions to the committee on incorporations, to report against the creation of banks in this State, and that no corporation be permitted to issue paper money, and that the property of members of corporations be made liable for the debts of such corporations.

Mr. ROUNTREE offered a substitute to Mr. K.'s substitute, and differing from it only in leaving out the instructions.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, advocated Mr. DEMENT'S resolution.

Mr. ROUNTREE spoke in favor of his own substitute.

The discussion was continued by Messrs. KINNEY of Bureau, KITCHELL, DAVIS of Bond, DEMENT and HENRY.

Mr. GEDDES also participated in the debate, and moved to lay the substitute on the table.

Mr. Z. CASEY suggested that the two substitutes be withdrawn by the gentleman who offered them; which, they agreed to.

The resolution offered by Mr. DEMENT was further discussed by Messrs. THOMAS, LOGAN, DEMENT, and ROUNTREE, when the Convention

Adjourned till two o'clock.

AFTERNOON

The Convention took up the resolution of Mr. DEMENT, which was under consideration at the time of adjournment.

Mr. DEMENT stated that he had modified the resolution which was pending at the adjournment so as to read as follows:

Resolved, That in Convention the order of proceeding in the amendment, revision, or alteration of the present constitution of this State shall be, to take it up and read, in their order, the

69

articles and sections thereof, and referring the amending propositions to appropriate committees for their consideration.

Mr. ROUNTREE then moved the amendment submitted by him in the forenoon to the original resolution offered by Mr. DEMENT; which was accepted by Mr. D.

Mr. SHUMWAY offered a substitute to the resolution; which was rejected.

The question then recurring on Mr. DEMENT'S resolution, it was adopted.

Mr. WOODSON offered a resolution that when a committee submits a report, it shall be taken up and disposed of before any other business. Adopted.

Mr. MARKLEY offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be, and they are hereby, instructed to report an amendment to the constitution prohibiting, forever, within this State, the incorporation of any bank or company for banking purposes, and the manufacture and emission, by any company, copartnership or individual, of any bank note, or other paper designed to be circulated as paper money.

Mr. PRATT offered the following substitute to Mr. M.'s resolution:

Resolved, That the standing committee on Incorporations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting the following provisions, to be adopted in the amended constitution:

1. There shall be no bank of issue or discount within this State.

2. The Legislature shall not have power to authorize or incorporate, by any general or special law, any bank or other institution having any banking power or privilege, or to confer upon any corporation, institution, person or persons, any banking power or privilege.

3. It shall not be lawful for any corporation, institution, person or persons, within this State, under any pretense or authority, to make or issue any paper money, note, bill, certificate, or other evidence of debt whatever, intended to circulate as money.

4. It shall not be lawful for any corporation within this State, under any pretense or authority, to exercise the business of receiving deposits of money, making discounts, or buying or

70

selling bills of exchange, or to do any other banking business whatever.

5. No branch or agency of any bank or banking institution of the United States, or of any State or Territory within or without the United States, shall be established or maintained within this State.

6. It shall not be lawful to circulate within this State, after the year 1848, any paper money, note, bill, certificate, or other evidence of debt whatever, intended to circulate as money, issued without this State, of any denomination less than $10, or after the year 1850, of any denomination less than $20.

7. All payments made, or business done, in paper money in this State, and coming within the meaning of the last section, are declared utterly void; and the Legislature shall, at its first session, after the adoption of these amendments, and from time to time thereafter as it may be necessary, enact adequate remedies for the punishment of all violations and evasions of the provisions of the preceding section.

The PRESIDENT stated that the presentation of these last two propositions was premature, they being inhibited by the adoption of Mr. DEMENT'S resolution.

Mr. MINSHALL moved to suspend the rule for to-day; which was done, when

Mr. MARKLEY again offered his resolution on the subjects of banks, and

Mr. PRATT also offered his on the same subject.

Mr. THOMAS moved to refer both to the committee on Incorporations. Carried.

Mr. — offered a resolution to abolish the council of Revision. Carried.

Mr. EDMONSON offered a resolution concerning revenue. Adopted.

Mr. DAWSON offered a resolution, that pleasure carriages, watches, &c., be taxed, and the proceeds added to the school fund, which, after being amended, so as to make fines and forfeitures as a part of the School Fund, was adopted.

Mr. DAWSON offered [a] resolution, that the office of public printer be abolished. Referred to the committee on Finance.

71

Mr. ARCHER offered a resolution, that the Executive committee inquire into the expediency of limiting the authority of the Governor to pardon criminals; which was adopted. He also offered a resolution that the legislative committee inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the State to borrow, unless the bill for such purpose shall have first been submitted to the people, except in cases of extreme emergency, and then loans only to a limited amount may be borrowed.

Mr. DEMENT offered a resolution, that an article be incorporated in the constitution, limiting the Legislature to one hundred members — thirty senators, and seventy representatives.

Mr. CASEY moved to strike out all after the word "resolved," and insert a provision that there shall be sixty members — forty in the House and twenty in the Senate, elected for two years, sessions not to exceed sixty days — pay of members two dollars per day.

Mr. EDMONSON moved to amend, so as to provide for a biennial session of the Legislature — sessions to hold not exceeding sixty days, both branches to consist of one hundred members — pay two dollars a day for coming, attending and returning. Referred to the committee on the Legislative Department.

Mr. WOODSON offered as a provision in the constitution, that each male Inhabitant, over twenty-one years of age, pay a capitation tax of one dollar, to be applied in payment of the State debt. Referred to the Revenue committee.

Mr. SHUMWAY offered a resolution, that the Judicial committee inquire into the expediency of providing by the constitution, that no judge of the circuit or supreme court shall be elected during his term of office, to any office of honor, trust and profit, except in the case of a circuit judge who may be elected to the supreme bench — an offer to be a candidate to be regarded as a voluntary resignation of office.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, offered a resolution, that the Judiciary committee inquire into the expediency of amending the constitution so as to provide that sheriffs shall not be elected for a longer term than three years, and they shall not be eligible for a second consecutive term; that the officer [sic] of Lieutenant

72

Governor be abolished, and that an additional secretary be appointed to report the debates of this Convention.

Mr. WEAD moved to amend so as to abolish the office of Attorney General. He said that he thought that office was unnecessary. If the State should be divided in judicial districts, requiring the supreme court to be held in each, the district attorneys could perform the same duties. He knew of no reason why the Attorney General should enjoy a higher dignity than other prosecuting attorneys. That officer had the same duties to perform and but few more. Amendment agreed to.

The question recurring upon Mr. C's resolutions.

Mr. SINGLETON said, that he regarded the proposition to appoint an assistant to report the conventional debates, as a most important one. He had heard remarks in regard to the expense of publishing these debates. Wishing, as much as any member, to avoid expense, he would not carry economy so far as to withhold his support from a measure, which had for its object the enlightenment of the people in regard to our action in this body, and the provisions of the constitution which are to be submitted to them for ratification or rejection. By a report of our debates, said Mr. S., the people may learn something in relation to the motives by which we were influenced, and the ends we wish to accomplish in framing the organic law upon which they are to pass a final judgment. The volume will, it is true, contain a condensed, and perhaps a crude, report of our doings; yet it cannot fail to enlighten the people, and he believed that the people would consider the cost of the publication well repaid by the information they would gain by it. He knew not, neither did he care, what it might cost; he believed that it would not be more than their constituents would be willing to pay. He thought that opposition to it grew out of a penny saving policy and mere practical retrenchment, which it was not the duty of the Convention to engage in. We have come here, said he, to unfold and apply new principles of government; and he desired to submit those principles to the people with all the light possible. He cared but little how it should be done, whether by the body itself or by the contribution of members. He was willing to pay for reporting and printing. He would by all means do so if it was to be done

73

for the benefit of members; but he did not so regard it. It was for the benefit of the people that he urged its adoption.

Mr. PALMER, of Marshall, could see no necessity for publishing an official report of the debates. There were gentlemen present, whose business was, as he understood, to report for the papers the speeches of members, and they would give all the important debates; the public can, from these, obtain all the information desirable in relation to our proceedings. These, besides being published in the papers here, will be copied in other papers, and obtain a wide circulation. Thus it is apparent, that for us to publish them, would be incurring a useless expense. He knew that the congressional debates were sometimes published, but such a proposition was unheard of in Illinois. In our present pecuniary embarrassment, as a State, he regarded it as highly improper. It would be showing liberality before justice. Our debt is heavy: it will cost something to publish these debates, and by not doing it, we may save a little, at least. The globe is composed of particles, and our State debt is composed of dollars and cents. In the estimation of many, the odium of virtual repudiation rests upon us, which it is our duty to remove before we indulge in undue extravagance. Though we have but little or nothing to show for this debt, we still owe it; and before he left the stage of action, he wished to see some measures taken for its liquidation. In this view of things, he was unprepared to support the resolutions.

Mr. KINNEY moved to amend the resolution so as to require members to pay for reporting their speeches; each member to pay in proportion to the number and length of his speeches. (Laughter.)

Mr. K. made a few remarks, which, owing to confusion near the reporter, was [sic} not distinctly heard by him.

Mr. WEAD was anxious to have the debates published. Allusion had been made to taxes. He thought that the expense of publishing these debates would not affect the payment of the public debt. A mill and a half on the dollar had been appropriated for that object, and the appropriation for this will not diminish that amount. The only question is, whether it is a proper object, and whether the people will be willing to pay a reporter. He desired to have the costs estimated by a committee.

74

It has been said that the debate will be published in the newspapers. He had no expectation that they would be published in the newspapers; and if they should be, members would hardly recognize them as their own. He desired to have them published officially, so that they might be transmitted to posterity in a reliable form. He scarcely knew of a Convention that had not published debates. It was, at the present day, the uniform practice. He regretted that the debates of the Conventions of other States were not accessible to the members of this Convention. They would be most serviceable in affording light and information to guide them in their deliberations. The people desire information in regard to the action of this Convention. Will it be pretended that they will be competent to judge without light? He who denies information will do them a wrong. It is a mistake to suppose that the people will not be willing to pay for it. They will not forego it for the sake of saving money, and he hoped it would be furnished in an authoritative form. The newspapers will not give it in an authentic shape. Every newspaper reporter is more or less influenced by political feelings and party bias, and if disposed to report erroneously, we have not the power to correct their misrepresentations. For these reasons he desired that an official reporter should be appointed, whom they could control. The expense will be but little. He had been informed that a reporter could be hired for the pay of a secretary, and the debates could be printed by the public printers.

Mr. MINSHALL said, that he had never directed his attention particularly to the subject, but on referring to the law he had ascertained that the Convention had not the power to appoint an official reporter. It is true that gentlemen have adopted a different name for such an office, but he considered it but an evasion of the law. He thought they ought to be governed by the letter and spirit of the act of the General Assembly which provided for the call of the Convention. He concurred with gentlemen in the importance of having the debates published; but the Legislature had not authorized it, and they, not us, are responsible for the omission. We have not, said he, the power to appropriate money for this purpose, and changing the name from reporter to secretary will not give it to us.

75

Mr. SINGLETON proceeded to reply to Mr. M. He said that the gentleman was mistaken in his construction of the law. The secretary's business is to report the proceedings of the Convention, and this body may appoint another secretary to report the speeches, which, in fact, form a portion of the proceedings. He did not regard it as an evasion of the law; but — [Here the president called him to order, stating that under the rules, no member could speak twice to the same question when other members desired to speak.]

Mr. DAVIS, of Massac, said, he would avail himself of the opportunity afforded him by the discussion on the resolutions now before the Convention, to express his views in relation to the election of an official reporter of the debates of this body, to correct a misreport of. the remarks which he had the honor to submit to this assembly a few days since, on the resolution then pending, which had for its end, in part, the definition of the objects for which the Convention was called, and the extent of its powers.

I think, sir, (said Mr. D.) that the debates of this Convention ought to be published and preserved for the use and benefit of the people of the State, and I am, therefore, willing to see a competent gentleman selected for the purpose i with reasonable compensation for his services, to be paid out of he State treasury, in pursuance of law; or, if gentlemen can be induced to do so, to be paid by the members themselves, out of their per diem allowance. The reasons for the publication of these debates are so numerous and weighty, and have been so fully stated by gentlemen who have preceded me, that I shall not attempt to adduce any in addition, or to urge by other arguments those which have already been submitted to the Convention, concluding, as I do, that enough has been said by others to convince the members of the great importance of the report and publication.

It was remarked by the member from Fulton, that the published reports of the speeches of members of this body, as found in the newspapers of this city, are very inaccurate and faulty, which must be the case while the reports continue to be taken down and published unofficially. I can myself bear testimony to the correctness of this statement; for, sir, in the report of the remarks

76

which I had the honor to deliver to the Convention the other day, on the resolution before alluded to, I am misrepresented in a very important particular. In that report I am made to say that "the act providing for the call of this Convention was both constitutional and proper." This I did not say, sir, but, on the contrary, I remarked, that I had opposed the act on constitutional grounds while it was before the Senate, of which body I was an humble member at the time of the passage of the law. I argued, however, that the Legislature possessed plenary power to make the appropriations which they did make to pay the members of the Convention, and the officers connected with it, and that it was highly proper to do so. I said, further, that this was a constitutional Convention, brought together in pursuance of the 7th article of the constitution, and, as such, limited within certain boundaries and to certain objects specified in the said 7th article.

I said, sir, that the people were not here in their primary original capacity, but in the persons of their delegates, chosen under the constitution and in pursuance of its provisions.

I hold it to be a fundamental axium [sic] in political science, that the people, as such, have a right to abolish government, and institute new forms for their better security and greater happiness. This is what I said, sir.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, said, that he supposed when he offered the resolution under discussion, that its importance would be apparent to all, but he had discovered that, when any matter of this kind is proposed, the question of cost and expense is at once raised and so strongly urged as to render success almost hopeless. Now, sir, it is hard to believe that there is a member on this floor who does not appreciate the importance of employing an official reporter. Are not the debates of the constitutional conventions of other States eagerly sought after? They are, sir, and it is a matter of regret that we have not within our reach the debates that have taken place in similar conventions in our sister States, to aid and enlighten us — to suggest modes of procedure, forms, &c. If we seek the debates of the conventions of other States, will not ours also be sought for? The constitution that we are to adopt, will be presented to the people for their ratification

77

or rejection, and it is due to them, that the motives and influences that have entered into its adoption by us, should go forth with it, to aid the people in forming an opinion in regard to its merits and value. Let them have the same light and the same means of forming their judgment that we have. If we do not appoint a reporter, they cannot know — they will have no means of ascertaining — the motives or influences which gave birth to the constitution we present to them. We cannot expect the public prints to give a full report of the debates which take place in this body. They have not room for them in their columns, and if they had, they would give no more than they choose. They are irresponsible and beyond our control. It is desirable that we have a reporter, to whose reports full faith and credit can be given, and if any member should be misrepresented he can have a remedy. Gentlemen have said that they have been misreported. Adopt this resolution and the evil they complain of will be obviated. We have no right to expect the public prints to be perfectly accurate. They do not feel that responsibility which would be felt by an official reporter, and if we wish for an authentic record of what, is said here, we must make provision for it.

Now, sir, a word in regard to the pay of the proposed officer. In framing the resolution, I used the term "secretary" instead of "reporter." We have a secretary to record our proceedings. Is there anything in the law of the Legislature prohibiting us to employ a secretary to record the speeches. They are as much a part of our proceedings as those acts which are generally distinguished by the term "proceedings." A large majority of the people elected this Convention to alter and amend the constitution; they solemnly declared that a revision was necessary, and appointed us to do the work. Did they not, I ask, as solemnly declare, that all the expenses attending it should be paid by the State? Did they not give us a virtual pledge, that they would pay the cost of carrying out the purposes of this Convention? Let these debates go out to the people along with the constitution. Of what service would the debates of the Convention of 1818 not be to us now? Who will say that the published debates of this Convention would not, in after times, be regarded as invaluable in explaining clauses, sentences and articles which may be of

78

doubtful construction? This consideration alone is sufficient to recommend this resolution to the favor of the Convention.

He was willing to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from St. Clair (Mr. KINNEY) if gentlemen were so much afraid to take money out of the treasury. He would himself contribute to have the debates printed, rather than have the project fail. He, however, thought that there was too much of RETRENCHMENT in the proposition for its supporters to vote for it themselves. He concluded by moving to lay Mr. KINNEY'S amendment on the table.

Mr. KNOWLTON wanted to have a reporter elected, but he must take occasion to say that he loved consistency. Gentlemen were on one side for one purpose and on another for another. The other day gentlemen said we had no power beyond what the strict letter of the law had given us; now, they say we have power beyond that letter. He did not agree with them then, and he was glad to see them on his side now; but he hoped they would remain where they had got and be more consistent hereafter. We have come here for the purpose of being consistent — to send out a consistent document, free from party taint or bias.

Gentlemen called the proposed officer a secretary, to secure his pay to him. He did not like anything indirect — liked to hear things called by their right names. He should vote for the officer because he believed the Convention had the power to elect him.

Gentlemen had complained of being reported incorrectly. He had never noticed any misrepresentations, and he thought they were well enough reported. Great men are always complaining of being reported incorrectly. He had heard the same complaint from his boyhood. David Crockett said that he came near being ruined by the reporters.

Mr. HAYES made an animated speech in favor of employing a reporter, to be paid by an appropriation by the next Legislature. He thought the Convention had no power to create such an officer and draw money to pay him out of the treasury. The lateness of the hour compels us to condense Mr. H.'s remarks.

Mr. WEAD explained that he did not intend to accuse the reporters on the floor with intentionally misrepresenting members. He was aware that the duty was arduous — that they could give

79

no more than a synopsis of speeches. He had noticed that the reports of the different papers did not agree, and this was the reason why an official reporter was required. He was willing to pay for it.

Mr. SCATES said that it was his opinion that the Convention had not the power to make the treasury liable for the expense of employing a reporter. Allusion had been made to other States. So far as his information went, the debates in other States were published by private enterprise. We have reasons for economy; and he could not support the proposition.

Mr. PETERS remarked to Mr. SCATES, that the Missouri Convention had employed a reporter, and recommended the Legislature to pay him.

Mr. SCATES. The gentleman is unfortunate in his example, for the acts of the Convention were rejected by the people — constitution and all.

Mr. ROBBINS said, he could not vote for the proposition before the Convention. It asks this body to employ an additional secretary, to report the debates of the Convention, the speeches of the delegates, and that, sir, at the expense of the State.

The law calling this Convention gives it no such power. It authorizes the employment of such secretaries as are necessary in the transaction of its legitimate business, and for no other purposes. Now, if the speeches of the delegates in this hall are the business transactions of this body, it is the duty of the secretaries now employed to record them as such, in the journals of the Convention. If they are not the business of this body, it has no right to publish them, in any manner, at the expense of the State. But, why do gentlemen wish to publish these speeches? For whose good? They have told us it is for the good of the people of this State — to illuminate their minds, to enlighten them in the great principles that agitate this body, to acquaint them with the reasons that induce this Convention to propose the alterations and amendments they are going to offer to the people for their rejection or ratification, and thus produce a harmony in action of the convention and the vote of the people; and that otherwise the people would not approve of the amendments about to be offered

80

by this body. If this was all true, sir, it is impossible for the speeches to be reported, printed, bound, and circulated among the people in time to do any good. There is no probability that the Convention will be able to finish their business in time to present the alterations and amendments of the Constitution before the first Monday in August next, and the law requires that the people shall vote for or against the amendments proposed, on the fourth Monday in October following. The labor of getting up such a book would be immense. I hold in my hand, sir, the reported debates of the North Carolina Convention of 1835. That Convention met on the 5th day of June, and adjourned on the 10th day of the following month — not in session more than five weeks, and restricted, by law, to only nine propositions; and yet, sir, these debates make a volume of more than four hundred pages. Taking this for an example, what a volume would the speeches of this Convention make, in a session of at least two months, and with a range covering the whole Constitution of Illinois. Sir, it would be impossible to get up such a book, and to get it before the people, before the fourth Monday of October, the time required for the people to vote for or against the amendments. Besides, the expense would be entirely too great for the people to bear, in their present embarrassed circumstances. Nor do I think, sir, that these speeches would illuminate and edify the people as much as gentlemen seem to think they would. I have heard no better propositions on this floor for altering and amending the constitution, and no better arguments offered in support of those propositions, than I heard in the circle of my neighbors before I left home — in the workshop, in the store, in the groups of laborers collected to rest themselves in the shade. Our constituents are not behind us in this matter. They know how they want their constitution altered. They told us how to alter it before we came here, and so far as mine are concerned, they want us, with all reasonable expedition, to make those alterations and then come home.

I am pleased with the gentlemen's speeches. — They have displayed much talent and eloquence, and I should be glad to see them go before the world. But let them go by way of private enterprise, not at the expense of our impoverished State. But I

81

do not think the community would regard them as having been very efficient in promoting the interests of this Convention. To show the estimation put on these speeches by the community, I will relate an anecdote of what happened in an adjoining county a few weeks since, as a delegate was taking leave of one of his constituents. "How long," said the old farmer, "do you expect to be gone to the Convention?" "I expect to be home by the first Monday of August next," was the answer. "How many lawyers are there in the Convention?" — "About forty," was the answer. "Forty lawyers in the Convention," said the old man; "then farewell, I shall never see you any more!"]

Messrs. SINGLETON, KITCHELL and others made a few remarks, when

Mr. PALMER, of Marshall, moved the indefinite postponement of the subject, which was agreed to.

The first two propositions of Mr. Campbell were referred to appropriate committees, and that relating to the reporter only was postponed.

Adjourned.

82

VII. Tuesday, June 15, 1847.

Mr. FARWELL presented the petition of sundry citizens for a provision in the constitution providing for the appointment of a State superintendent of public instruction. Referred to the Education committee.

Mr. THORNTON presented the petition of sundry citizens of Shelby county, on various subjects, which was referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to take up his motion made yesterday, to re-consider Mr. DEMENT'S resolution in relation to the mode of proceeding in the business of the Convention. The motion carried, the vote was re-considered, and the resolution was laid on the table till the first day of January next.

Mr. JENKINS moved to take up certain resolutions offered by him some days since, which was agreed to; and the question being upon referring the resolutions to the appropriate committees, a debate arose on the best mode of taking up the various propositions submitted. Mr. DEMENT thought that the order of business, as it now existed, would retard the business. Messrs. BROCKMAN, DAVIS of McLean, JENKINS, and LOUDON, Insisted that the rights of members to bring forward their propositions would be considerably abridged by the mode of proceeding for which Mr. DEMENT contended. The previous question was here ordered, and the resolutions were referred.

Mr. JENKINS moved to take up the resolution offered by him on the 11th inst., which was done, and the resolutions were referred to the appropriate committees.

Mr. DAVIS, of McLean, offered a resolution that the Judiciary committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of organizing the judiciary on a basis, the substance of which is as follows:

A supreme court, composed of three members, having appellate jurisdiction only, to be chosen in separate districts by the qualified voters thereof, for nine years, one to be elected every third year: after the expiration of three terms under such classification, their

83

term to be nine years. Salary $1,200. Re-eligible, but incapable of holding any other office during term and for two years after its expiration. Clerk to be chosen by voters of State at large, for a term of three years. The State to be divided into blank number of circuits — judge in each circuit elected by people, for six years. Salary $1000. To hold no office during term, or two years after its expiration. Said courts to have probate jurisdiction. Clerks to be elected by the people for three years, who shall be ex officio recorders of deeds. Circuit attorneys elected by people in each circuit. Salary $300. Election of judges to be holden at different times from the election of State officers.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Davless, moved to amend, so that the State may be divided into — Judicial districts: one term to be annually held in each. Resolution and amendment referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. SMITH offered a resolution that the committee on Revenue be requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending the constitution as to prohibit the Legislature from pledging the faith of the State for a larger sum than $50,000, without first submitting the matter to the people: also, to inquire into the expediency of locating the seat of government.

Mr. SHUMWAY offered a resolution that the Legislative committee inquire into the expediency of prohibiting any member of the Legislature from receiving, during his term, any civil appointment within the State, or to the Senate of the United States.

Mr. CHURCH offered a resolution that the committee on the Bill of Rights be requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending the 6th article of the constitution, as to provide that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this State, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; nor shall any person be deprived of liberty on account of color.

Mr. KNAPP offered resolutions in substance, that the Governor shall be invested with the veto power; bills objected to by him to become laws if a majority subsequently vote for them. 2d RESOLUTION. That committees, when they report, do so in sectional form, omitting their reasons. 3d RESOLUTION. That the

84

committee on Elections be requested to inquire into the expediency of fixing a different day for the election of judges, from that for general officers.

The resolutions were divided, and the two first passed. The last resolution was amended, on motion of Mr. SHUMWAY, so as to request the Election committee to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting persons from voting who have bets on the election pending, and passed.

Mr. DAVIS, of Montgomery, offered a resolution that the committee on Elections inquire into the expediency of so amending the constitution as to have all voting at elections by ballot.

Mr. HURLBUT moved to amend so as to request the committee to inquire into the expediency of so altering the 27th section of article 3, as to require that all electors shall be citizens of the United States.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Mason, moved to amend so as to strike out all after the word "resolved," and insert, in substance, that the committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending, as to require voters to have lived in the State twelve I months, and one month next preceding the election: Provided, that all foreigners in the State at the time the constitution is adopted shall be considered as electors. Resolution and amendments referred to the committee on Elections.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massac, offered a resolution that the committee on the Bill of Rights be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting an amendment, in substance, that persons accused of crime, shall be tried in the county or district where the crime is alleged to have been committed, which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law, &c.

Mr. DAWSON offered a resolution that the committee on the Organization of the Departments of State be instructed to inquire into the expediency of electing the Governor for three years: members of General Assembly to hold but one session of sixty days during Governor's term, at $2 per day, and $2 for every twenty miles' travel.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, moved to strike out two dollars and insert three. Lost. Resolution adopted.

85

Mr. TURNER offered a resolution, that the Legislature inquire, &c, as to abolishing capital punishment.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to strike out and insert so as to abolish capital punishment, and take away the pardoning power from the Governor where the punishment is death under the present constitution. Referred to committee on Law Reform.

Mr. THORNTON offered a resolution that the committee on Law Reform be requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending the constitution, that testimony in courts of equity be taken in the same manner as in suits at law. Adopted.

Mr. MOFFETT offered a resolution that after the first day of January, 1849, no bank bill shall be passed in this State of a less denomination than twenty dollars, and, in the event of a bank being established in this State, it shall not issue any bill of a less denomination than twenty dollars.

Mr. PRATT moved the following substitute:

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to report such provisions as will effectually prohibit the power of the Legislature to create or authorize any individuals, company or corporation, with banking powers in this State.

Resolved, That said committee inquire into and report to the Convention such provisions as are best calculated gradually to exclude from, and prohibit the circulation in this State, of bank bills under the denomination of twenty dollars.

Mr. HURLBUT moved to amend by striking out the word "resolved," and inserting the following:

"That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending and altering the 21st section of article 8 of the constitution, as to provide for a system of general banking laws, similar in principle with the propositions lately adopted in the State of New York."

Mr. MARKLEY moved to lay the amendment of Mr. HURLBUT on the table.

Mr. DAVIS, of McLean, called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. MARKLEY modified his motion so as to lay on the table to a day certain.

Mr. DAVIS, of Bond, said that the amendment was a resolution of inquiry and that he should not vote against a resolution of

86

inquiry. When the question as to creating banks in this State should arise, he would vote for a provision prohibiting them. He hoped the amendment would go to the committee.

Mr. BALLINGALL said that it could not be concealed that there was a strong bank party in the Convention, and he was willing to have the test question upon banks taken at the present time. He hoped the motion would be modified so as to raise the issue. He believed that some members favorable to banks would receive such instructions from the constituents as would control their course, and he wished to know how the Convention was divided on the question at the present time.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of McDonough, moved to have the sections of the New York constitution, on the subject of banks, read; which was agreed to, and the sections were read.

Mr. HURLBUT did not, when he offered the resolution, expect that it would evolve an issue on the absorbing question of banks, which he was aware was one of the most important that would probably engage the attention of the Convention; but if gentlemen were desirous of raising the question at the present time, he was ready to meet them. If they were anxious to take up this question, without any preparation, he would not object. If they feel strong enough to apply the rigid rules of party discipline, let them proceed. For his part he did not desire to draw party lines unless forced into it. He represented whigs and democrats and was determined to do justice to both. This question was one of absorbing interest to his constituents — they desired a sound currency, and, irrespective of party upon this, as well as other questions, he desired to consult their wishes and their interests. He did not, however, rise to discuss the merits of the question. He would infinitely prefer that the debate should be suffered to lie over to a future time; but, as he before remarked, if gentlemen wish to test the question nova, he was ready to gratify them. It is a resolution of inquiry merely, which he had not expected would meet with opposition.

Mr. GREGG said that the resolution offered by the gentleman from Boone was respectful in its terms, and courtesy required that it should go to the committee. It was merely a resolution of inquiry and he could not vote against its reference.

87

Mr. PALMER, of Marshall, also advocated its reference.

Mr. SCATES was in favor of bringing the questions up at an early day of the session. Much interest in it was felt, as well by the people, as most of the members of the Convention. It had now assumed a shape in which it was debateable, and, for one, he was ready to engage in it. The time between the final adjournment and the day appointed for the people to vote upon the constitution, will be so short as to preclude the people from obtaining the requisite information, to enable them to vote understandingly, unless the subject is taken up early. Yesterday, the resolutions of the gentleman from Jo Daviess, (Mr. PRATT,) to prohibit banking in any form, were before the Convention; now the question comes up in a different shape, viz: a proposition to adopt the features of the general banking law of New York. He did not care how the question was presented so that the issue was made. He agreed fully with the gentleman from Boone, (Mr. HURLBUT,) that the question was one of the utmost importance, and he gave notice, that whenever it came to be acted upon, he should oppose and vote against banks in every form. He would make war upon them to the knife. He asked if gentlemen were prepared to let loose upon our State a flood of banks such as a constitution, like that of New York, would call into existence? The system is Infinitely worse than the old system; for it opens a door to the creation of an endless number of banks. If one bank is mischievous, how much more so must a hundred be? Past experience has proved to us that in agricultural communities such institutions are a curse, and we have found that the small bills of the thousand and one banks in our country have materially retarded our prosperity. The first proposition that was presented, related to small bills. Now, every man must admit, that this description of circulating medium must drive specie out of circulation. If we prohibit the circulation of bank bills of a less denomination than twenty dollars, all business transactions and contracts of a less amount will be carried on in gold and silver. If we do not prohibit we must necessarily have an almost exclusive paper circulation. It was so in the section where he lived. Before the Ohio and Kentucky banks flooded his region with their ones and twos, specie was plenty,

88

but now the metals had almost entirely disappeared. He was for driving small bills out of circulation.

Gentlemen had expressed a willingness to vote for referring the substitute to a committee; but he saw no impropriety in discussing it before it was sent to the committee, if it was to be sent at all. — We cannot expect the committee to report in such a manner as to meet the views of the Convention, unless full discussion is had in advance. He desired that the committee should enter upon their deliberations with all the light which a debate in this body could elicit.

He had often heard of well regulated banks, but he never knew one of that character. We have had in this State experience enough on this subject to have learned that they are fraught with disaster and ruin. We have had six banks, every one of which failed, involving the people in losses which millions of dollars would not repair, and now a proposition is brought forward to repeat the experiment on a grand scale; to establish a bank in every town and village, and deluge the State with paper money. If we desire a valuable and reliable circulating medium, we must, as all experience shows, exclude bank paper entirely.

He hoped that the discussion would proceed.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, said, that he had, on a former occasion, expressed his views in favor of a full, free and candid interchange of sentiment upon every and all subjects that might arise in that body; and he would not interpose an obstacle to a respectful consideration of every proposition that gentlemen might deem proper to submit. The gentleman from Boone (Mr. HURLBUT) has offered a resolution, the subject of which he (Mr. H.) desired to have investigated by a committee. — He (Mr. C.) saw no impropriety in the reference. He would vote for referring it, and he hoped that the committee would give it their attention. All that the people want on the subject of banking is light. Let us have light, and those opposed to banks have nothing to fear. As for himself, he was prepared to oppose banks in any form when the question should be properly and fairly presented, even though their advocates might "steal the

89

livery of Heaven" to clothe them in. He hoped that the resolution would be permitted to go to the committee.

Mr. JENKINS thought the merits of the question should be discussed in the committee of the whole, where every proposition relating to it could be considered. When the question should come up he would oppose the creation of banks in any form. As at present presented, he was not disposed to discuss the merits of the question.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon, said, that if gentlemen opposed to banks could not be converted, discussion would be useless, and a decision of the question upon the test offered by the resolution of the gentleman from Boone (Mr. HURLBUT) would settle the matter.

Mr. ARCHER was prepared to vote against banks in every form in which they could be presented, yet, out of courtesy, he was willing to give the resolution the direction which the gentleman from Boone (Mr. HURLBUT) desired. If the question was pressed, he (Mr. A.) would vote to lay the resolution on the table; yet he deprecated any attempt to stifle debate. He was for discussing, fully, this, as well as every other question. He hoped the resolution would be referred to the committee, and when it should come up again in a proper form he would be prepared to record his vote against it.

Mr. KINNEY of St. Clair, was also in favor of referring it to the committee. He hoped his honorable friend from Fulton (Mr. MARKLEY) would withdraw his motion to lay on the table. Other propositions relative to banks had been referred to the committee, and he trusted that this would also be referred.

Mr. KNAPP, of Scott, made some remarks against banks and banking, and urged the necessity of excluding the circulation of small notes.

Without taking the question, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow morning.

90

VIII. Wednesday, June 16, 1847.

Mr. ECCLES, from the Revenue committee, reported the following:

Resolved, That the new constitution shall provide for a poll tax.

Mr. ROUNTREE moved to amend by adding, "Provided, that the power to lay a capitation tax by the Legislature be proposed as a distinct proposition for adoption or rejection, by the people at the same time and places at which the vote shall be taken on the adoption or rejection of the new constitution, and if it shall appear that at said election, more votes are given in favor of said proposition than are given against it, the Legislature shall at its next session thereafter provide by law for levying such capitation tax, and continuing in force a law for the collection of a capitation tax: Provided, however, that non-payment of such tax shall not disqualify persons who are otherwise qualified voters from enjoying the right of election."

Mr. SCATES opposed the levying of a poll tax. In supporting the government, respect should be had to justice. He thought that the principal [sic] of a poll tax was unjust. Its advocates contended, that all those receiving protection from government should render an equivalent for that protection. Why not then, tax females as well as males — they receive the same protection. Why not tax every class — Indians, negroes and every description of persons? It is idle to lay a tax when it cannot be collected. If you levy this tax, you must provide a means of collecting it, and that can be done only by issuing execution or by imposing the punishment of imprisonment for a failure to pay it. If you do not imprison, but merely resort to the ordinary civil remedy for the collection of debts, the proceeds of your poll tax will be absorbed in paying the costs of suits against delinquents. If imprisonment should be resorted to, is it expected that the public sentiment will sanction it? Is it proposed to withhold the elective franchise from such as have not their vouchers to prove that they

91

have paid the tax? Such a denial of privilege is inconsistent with the principles of equality and the freedom of elections.

It is a great mistake to suppose that the class who own no property do not bear a share of the public burthens. They do contribute to the support of the government and render an ample equivalent for the protection they receive from the laws and the institutions of government. They pay an onerous tax in the form of road labor, and this is a capitation tax amounting to from two to five dollars per annum. In addition to this they are liable to do military duty, and this is in its nature a poll tax. Is not this enough? Are they to be asked to pay fifty cents or a dollar more? In health they are willing to labor on the roads, and when their country calls, they are willing to engage in her service and march to the battlefield. They have been misrepresented by those who call them pensioners upon the bounty of the government. For his part he was opposed in principle to the scheme of easing the wealthy of such burthens of government as should properly rest upon them and transfer them to the poor.

As he before said if the tax should be levied it cannot be collected. The government may assess it, but it will be optional with the class which it is intended to reach to pay it or not. In the slave states there is a greater reason for such a tax. There the white head and negro head pay alike, and the rich man pays a hundred dollars poll tax where the poor man pays one. Here it is proposed to make the poor pay equally with the wealthy. In the imposition of taxes, he was in favor of a just rule of apportionment, and he would not have the wealthy relieved to burthen the indigent.

In what way is it expected that our debt is to be paid, but from our vast natural resources. Is it expected that it can be done by laying an assessment upon property? If it is proposed to raise a certain sum by means of this tax, let the same sum be raised by taxing property. This was what his constituents desired, not because they were unwilling to pay a poll tax, but because they believed such a tax unjust in principle. If the sum that is proposed to be raised by it, is all that is wanted, he could devise a wiser plan, viz: that of re-organizing the county governments so

92

that they may be administered at half the present cost; thus leaving a large balance in the treasury.

Mr. SMITH, of Macon, moved to amend the amendment by adding the following:

Provided, That the Legislature in exercising this power be limited p the sum of fifty cents upon the persons of all able-bodied men, between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years, and the power not to be exercised after the present public debt of the State shall have been liquidated.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, that he could not agree with the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. SCATES,) who takes the ground that the proposed tax is wrong in principle. Every man owes something to the government from which he receives protection — the man who owns no property as well as him who does — and as a patriot he should be willing to pay it.

He was opposed to making the payment of the tax a pre-requisite to the right of suffrage. He would do nothing to limit that right. He believed that no coercion was necessary to collect the proposed tax, the people would pay it without compulsion.

The gentleman from Jefferson says that the poor pay a road tax and are liable to do military duty. So do the rich. In representative governments where all are equal, and participate equally in the benefits of government, all ought to contribute to its support, in proportion to the benefits they receive; and he did not doubt that all would be willing to give a consideration for such benefits.

He knew that the people of his region were in favor of the tax, and if imposed, he doubted not that they would pay it. If now and then one should refuse, be it so — he would not fail to be held up to the contempt of the community, which would prove a powerful incentive to a compliance with the provision. He (Mr. D.) would support the last amendment.

Mr. WOODSON said, that his constituents were in favor of a poll tax. A vote was taken upon it at the election, and out of 1500 or 1600 votes, not more (as Mr. W. was understood to say) than 150 were against the tax, and out of the 150, at least 100 were property holders. This showed how the people of

93

Greene stood on this question, and he did not think they were more patriotic than the people of other counties. He believed that the whole people of the State, without regard to location, were in favor of the tax. If he believed with the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. SCATES) that the provision would be unequal, he would oppose it as strenuously as any member; but he thought it a just and equal tax. Will any man say that he, as an individual, is not as valuable as any other individual, though he may not be a property holder? All men, however humble, have a certain pride of character, and they would scorn the imputation of ranking in a lower grade than their fellow men. It is an error to suppose that, because a man is poor, he must be unwilling to contribute his just proportion to the support of the government. If a man is unable to pay the tax he would not exact it. All able-bodied men ought to pay it — the old and infirm and disabled might be excused.

Gentlemen say that the effect of the tax will be to take the burthens of government from the poor and impose them upon the rich; but he did not regard it in that light. The rich, who already pay high taxes, will also pay a poll. No burthen is taken from them, but rather one added to those already resting upon them.

He asked gentlemen to examine the question as patriots. Can they lay their hands upon their bosoms and justify themselves in returning to their constituents, without having done something to relieve the State of the odium of repudiation and non-payment which rests upon it? Are they prepared to go home, leaving the State burthened with her enormous debt, without having made any provision for its ultimate liquidation.

This proposition is not a novel one. In only two of the States is it prohibited. The constitution of all the other States either impose it or leave it open to the Legislature. Eight have provisions imposing it. Our constitution leaves it to the Legislature, yet it has not been levied. Politicians in the Legislature have had an eye more to popularity than the happiness, prosperity and glory of the State. It is high time that a different system from this was established, and it is the duty of this Convention to put forth its power to establish it.

94

This tax will yield a revenue of not l[e]ss than $100,000.

There are in the State 126,000 persons liable to do military duty; and taking this as the data — which he thought was as correct as any — his estimate of the amount of revenue could not be much out of the way.

The argument of the gentleman from Jefferson, that the tax cannot be collected, is no argument against the principle involved in the proposition. It is (said Mr. W.) our duty to impose the tax, and it will be that of the Legislature to devise the means of enforcing its collection. But he saw no difficulty in collecting it. He was not in favor of stringent measures, neither did he deem them necessary. He would not resort to Imprisonment, nor a restriction of the right of suffrage. The end might be attained by moral means. Moral suasion was more powerful than coercive enactments. That pride, which is inherent in human nature, will prompt the payment of this tax, if not from patriotic motives, at least, from that apprehension of being held up to the public scorn for delinquency.

To say that the people of Illinois would not pay this tax, was an imputation upon that patriotic devotion to the honor of the State and the nation, which prompted her gallant sons to march forth shoulder to shoulder to meet the enemy of our common country. Will any one say that these heroic men, who redeemed the honor of the State upon the battle-fields of Buena Vista and Cerro Gordo, will not as readily step forward and maintain her character in the financial embarrassments in which she is Involved? He believed that they would, with the same power and in the same manner, come up to the work until our State should be free from the load of debt which oppresses her.

Mr. THOMAS moved to lay the amendments on the table. Carried.

Mr. NORTON proposed the following amendment:

"Provided, That no capitation tax shall be assessed against any person not entitled to vote under the constitution and laws of the State. And, provided, further, that said tax shall be set apart to the payment of the public debt, until the same be paid."

Mr. HARVEY moved the following amendment:

"That the 20th section of the 8th article of the present constitution

95

be omitted in the constitution, to be proposed for adoption by this Convention."

Mr. H. conceived that this subject should be left to the discretion of the Legislature. The constitution about to be formed may not be changed for many years, and no unnecessary restraints should be imposed. He was opposed to a provision prohibiting the levying a poll tax, but disposed to leave the question open to future legislatures.

Mr. WILLIAMS said that the Convention would make more satisfactory progress in business, by doing one thing at a time. He was of opinion that if the question were submitted to the people, they would provide for a poll tax, if so, this Convention ought, in reference to the public will. He thought that a direct vote should be taken, whether a poll tax is to be provided for or not; then we should know what we are to do. If the tax is to be levied, we can hereafter settle upon the best plan to pursue. If not, there is an end of the matter, and the Convention will not be disposed further to discuss it.

Mr. NORTON said, that he was opposed to the levying of a capitation tax but the character of such a measure will depend much on the manner and form of its assessment. He desired the original resolution to pass, with his amendment. If no law is to be enacted to enforce the collection of this tax, such a provision would be mere advice — a subscription, depending on voluntary payment. The only two modes of enforcing collection would be by imprisonment or withholding the elective franchise. He was opposed to either of these, and could not consent in any degree to sanction the imposition of degrading penalties upon citizens, because they might be too poor to pay the tax. The poor are the men to fight our battles, work our roads, sit on juries — the " men who have carried the banner of their country to the battlefield, and conferred immortal honor on their State, at BEUNA VISTA and CERRO GORDO. To tax these men, and deprive them of the common rights of citizenship, on account of their inability to pay, is unfair, unequal and unjust.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massac, craved the indulgence of the Convention, feeling it due to himself to express his views on the subject. He replied to the argument of Mr. SCATES, and denied that the

96

levying a poll-tax was unjust in its operation. It would be difficult to prove the correctness of such a position in a country like this, where every citizen enjoys the protection of the government, and participates in public affairs to an equal extent. He thought men who had displayed such patriotism as has been displayed by our people within the last year, will not shrink from so trifling a tax, which is necessary to save the credit of the State. He believed that at no time in our history, from the time when our fathers achieved the independence of their country at Yorktown, town to this time, have our people been wanting in that patriotism, which has enabled them, and will enable us, to meet every sacrifice required to advance the public good.

He could see no injustice in the proposition. If one man, by industry and frugality, acquires property, and another, in consequence of his indolence and vicious habits, remains poor, is there a reason why one should be burdened and the other released from all contribution for the support of the government, the protection and blessings of which they equally share? During the canvass for his seat in this body, he was often interrogated by both rich and poor, as to his opinions on this point, and he found few, very few indeed, who were not earnest in their desire that this provision, or one like it, should be incorporated in the new constitution. — Such a principle is incorporated in the constitution of every State, save two. Virginia, the great republican leader of States, which has given to the nation so many great men — the mother of Presidents, has stood in the front rank, and by the adoption of such measures as were necessary to preserve the public credit, has set an example which he hoped Illinois would follow. Could this measure be proved unjust and oppressive, he would oppose it; but believing it in accordance with principles of enlightened public policy, he approved it, and believed the whole country to be with him.

Mr. CHURCHILL said, that he was opposed to taking advantage of the generosity of the poor, to pay the State debt. He believed that for property protection, the rich were only benifitted, [sic] while for personal protection, the rich and poor were equal, therefore, he was opposed to the poll-tax. He would have

97

proposed an amendment, but the state of the question prevented, therefore, he would read it for the benefit of the house.

Resolved, That the committee on Revenue be instructed to ascertain the number of males over twenty-one years of age, in the State, and report a resolution to this Convention proposing to increase the revenue of this State, by a sum in dollars, equal to the number of white male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years, by a direct tax on property.

Mr. KNOWLTON was in favor of the resolution, as it came from the committee, and proposed to dispose of the amendments, and let the vote be taken on the original proposition. His constituents were in favor of a poll-tax. He referred to the example of Massachusetts, which had a poll-tax of $1.50 each, the right of voting being withdrawn, on failure to pay. He always found the poor more prompt than the rich, in the payment of this tax. He believed that no citizen in Illinois was too poor to pay such a tax, and that the poor would, as they do in Massachusetts, feel a pride in paying this tax which would serve the end proposed. Mr. K. spoke eloquently of the patriotism of our people — their State pride; the determination of all to sustain the honor and credit of the State — as evinced in the patience with which they have submitted to every necessary exaction, and rushed forth, at the call of their country, to fight her battles, and sacrifice their lives in defence of her honor.

Mr. SINGLETON was also in favor of the original proposition. It was a simple one, and involved in it no difficulty; and should be settled at once. He was in favor of a poll tax, and knew that his constituents desired its imposition. He deprecated the dragging into this discussion the poor, the women and children. All men are originally poor; all equal. This equality is in a great measure destroyed by misdirected legislation and the customs of society. The object of the provision is to increase revenue. Property holders were willing to pay, not only on their property, but on their persons also, in the same manner as the poor. Let property pay — let men, each separately, without confounding the distinction which should exist between persons and property. He believed that this measure would embarrass none — that young men would cheerfully pay it. And there is a large class of men,

98

worthless in property and character, who are active in elections; who enjoy the elective franchise; who are under the control of politicians. Impose this tax upon such, and, though they pay none now, their taxes will be paid, if not by them, by those desiring the benefit of their votes. He believed with the gentleman from Massac, that three-fourths of the people are in favor of it. He wished the decisive vote to be taken on the original proposition, leaving the details to future action.

The discussion was continued with much animation by Messrs. THOMPSON, ALLEN and LOUDON, when the Convention adjourned till three o'clock this afternoon.

AFTERNOON

Mr. ARCHER made a forcible speech of some length against the tax, which we are compelled to condense. He said that in the county where he resided the people were opposed to the principle of a poll-tax. They thought that property constituted the just basis of taxation. It is true that government is instituted for the protection of life, liberty and property, and that all ought to assist in supporting it according to their ability, and he insisted that the poor contributed largely to it by paying a road tax, doing militia duty and juror's duty. As regards these taxes, the poor stand on the same footing with the rich — they pay and perform as much. He would not add a poll-tax.

Again, he would not enact a law which was not accompanied with proper penalties for enforcing an observance of its behests. If the payment of a poll tax is attempted to be coerced by taking away the elective franchise or by imprisonment, the people would revolt. He asked if the poor man was a fit subject for imprisonment? Should he be deprived of his right of suffrage? Any man who would propose it would be doomed to private life for the residue of his days.

Mr. A. here proceeded to show that our State debt, for the payment of which this poll tax was devised, was created by a class of speculators who expected to be benefited by the application of the money so borrowed, and that the poor had no part in its creation, neither would they have been benefited materially had the most sanguine expectations of the internal improvement

99

schemers been realized. We regret that we cannot give all of Mr. A.'s sound and interesting remarks on this head. We may do so hereafter.

Mr. PETERS addressed the Convention in favor of a poll tax. He thought it just. The object of government is two fold; the protection of persons and property. He asked if property should alone support the government, whilst persons went free. There is property in the free air of heaven, and those who breathe it ought to pay a tax when it is the air of freedom. He did not see any justice in throwing the whole burthen of supporting the government upon one class, whilst another enjoyed an immunity from all burthens. Persons without property have access to the courts of justice and participate in the blessings of government, why, then, he asked, should they not be made to bear part of the public burthens growing out of it.

Mr. P. advocated the tax, leaving it to the Legislature to enforce its collection.

Gentlemen say that if limiting the right to vote is resorted to, it will induce candidates to bribe the voters. This was in his judgment a lame argument. If it is so easy to bribe, could it not now be done at the polls by handing fifty cents to a voter.

He did not believe that penalties of any kind were necessary. The people had too much pride to refuse to pay the tax.

Mr. HAYES made a very animated speech in favor of the tax, which we have in manuscript and may publish it when we get more space. It was worthy of his distinguished talents.

Mr. GEDDES made a few remarks in favor of the tax. He said that in the course of the debate gentlemen had said that the people were already taxed four or five dollars in road taxes, yet they said that these same people could not be made to pay a tax of one dollar. They can be forced to pay five dollars but they cannot be forced to pay one dollar. Mr. G. proceeded to show that assertions that had been made on the subject of military duty were incorrect. He said that no military duty was exacted of any citizen in the State. We must defer the rest of Mr. G.'s remarks for want of space.

The debate was continued by Messrs. McCALLEN, CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess, and PALMER of Macoupin, when the Convention adjourned.

100

IX. Thursday, June 17, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. HALE.

Mr. BLAIR, a delegate from Pike, appeared, presented his credentials, and was qualified.

The question before the Convention being the amendments offered by the gentlemen from Will and Knox, the CHAIR stated that the amendment of the gentleman from Knox was then out of order, and it was withdrawn.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery stated, that upon consultation with some of the friends of the poll-tax they had concluded to move that the amendment now before the Convention should be laid on the table, which motion he would make before he took his seat. He would do so with a view to present the following, as a substitute for the original proposition: strike out all after the word "resolved" and insert "that the committee on Revenue be, and are hereby, instructed to report an amendment to the constitution so as to authorize the Legislature to levy a capitation tax, not to exceed one dollar, on all free white male inhabitants over the age of twenty-one years, when they shall deem it necessary."

He was in favor of this plan, because it left the subject of a poll-tax to the people. Gentlemen objected to a poll-tax because the people could not at any time change it. This proposed substitute would enable the people at any time to instruct their representatives to change or abolish the tax. He moved to lay the amendment of the gentleman from Will on the table; which was carried.

The question then recurring on the amendment, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 87.

Mr. POWERS offered an amendment providing that no road tax should hereafter be levied in the form of a capitation tax.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery moved to lay it on the table. Carried.

Mr. WORCESTER offered a substitute, which the CHAIR ruled out of order.

101

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery moved the previous question, which was seconded; and the question being taken on the adoption of the resolution, by yeas and nays, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 108, nays 49.

The following resolutions, offered some days ago, by Mr. PRATT, together with the amendment, proposed by Mr. HURLBUT, thereto, came up:

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to report such provisions as will effectually prohibit the power of the Legislature to create or authorize any individuals, company or corporation, with banking powers in this State.

Resolved, That said committee inquire into and report to the Convention such provisions as are best calculated gradually to exclude from, and prohibit the circulation in this State, of bank bills under the denomination of twenty dollars.

Mr. HURLBUT's amendment:

"That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending and altering the 2lst section of article 8 of the constitution, as to provide for a system of general banking laws, similar in principle with the propositions lately adopted in the State of New York."

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to lay the whole matter on the table.

Mr. MARKLEY asked a division upon laying the amendment on the table, and the vote being taken by yeas and nays, resulted as follows:

YEAS — Akin, Allen, Anderson, Archer, Armstrong, Atherton, Blair, Blakely, Ballingall, Brockman, Bond, Bosbyshell, Brown, Bunsen, Butler, Crain, Caldwell, Campbell of Jo Daviess, Carter, F. S. Casey, Zadoc Casey, Choate, Cross of Woodford, Cloud, Dale, Davis of Bond, Davis of Massac, Dawson, Dement, Dunn, Dunsmore, Eccles, Evey, Farwell, Frick, Green of Clay, Green of Jo Daviess, Hatch, Hawley, Hayes, Heacock, Henderson, Hill, Hoes, Hogue, Hunsaker, James, Jenkins, Jones, Knapp of Scott, Kreider, Kinney of Bureau, Kinney of St. Clair, Lasater, Laughlin, Lenley, Logan, London, McCALLEN, McCully, McClure, McHatton, Manly, Markley, Mason, Moffett, Moore, Morris, Nichols, Oliver,

102

Pace, Palmer of Macoupin, Palmer of Marshall, Pratt, Peters, Powers, Robbins, Robinson, Roman, Rountree, Scates, Sharpe, Stadden, Shields, Sherman, Sim, Simpson, Smith of Gallatin, Shumway, Thompson, Trower, Tutt, Vernor, Wead, Webber, West, Williams, Witt, Whiteside. — 99.

NAYS — Adams, Canady, Campbell of McDonough, Cross of Winnebago, Church, Churchill, Davis of McLean, Deitz, Dummer, Dunlap, Edwards of Madison, Edwards of Sangamon, Edmonson, Graham, Geddes, Green of Tazewell, Grimshaw, Harding, Harlan, Harper, Harvey, Hay, Holmes, Hurlbut, Huston, Jackson, Judd, Knapp of Jersey, Kenner, Kitchell, Knowlton, Knox, Lander, Lemon, Lockwood, Marshall of Coles, Marshall of Mason, Matheny,Mieure, Miller, Minshall, Northcott, Norton, Pinckney, Rives, Swan, Spencer, Servant, Sibley, Singleton, Smith of Macon, Thomas, Thornton, Turnbull, Turner, Tuttle, Vance, Whitney, Woodson, Worcester. — 60.

The question then recurring upon laying the original resolutions on the table; when a division on the first of them was demanded, and the vote was taken.

Mr. SHUMWAY, Mr. MANLY and others expressed themselves most emphatically opposed to banks in any shape whatever, yet they deemed a prohibitory clause in the constitution impracticable, they therefore voted to lay the instructions on the table.

Several gentlemen having expressed themselves as having voted under a misapprehension of the question and desirous to change their votes,

Mr. CALDWELL moved that the vote be retaken; which motion was carried. And the yeas and nays being again called resulted as follows:

YEAS — Adams, Anderson, Atherton, Blakely, Butler, Canady, Campbell of McDonough, Choate, Cross of Winnebago, Cloud, Church, Churchill, Davis of McLean, Dawson, Deitz, Dummer, Dunlap, Dunn, Dunsmore, Edwards of Madison, Edwards of Sangamon, Eccles, Edmonson, Evey, Frick, Graham, Geddes, Green of Clay, Green of Jo Daviess, Green of Tazewell, Grimshaw, Harding, Harlan, Harper, Harvey, Hatch, Hawley, Hay, Heacock, Henderson, Hill, Holmes, Hurlbut, Huston, Jackson, Judd, Knapp of Jersey, Knapp of Scott, Kenner, Kinney of Bureau, Kitchell,

103

Knowlton, Knox, Lander, Lemon, Lockwood, Logan, Loudon, McCALLEN, McClure, McHatton, Manly, Marshall of Coles, Marshall of Mason, Mason, Matheny, Mieure, Miller, Minshall, Moffet, Moore, Morris, Northcott, Norton, Palmer of Marshall, Peters, Pinckney, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Swan, Spencer, Sherman, Servant, Sibley, Singleton, Smith of Macon, Shumway, Thomas, Thornton, Trower, Turnbull, Turner, Tutt, Tuttle, Vance, Webber, West, Williams, Whitney, Woodson, Worcester. — 102.

NAYS — Akin, Alien, Archer, Armstrong, Blair, Ballingall, Brockman, Bond, Bosbyshell, Brown, Bunsen, Crain, Caldwell, Campbell of Jo Daviess, Carter, F. S. Casey, Zadoc Casey, Colby, Constable, Cross of Woodford, Dale, Davis of Bond, Davis of Massac, Dement, Farwell, Hayes, Hoes, Hogue, Hunsaker, James, Jenkins, Jones, Kreider, Kinney of St. Clair, Lasater, Laughlin, Lenley, McCully, Markley, Nichols, Oliver, Pace, Palmer of Macoupin, Pratt, Powers, Roman, Rountree, Scales, Stadden, Shields, Sim, Simpson, Smith of Gallatin, Thompson, Vernor, Wead, Witt, Whiteside. — 58.

Mr. LOGAN said (when his name was called), that as other gentlemen had denned their position, he would do so also. If we were to have a bad system of banking or no banks presented to us, he would prefer to vote for no bank; for the present he would vote to lay this proposition on the table.

The question then recurred on the motion to lay the first of the resolutions on the table.

Mr. HARVEY appealed to the maker of the motion to withdraw it for a few moments, and it was withdrawn. Mr. H. then said, that the resolutions before them instructed the committee on Incorporations to report some mode of prohibiting the circulation of bank notes within the State, and he hoped it would not be laid on the table at present, but discussed. He made this remark at the suggestion of the committee. He understood that there was a great difference of opinion in the Convention, as regarded the proper mode of excluding paper from circulation, and he hoped the question would be discussed. And, inasmuch as there were several propositions of this nature before the Convention, some of them going so far as to make all contracts and transactions

104

based upon bank notes void, he hoped the Convention would decide upon the matter before it came before the committee.

The yeas and nays were then called, and resulted as follows:

YEAS — Adams, Anderson, Atherton, Blair, Blakely, Butler, Canady, Colby, Cross of Winnebago, Church, Churchill, Davis of Montgomery, Davis ofMcLean, Dawson,Deitz,Dummer, Dunlap, Dunsmore, Edwards of Madison, Edwards of Sangamon, Eccles, Evey, Frick, Graham, Geddes, Green of Clay, Green of Jo Daviess, Green of Tazewell, Grimshaw, Harding, Harlan, Harper, Harvey, Hatch, Hawley, Hay, Heacock, Hill, Hogue, Holmes, Hunsaker, Hurlbut, Jackson, James, Jones, Judd, K \app of Jersey, Knapp of Scott, Kenner, Kinney of Bureau,, Kiichell, Knowlton, Knox, Lander, Laughlin, Lemon, Lockwood, Logan, Loudon, McCallen, McClure, Manly, Marshall of Coles, Marshall of Mason, Mason, Matheny, Mieure, Movia, Nichols, Northcott, Norton, Palmer of Marshall, Peters, Pinckney, Powers, Rives, Robbins, Robinson, Rountree, Swan, Spencer, Sherman, Servant, Sibley, Sim, Simpson, Singleton, Smith of Macon, Thomas, Thornton, Trower, Turnbull, Turner, Tuttle, Vance, Webber, West, Williams, Whitney, Woodson, Worcester. — 101.

NAYS — Akin, Alien, Archer, Armstrong, Ballingall, Brockman, Bond, Bosbyshell, Brown, Bunsen, Crain, Caldwell, Campbell of Jo Daviess, Campbell of McDonough, Carter, F. S. Casey, Zadoc Casey, Choate, Constable, Cross of Woodford, Cloud, Dale, Davis of Massac, Dement, Dunn, Edmonson, Gregg, Hayes, Henderson, Hoes, Huston, Jenkins, Kreider, Kinney of St. Clair, Lasater, Lenley, McCully, McHatton, Markley, Miller, Minshall, Moffett, Moore, Oliver, Pace, Palmer of Macoupin, Pratt, Roman, Scates, Stadden, Shields, Smith of Gallatin, Shumway, Thompson, Tutt, Vernor, Wead, Witt, Whiteside. — 58.

The resolutions were then withdrawn.

Mr. ROBBINS presented a petition from citizens of Randolph, praying a constitutional provision exempting from execution a homestead of 160 acres of land, and moved to refer it to a select committee of five.

Mr. SCATES moved to refer it to [the] committee on Law Reform. Carried.

Mr. JONES presented a petition from Perry county, praying

105

equal rights and privileges to all persons, without distinction of color, and moved its reference to the committee on Elections and Right of Suffrage.

Mr. J. said, it was well known by these petitioners, as well as all others who are acquainted with my sentiments upon this subject, that I am opposed to the principal object sought to be affected by this petition. Nevertheless it comes from a highly respectable portion of our fellow-citizens — mostly, I believe, from the moral and intelligent denomination of Christians called Covenanters. — They have a right to make their sentiments known in this body, and it is our duty to receive their petitions and treat them with respectful consideration.

Mr. SINGLETON moved that it be laid on the table till December next, one year. He extended the time for fear that we might overtake the matter.

Mr. WHITNEY trusted that the petition would be treated respectfully, and he hoped no such course would be pursued as that contemplated by the motion of the gentleman from Brown.

Mr. CHURCH thought that in the petition were presented some principles that would have to come before the Convention at some time, and he hoped the petition would be treated respectfully and referred.

Mr. PINCKNEY said, he was no abolitionist. That party he had always opposed, and they opposed him. They had tried to prevent his being here in the Convention. Yet he was willing to treat them with all respect. There were reasonable abolitionists, and they were as much entitled to be heard as any other reasonable men.

He was opposed to all gag laws, and was willing to hear the petitions, sentiments and views of every one. If that party could convince him that such a provision as that prayed for should be in our constitution he would vote for it. Gentlemen expected him to be and he was open to conviction on other subjects, and why not upon this.

Mr. KINNEY moved to lay the petition on the table.

Mr. LOGAN said, he supposed that a man might vote for a reference of this petition to a committee without being called an abolitionist. He had never had that name applied to him, and

106

he did not care if it should be. He would further say, that if you wanted to have an abolition party in this State, the best way to commence was by treating them disrespectfully.

The yeas and nays were demanded and they stood yeas 48, nays 100.

The petition was then referred to the committee on Elections and Right of Suffrage.

Mr. SCATES, from the committee on the Judic[i]ary, in obedience to the direction of that committee, reported to the Convention a resolution calling upon the clerk of the Supreme Court to inform said committee of the number of cases tried at each term of said court since 1840, and the number now pending and undecided; which resolution was adopted.

Mr. SHERMAN, from the committee on Finance, reported hack a resolution that had been referred to it, in relation to the levying a tax on gold watches, jewelry, &c., and the appropriation thereof, together with all moneys arising from fines, to the school fund, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof.

Mr. DAWSON moved that the resolution be referred to the committee on Education.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery made some remarks explanatory of the reasons why the committee had so reported, and

Mr. MARKLEY moved to lay the resolution on the table. Carried.

Mr. SCATES, from the Judiciary committee, reported back to the Convention the resolution which had been referred to it in relation to the election of sheriffs, &c., and recommended its rejection. The committee instructed him to do so, because they considered that the subject properly belonged to another committee. The report was concurred in.

Mr. SCATES, from the same committee, also reported back the resolution in relation to the abolition of the county commissioners' court, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. The committee gave as the reasons of the report, that the subject matter of the resolution properly belonged to another committee. The report was concurred in.

107

Mr. CONSTABLE inquired of the chairman of the committee what committee it was deemed more proper to send this subject to?

Mr. SCATES. The committee on County Organizations.

Mr. CONSTABLE still thought that the Judiciary committee was the proper committee to inquire into the propriety of abolishing a court.

Mr. SCATES said, he would add that the committee had further instructed him to recommend the repeal of the 4th section of the schedule to the constitution.

Mr. LOGAN said, he was not present in the committee when they agreed upon the report just made, but he would have been in favor of it. He thought the abolition of the county commissioners' court was not in the scope of the Judiciary committee's duties. The court was not a court, except in name. It had no power to try an action, or jurisdiction of a case of five dollars. No indictments could be found; no other jurisdiction properly belonging to a court was given to it. It was nothing more than a mere fiscal agent of the county — opening and laying out roads, collecting and distributing the revenue; these were its only powers. Unless it was a court with judicial power, cognizance and capacity, he could not suppose its abolition was a proper subject for the Judiciary committee.

As regarded the abolition of this court, his personal opinion and feelings would be to retain it; but he was apprised that his constituents thought differently and he would represent them.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, that he had the greatest respect for what the gentleman from Sangamon chose to express on any question, but he must differ from him. In his opinion the county commissioners' court was as much a court as the circuit court. If that court was not a court, under what power did they issue writs of ad quod damnum? In all cases where the county was a party, that court was the first place where the subject was heard; and from its decisions an appeal could be taken to the circuit and supreme courts. He hoped, that in order that there might be no collision or jarring between the actions of the committees in relation to this matter, one committee might manage the whole judicial affairs. He could not see how the abolition of this court was the legitimate business of the committee on the Organization

108

of Counties, unless the court be abolished, and then they might, the county having no organization, propose some system. After some further remarks from Mr. C., and from Mr. MINSHALL in reply,

Mr. CALDWELL asked the chairman of the committee on the Judiciary, if his committee intended to take into consideration any provision for the future judicial affairs of the counties.

Mr. SCATES was understood to reply in the affirmative.

The report of the committee and the resolution were laid on the table.

Mr. SCATES, from the same committee, made a report, asking to be discharged from the further consideration of the resolution in relation to the establishment of tribunals for arbitration. The committee gave as a reason therefor, that there were, at present, laws in force creating such tribunals. The report was agreed to, and the resolution laid on the table.

Mr. SCATES made a report from the same committee, upon another resolution, asking to be discharged from the further consideration thereof; which was agreed to.

Mr. CALDWELL moved that the resolution be referred to the committee on Rights. Agreed to.

Mr. ROUNTREE moved to take up some resolutions, offered by him some days ago, and refer them to the committee on the Judiciary. Carried.

Mr. BROCKMAN moved to take up some resolutions, offered by him some days before, and that they be referred to the committee on Organization of Counties. Carried.

He also asked leave to withdraw some resolutions, heretofore presented by him. Granted.

Mr. WOODSON moved to take up some resolutions, offered by him some days before, and that they be referred to the committee on Education. Carried.

Mr. SCATES moved to take up certain resolutions, offered by him, and that they be referred to the appropriate committee. Carried.

Mr. LOCKWOOD offered several resolutions providing for constitutional prohibitions against selling lottery tickets and

109

granting divorces by the Legislature; and moved their reference to the committee on Legislative Department. Carried.

Mr. EDMONSON offered the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the office of Probate Justice, in the several counties of this State, and giving to county courts power to do probate business.

Resolved, That the committee on the Judiciary, be instructed to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the office of County Recorder, in the several counties of this State; and making the clerks of the county courts recorders for the counties.

Mr. CHURCHILL offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed by this Convention, to report two propositions, to be submitted to the people for their direct vote. One of which shall eventually and effectually prohibit the circulation of all paper money as currency. The other, giving to the General Assembly power to pass, a restrictive general banking law; the resolutions to be embraced in the report.

Mr. McCALLEN offered a substitute.

Mr. CONSTABLE moved the Convention adjourn till 3 P. M.

Mr. VANCE moved the Convention adjourn till to-morrow at 9 A. M. Carried.

110

X. Friday, June 18, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. GREEN, of Tazewell.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a letter from the clerk of the supreme court, answering the resolution of inquiry addressed him yesterday. His letter states that at the July term of that court in '41, the cases decided were 59; December term, same year, 92; July term, '42, 140; December term, '43, 119; December term, '44, in; December term, '45, 171; December term, '46, IIl; and now pending and undecided, 28.

Mr. SCATES moved to refer the letter to the committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NORTON moved that 200 copies of the letter be printed for the use of the members. It was desirable that all the members should have the advantage of all the information that had been called for, and he considered the best mode of so doing would be to print the reports.

Mr. MINSHALL asked the object of the motion to print.

Mr. NORTON said the committee had called for the information, and he supposed had some object in so doing. If the report of the clerk of the court was worth calling for, it was worth printing. And the members should have every opportunity of examining and knowing the whole of the information, on all subjects laid before the Convention.

Mr. BROWN would like to know from the clerk of the supreme court, the number of cases appealed to that court from the circuit courts, and with a view of introducing a motion to that effect, he moved to lay the motion to print on the table; which was carried.

Mr. SCATES, in reply to a question put to him, said one object of the committee, in calling for the information, was to ascertain the amount of business done in that court, to enable them to form an idea of the necessary number of justices required to perform the duties.

111

Mr. HURLBUT stated similar reasons on his part, as a member of the committee.

Mr. HAYES, from the committee on Law Reform, reported back the resolutions which had directed them. to inquire into the expediency of reporting a constitutional provision abolishing capital punishment, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject. He gave as the reasons of this report, that the committee had concluded the subject did not properly come under the duties of the Convention. The Convention had been called to amend the constitution, to distribute the powers of government among the proper departments and the remedying of grievances. The report was agreed to and the resolutions were laid on the table.

Mr. LOCKWOOD, from the committee on the Executive Department, reported back a series of resolutions which had been referred to that committee, some of which they recommended to be referred to other committees, and others with several amendments in relation to the constitution to the Governor, Lieut. Governor, &c.

Mr. CALDWELL moved that 200 copies of the report be published and that it be for the present laid on the table. Carried.

Mr. JENKINS, from the committee on the Division and Organization of Counties, reported back the resolution requiring that no new county shall be formed unless the same contain an area of 400 square miles, with an opinion that no such provision ought to be inserted in the constitution; and asking to be discharged from the further consideration of the same.

Mr. WEST opposed the report of the committee and their recommendation. He said that he had not proposed the resolution they had reported back, but had a similar one prepared and would have done so had he not been anticipated. The subject of retrenchment had been much discussed, and though he intended to make no speech about it, this proposition Involved the principle. The session of the Legislature had been always prolonged by the business growing out of applications for new counties, and changing the county seats, which were got up and advocated by numbers 01 men who come down here to accomplish the object from personal and interested motives alone. We had come here for

112

retrenchment and reform, and in this particular, by abridging the length of the sessions of the Legislature, we would be carrying out that principle. A provision, similar to the one embraced in this resolution, had been adopted in Indiana, and no one who looked at the matter doubted its propriety. The people in his county had felt much interest in this matter, the subject had been agitated there, by these proposals to change county seats. He entertained the highest respect for the gentlemen composing this committee and had hoped they would give this resolution a full deliberation; they had no doubt thought they had done so, but he desired that they would again take the matter and give it a further examination, view it calmly and quietly, and information and facts would be afforded them that would, no doubt, incline them to a different opinion.

Mr. JENKINS said, that because the committee had asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the resolution, it should not be presumed that they intended to give the subject of county division no further consideration. They would endeavor by some provisions hereafter to remedy the evils complained of

Mr. BROCKMAN said, the committee had not had the experience which members had who resided in small counties. He represented a small county, and when you come into it and have business with the county officers, you have to look for them every where, and why? Because we cannot afford to pay them sufficient to allow a man to remain in his office and attend to its duties. He must be engaged in something else.

In case of a reduction of the number of representatives what would small counties do? Small counties have to pay almost as much taxes for officers as large ones. Small counties would be „ entirely cut off in representation in the Legislature, and the people of them could not be sued. Every session there are petitions for new counties and the people's money squandered in legislating upon them.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, that he hoped this subject would be referred again to the committee, or to a select or any other appropriate committee. What scenes would be witnessed

113

here every year, when these petitions come before the Legislature on this subject, asking for new counties. Fifty or sixty persons. came down here and hung round the Legislature at every session, begging and endeavoring to carry through some one or other of these measures; they were round the committee on Counties, and affidavits upon affidavits were spread before them, with their petitions. Every one knew how they were obtained, and by what sort of persons.

There was but little difference between the expenses of small counties and those of large ones and the less the number of counties, the less expense it would be to the State.

This was an evil which the people were everywhere alive to and he hoped the Convention would put a stop to it. He hoped the provision requiring the 400 square miles to the county would be adopted. In nine cases out of ten the petitions for these new counties were got up by men looking for the county offices to be created; or by men who were anxious to have the county seat located on their land, thereby increasing its value. Indiana had a provision of this kind in her constitution, and if he was not mistaken, Missouri also had one. No one there complains of it, and every one admires the system. We already had one hundred counties, and it would be much better if we had but sixty.

He hoped it would be adopted.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean, agreed with the gentleman last up. This was of the greatest interest to the people of the region he came from. On no subject were they more united than upon this. No evil greater than this do they require this Convention to correct.

Gentlemen cannot deny that great evil grows out of this system of creating new counties every year. Indiana had a provision against it. Ohio, too, had one, and he believed the area was larger in those States than 400 miles. There, every county is respectable, and there are not those complaints about taxation.

The amount of taxation in large counties for the county expenses was less than in smaller ones. Sangamon paid less than Macon. These petitions were always the work of interested persons. He was in favor of a prohibition against new counties being formed with the area less than 400 miles, and also that the

114

county from which it should be taken should not be left smaller than that. The attention of the people had been directed to this question, and it was a serious one. By adopting this, weeks of legislation would be saved. Since he had been in the State, a great amount of the time of every Legislature had been wasted upon this subject. The Legislature that met two years ago performed a crowning act by creating no new county, the first time anything of the kind had occurred. He moved the resolution be recommitted to the committee with the following instructions.

"To report a provision, to be inserted in the constitution, that no new county shall be established by the General Assembly, which shall reduce the county or counties, or either of them, from which it shall be taken, to less contents than 400 square miles; nor shall any county be laid off of less contents, or any line of which shall pass within less than ten miles of any county seat already established."

Mr. THOMPSON was surprised, when economy, retrenchment and reform were the order of the day, that anything of this kind — the creation of new counties — should be heard in the Legislature. He was in the Legislature some years ago, and there was a universal feeling to arrest the further sub-division of the counties; some little arrangement took place between Scott and Morgan, which created some local feeling in the Senate.

The State of New York had only 58 counties; some of them had population enough to send a member to Congress. Pennsylvania, too, was of nearly the same area, and the same number of counties. I was born in a county which was entitled to two members of Congress, six Senators and sixty representatives; in an evil day they were induced to cut it into three oblong parts and the expenses were tripled if not quadrupled.

I have the honor to represent a county of good size, and the people are so tenacious of their land that they would not part with a single foot of it. — If contiguous counties have any desire to be attached to us, we are willing to receive them with open arms. But before we part with a single inch of our land, we would, Hotspur-like, quibble on the ninth part of a hair.

Mr. JENKINS. The committee intended to Incorporate into some report, something in relation to this matter, at another time.

115

He had not said a word about retrenchment, though others had. The people do. not expect us to retrench by restraining them in their privileges. We have no right to restrain them in petitioning for a new county when they deem such necessary. We have no right to bind them down to silence by saying there shall be no new county unless it contain an area of 400 miles. Gentlemen had said that the petitions for the division of counties were always got up by men with interested or dishonest motives. He admitted that this might occur, but were they to presume that all men who had a part in such questions were dishonest, and that they could cheat the people? No, sir, the people are not so stupid — they are not so easily cheated. If they were, they would not be capable of self-government. What, then, becomes of the great principle of government? When the people petition for a new county we must presume that it was got up fairly. What would you say of elections, because there may be dishonesty at one, must we presume all elections are but schemes of cheating?

Territory is not the basis of the organization of counties, but population is the proper one. Suppose a case, where the territory is 20 miles square, with a population of 1,000, and then a territory of 18 square miles, with a population of 20,000; the former may be made into a county and the latter cannot. This would not be fair, and the basis would be unjust.

He had never seen a small county unable to get officers, or desire to be attached to a larger one. Are we, he asked, to have our counties organized only with a view that the officers may get rich? The people have a right to petition to be organized into new counties, when they do not injure another. This principle perhaps might have been proper when the State was first organized, but our State being so divided, as regards timber and prairie land, the people have a right to petition to be organized into counties with a view to their advantages. He hoped the report of the committee would be adopted. He would repeat again that if the people were not to be trusted with a right to petition for a new county when they desired it, for fear they might be cheated, they were not capable of self-government. The committee intended, when they made the report, to have asked that some alteration might be made in the shape of the question.

116

[Mr. WEAD said, that he understood we had adopted a rule, a few days ago, that committees should not report the reasons for their decisions, in writing, but the distinguished chairman of the committee on Counties had thought proper to take a different course, and had reported the reasons which governed the committee in making the report which had just been submitted. Those reasons being now before the house, were a legitimate subject of investigation, and deserved to be examined. The honorable chairman had reported, as a reason for the action of the committee, that large cities may hereafter arise in the State and desire to be incorporated into separate counties, and they ought not to be denied that privilege. Mr. W. did not see any connection between the gentleman's premises and his conclusion. Large cities might desire to be set off Into counties, therefore, no provision ought to be inserted in the constitution to prevent the destruction of old counties, or the creation of new ones with A less territory than 400 square miles. He did not see the point, the pith, of his argument.

But the honorable gentleman, for whom Mr. W. entertained great respect, in his speech, had abandoned the reasons contained in his report, and now sought to fortify the action of the committee by other reasons. What were those reasons? It was said, to fix the size of counties in the constitution is to deny to the people the right of petition. Let us look at this argument. We are about to limit the powers of the Legislature so that it shall not have power to pass any special acts of incorporation. Some man desirous of such a privilege may object to the constitution, because it will destroy the right of petition! Again, we are about to provide for creating a Governor, but according to the gentleman's logic, the people will complain, because they are denied the right to petition against the creation of such an office. Some man may think we ought not to have a judiciary, and he, too, will complain that we have denied the right of petition. — He was willing to submit these statements to the people and abide the result.

Are counties to be made only for the accommodation of a few people? Are cities, towns, villages, to have the right of organizing new counties at pleasure? Gentlemen contend that this is a matter for the people in given limits to decide; why, then, ask the

117

Legislature to create new counties? But, Mr. President, the creation of new counties is a measure of State policy and government, for the convenience of the whole people, and not for the convenience of a few men. The State has to furnish a court for each new county and pay the expense, to furnish laws, open new books and new accounts with them. The expenses of the State depend much upon the number of counties. In the great State of New York they have but 56 counties, and in Pennsylvania only 58. Have gentlemen ever heard complaint that these powerful States did not get along well enough with large counties?

But to leave this matter open is to leave a great and important principle undetermined. Counties are continually agitated and the people excited upon questions of division. Interested speculators and designing men, in order to accomplish some sinister object, are continually setting such projects on foot, and they uniformly beget ill-feeling, suspicion and difficulty. In many instances the people, oppressed with enormous county taxes, are induced to sign petitions for division, in the hope of obtaining relief. But when the new county comes to be organized, and they are called upon to defray the expense of new county buildings, and support a new set of office-holders, they speedily abandon all hope of relief. The truth is, the high county taxes and burthens arise from our defective system of county government, and the people can obtain relief only by abolishing the county commissioners' court.

Again, men settle in large counties for motives of interest and pride, they invest their property upon the implied faith that the county shall not be shorn of its power, or its influence lessened. Have these men no rights as well as the majority? It may be that a large majority of the property holders and taxpayers of a county may be opposed to a division, ought they to be compelled to pay the additional expense of supporting a new county at the will of a bare minority?

As long as this question is left open the Legislature will be continually harrassed with applications to divide the large counties, and the time of its members will be consumed in listening to the petitions and remonstrances, instead of attending to the general welfare of the people.

118

In every point of view, then, this question ought to be finally settled. It will relieve the people of the large counties from a load of doubts and fears, and put at rest, forever, the hopes and anticipations of a large number of restless and ambitious speculators.

So long as the counties are large they will have weight and influence commensurate with their population and wealth; divide them and you will strip them of their power.

Mr. W. said he gloried in being one of the representatives of a large county, one whose population was exceeded by but two or three in the State, and who paid into the State Treasury a larger sum than any other in the State save one. He should regret to see that county divided.

Mr. MARKLEY. I move to amend the instructions so as to read "inquire into the expediency of &c."

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin said, that this question was one of some interest to the people in his county and he desired to express his views upon it. He only claimed to be the representative of a single county. The people of that county were nearly equally divided on the question. He admitted the right of the people to be heard on this and every subject, but the Convention had a right also to make such laws as appeared to them the best. He thought the subject a local one, and not a question of State government, and should only interest the counties concerned. He was in favor of re-commitment of the resolutions and that the committee should wait till they had heard other propositions, which might be presented by gentlemen, and when they had seen them and contrasted them one with the other they would be better able to speak of the question. It was true that something should be done; but they had better wait and hear all the propositions that might be offered on the subject.

He was personally opposed to the resolution before them, as were many of his friends, but he was the representative of the county — a single county, and not of the whole State, as other gentlemen claimed to be — and should vote as he considered best for the interests of that county.

119

The subject involved in the debate was not of a general character, but of a mere local nature. It had been his misfortune since he had been there, when he had been advocating the interest of his own county, to differ from the majority. While he admitted that these petitions for new counties were got up by dishonest men and speculators in town lots, he did not believe that such was always the case; and where a case arose where a division would be proper, he thought the people should have the right to petition the Legislature in the matter.

Mr. JENKINS inquired of the Chair whether there was any rule forbidding a committee when reporting to give reasons. He saw no such rule on the list before him.

The CHAIR replied that there was, but it had been adopted after the rules had been printed.

Mr. MARKLEY withdrew his amendment.

Mr. LOGAN offered the following amendment to the instructions:

"And that no county shall be divided, or have any part thereof stricken off, without submitting the question to a vote of the people of the county, nor unless a majority of all the legal voters of the county shall vote for the same."

He thought the Convention should now decide the question.

Mr. GEDDES offered an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WEST read an amendment, which the Chair ruled to be out of order at the time.

Mr. SINGLETON said, he had come there to represent the interest of his constituents. He had come, not to consult their will but their interests. They would exercise their will themselves. He scarcely ever got up to address the Convention, but what he could read in the countenances of gentlemen, speeches upon retrenchment — about the consumption of time. He did not care if it should occupy a month in discussing a question when he thought it demanded it. He thought the restricting the formation of new counties the best step in retrenchment. They did not see the dollars uppermost but they were in the back ground. The question of creating new counties had occupied much of the time of the Legislature. The resolution which had been before the Convention [had] originally come from his colleague, and the people of

120

their county are much interested in the subject. — The people had shown their opposition to the creation of more counties, and it was high time a stop was put to it. It was never too late to do good. — We are making roads every day, and we do not want the county seats changed or county lines altered. This matter costs the State every year $10,000, and he looked upon it as a most important item. It was a very little object what amount of time was consumed in the discussion of this subject; but when a man gets up here he is almost frowned down. What were they to do? When one of them should go home to his constituents, and they should ask him why he did not resist this or that proposition, must he say, "Why, it was unpopular in the Convention to make speeches, and I let it pass?" This was a perfect cut-throat policy.

Mr. DAVIS, of Montgomery, said, he was in favor of the area being fixed at 400 square miles. — This would, if the counties were all of that size, still allow them 140 counties. But he would be in favor of changing the instruction, so as to have the line to run within six miles of a county seat, if that would suit the gentleman who offered them.

Mr. DAVIS, of McLean. Never in the world, sir.

Mr. D., of Montgomery, resumed; when

Mr. MARKLEY called him to order, as he had spoken before on the subject, and could not now if any other gentleman desired to speak. No member offering to speak,

Mr. DAVIS said, that he would call the Convention to witness that he had never spoken more than fifteen minutes at a time, that he always spoke to the point and no more, and that if he violated any rule of order he did it unintentionally.

He considered that the people of the whole State were interested in this matter. The State expenses were increased with every new county. He did not view it in the same light with those gentlemen who spoke of the right of petition. We had come here to act in relation to the judiciary and Legislature, in both of which the people had an interest, and certainly by so doing they never thought it was depriving them of any rights.

Mr. CHURCHILL wished to offer some homely, farmer-like reasons upon the subject. The county seats were often situated upon small streams, and it was frequently more convenient for

121

people to transact their business on the banks of those streams than in the interior. He was opposed to any law governing the location of the county seat. He might also speak of the prairies. Mr. C. then read a series of resolutions on the subject, which he would have offered if in order at the time.

Mr. TURNBULL made a few remarks and then the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. GEDDES withdrew his amendment.

Mr. LOGAN rose to explain the purport of his amendment. It was not a substitute for the original instructions, but an additional one. The State of Illinois now had one hundred counties (and a population of 700,000,) nearly double the number New York had. She with a population of over two millions had but fifty-six counties. Pennsylvania had fifty-eight counties, and they were found sufficient for the administration of justice and the management of business. Our Legislature had been continually increasing the number of counties, sometimes with not more than 1,500 or 2,000 souls in the county. The expenses were always increased by the formation of new counties, court houses to be built, officers to be paid, commissioners to be paid &c. There is danger that the Legislature will go on increasing the number, when there, are now counties that have not sufficient revenue to pay the interest on their debt. The resolution reaches the desired object to some extent but not entirely. Even with this provision it will not prevent an increase. Four hundred square miles is a small county. Bond is a small county but it has timber and prairie land, and being well settled is very well. As the matter stood at present they might reduce an old county to a size which would not accord with the views of the people of that county.

His amendment guarded against this. Suppose an old county, depending on the resources of the whole county, should build a large court house and other buildings, and there was a proposition to divide it, should the people of that county not have a right to say whether they were willing to divide or not?

Mr. L. then reviewed the manner in which the petitions for a division of the counties were generally prepared, and urged the

122

adoption of his amendment. He concluded by saying, that he felt he was incurring no risk in saying that he was unwilling to give the Legislature no power to divide his county, without giving the people of that county the privilege of saying whether they desired the division or not.

Mr. MASON said the question before them was, shall 400 square miles be the area of all new counties to be hereafter formed. He was a member of the committee who had reported against this resolution, and he proceeded to give the reasons which had governed the committee in reporting against the resolution.

He stated that the committee had not acted hastily in the subject, but had given it much deliberation; they had thought it better to reject the area of 400 miles because it interfered with the townships, and there might be counties that would not contain that amount of territory, and yet would be fully entitled to organization.

He continued this question at some length, and urged that population and not territory was the proper basis.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massac, begged the gentleman from Sangamon to withdraw his amendment, and allow him to offer a substitute for the whole; which was done.

Mr. D. said, that these propositions continually coming before the Legislature for the division of counties was a prolific source of evil. He had drawn up a substitute for the original instructions, and in doing so, had an eye to the constitution of Tennessee, in which was a clause of the same nature as the one now proposed. He had copied his substitute from that, making only such alterations as were necessary under the circumstances. The constitution of Tennessee says, the boundary line shall not run within twelve miles of any county seat; he had substituted ten in his.

That constitution says that two-thirds of the General Assembly shall concur in making the division: in his substitute he had left the matter to the people of the county, and not to the Legislature.

It had been argued that there should be no constitutional provision restraining the people in this question of dividing counties. Almost every State in the Union has thought it proper to restrain, by constitutional provision, the forming of new counties

123

ad libitum. The constitution of Indiana asserts a general principle only, in relation to this matter. The constitution of Ohio provides that no new county shall be formed with a less area than 400 square miles; that of Tennessee limits the extent of territory at 350 square miles. And most of the States of the Union have similar provisions. And then the injustice of these changes of the county seats: a man buys land near the county seat, and pays more therefor than he would were the county seat not there, and the Legislature a few months afterwards moves the county seat, is it not an act of great injustice to that man? It is, and should not be tolerated, unless the people of that county had desired it. He should speak of those persons who got up petitions and come down here about the Legislature, hanging upon members to have divisions made, but others had said every thing required, and it needed no enforcement.

Mr. D. then read some extracts from the constitution of Tennessee in relation to the subject.

Mr. LOGAN said, he was afraid he had got himself into a scrape by withdrawing his amendment to enable the gentleman to offer his substitute. He was ready at any time to do almost anything any person asked him, but he would like very much to have the matter as it was before.

Mr. DAVIS then withdrew his substitute, and the amendment of Mr. LOGAN was renewed.

Mr. BLAIR addressed the Convention at some length in support of the restriction.

Mr. CALDWELL offered to add to the amendment a proviso, that nothing therein should affect counties already created.

Mr. BROCKMAN moved to lay the proviso on the table. Carried.

Mr. KENNER offered an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to lay the whole subject on the table — yeas 38, nays 113. Lost.

The amendment to the amendment was then laid on the table.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery moved the previous question, which was seconded.

Mr. McCALLEN (by leave) said he was a representative of a small county and much had been said about them. The people

124

in his county were patriotic enough to take the offices, no matter how small the salary. A gentleman had said that the delegates from large counties brought with them to conventions like this, more weight, respectability and dignity than those of the small counties. If so, he wanted his county raised to the dignity standard.

The amendment was then carried and the instructions as amended were adopted.

Mr. DEMENT, from the committee on the Legislative Department, reported a resolution praying instructions to provide an amendment to the constitution, limiting the number of the General Assembly to 100 members; — 25 senators and 75 representatives; and that they should divide the State into districts upon the basis of the census of 1845, their pay to be fixed at $2 per day and the sessions limited to 60 days, and to hold their sessions once in 2 years.

Mr. WORCESTER moved to strike out 25 and insert 20; strike out 75 and insert 60.

Mr. SCATES moved to strike out 60 and insert 40.

Mr. Z. CASEY was in favor of the lowest number named. He was for economy, retrenchment and reform, in the proper sense of those words. We should incorporate it into every branch of the government.

The great reform must be made in the legislative department; to that branch we trace all our evils. If we had had no Legislature for the last twelve years we would now be a happy and prosperous State. He had lost all confidence in an Illinois Legislature. If we reduced their number to 20 in the Senate and 40 in the House, one session in two years, and then to be limited to sixty days, their per diem fixed unalterably in the constitution, then we would have a business body. We would then be spared the curse of all Legislatures — local legislation. It might be said that the number was too low for the dignity of the State. This was not so. He would compare the numbers 20 and 40, and our population with the number of the General Assembly of New York, with a population of 2,650,000. In the Legislature of that State there were, in the House, 158 members, and 32 in the Senate. Our representation, in proportion to the population and upon the same ratio,

125

would be 27 in the House and Senate in proportion. In no way could we insure economy and reform so well as by incorporating such a provision. He would rather give one vote for such a proposition than make twenty speeches on retrenchment.

Mr. MINSHALL said, he did not know whether he should vote to strike out or not. He was much surprised to hear the motion to strike out 75 and insert a smaller number. He had always been taught from his youth that the House of Representatives — the popular branch — should be large; not so large as to be unwieldly [sic] but sufficiently large to avoid corruption. Illinois was always running from one extreme to the other. Forty is a very small number, and he thought the House should be large. They might make the Senate as small and aristocratic as they thought proper, but leave the House large. The gentleman had said he had lost all confidence in an Illinois Legislature. He would ask him if a small body of 40 could not more easily be corrupted than a larger one? He was willing to agree with the report of the committee.

Mr. WHITNEY advocated the report of the committee, and the number fixed by them.

Mr. KITCHELL was in favor of the report of the committee, except so far as related to districting the State. This, he thought, should be left to the Legislature.

Mr. ROUNTREE advocated a larger number than recommended by the committee.

Mr. HARVEY thought the number fixed by the committee was about right. If the number should be fixed at 40, every representative would have a constituency of 20,000 persons; if fixed at 75, he would have something over 10,000.

Mr. DEMENT said, that the committee had carefully weighed all the proposed numbers to constitute the Legislature. They had estimated the proportion of the population to each representative, according to the various numbers that had been submitted, and had, after due deliberation, and a careful enquiry into the many difficulties attending a smaller number, agreed upon what had ; been just reported. He continued this branch of the subject at much length. He also said that the cost of the State for the pay of the members and officers of the last Legislature had been

126

$69,000; add to this, $1,800 for stationery, and some $230 for fuel, and it carried it over $70,000. The plan proposed, at $2 per day, and limiting the sessions at 60 days, the pay of the members and officers would amount to $11,778, a saving in this item alone, of $58,900. By fixing the pay of the members at $3 per day, the highest amount he had heard mentioned, there still, by adopting the other reforms proposed by the committee, would be a saving of $53,500; and this was not a small amount.

Mr. D. continued the subject at considerable length, but owing to the late hour at which the Convention adjourned we are unable to insert a more extended report of his remarks, which were listened to with great attention.

The Convention then adjourned.

127

XI. Saturday, June 19, 1847.

The question pending at the adjournment yesterday was on striking out the words "twenty-five" and "seventy-five" in the resolution reported by Mr. DEMENT from the committee on the Legislative Department. This resolution provided that the General Assembly should consist of seventy-five representatives and twenty-five senators.

Mr. ARCHER said that he was constrained to concur with the committee and oppose the amendment. He was aware that the people were in favor of a reduction of the number of representatives, but he believed they were not prepared to sanction so great a reduction as that proposed by the gentleman from Jefferson, (Mr. SCATES). He had great respect for the opinions of that gentleman, but he thought he (Mr. S.) was in advance of the public sentiment.

Small bodies are more liable to corruption than larger bodies, whilst the latter are liable to prolong the sessions of the General Assembly and subject the State to heavy expenses. He thought these two extremes should be avoided, and that the number suggested by the committee was a proper medium between the two. He would rather have the General Assembly too large than too small, for the reason that popular liberty was the safest in the hands of a numerous representation.

The State of New York had been referred to as an example, but he thought it was not applicable to our condition and State organization. In New York the population is more compact, and the number of counties much smaller than in Illinois. If we follow their example, one member will represent four or five counties, thus placing the representative at too great a distance from his constituents, which he thought was impolitic if not dangerous.

If the number recommended by the committee is adopted, a reduction of sixty-two members will have been made, which reduction, he thought, was all that the people expected or desired.

128

He thought that each county should have a representative, so that he may be acquainted, not only with a part, but all his constituents, and faithfully represent their interests and reflect their will.

Again, it is impolitic to go from one extreme to another. Heretofore the General Assembly had been too large, and delay and excessive expenditures have been the consequence. Now it is proposed to reduce the number to sixty. He thought that the people were not prepared for so sudden and momentous a transition.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, that he thought the number proposed by the committee was too small. The great cry has always been that the Legislature was too large, and to this cause has been attributed many, if not most, of the evils which were known to exist. But this was not the source of these evils. They proceeded from the excessive power given to the Legislature. Mr. D. then spoke at some length about candidates for office and individuals seeking favors of the Legislature, hanging about the lobbies and consuming the time of members, and entangling them in schemes for individual benefit, to the detriment of the public interests. Let these things be guarded against and there will be no complaints about delay and expense.

He hoped that there would be a county representation, so that the larger counties could not overshadow the smaller. The organization of the United States Senate was based upon this principle. If, said Mr. D., New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio, had a representation in the Senate according to their population they would almost have the entire control of the Union. He asked if it might not operate in some such way here, if the representation should be based upon population alone. Could not the larger cities and towns on the lakes and navigable rivers overshadow the less populous and more humble neighboring counties?

We should have an eye to the future as well as the present. In 1840, we had 250,000 inhabitants; in 1845 we had 700,000. Is it right to fix the apportionment to suit these counties that are settled, leaving those that are not settled unprovided for. He was opposed to giving large counties an undue and unjust power over smaller ones, and he advocated a larger number than that recommended by the committee.

Mr. DALE said, there was so great a difference in the views of

129

gentlemen, as to the number of which the General Assembly should consist, varying from 80 to 120, some members desiring even greater numbers than these, and some less, that the committee, by way of conciliation, adopted a medium number and reported to this convention the number of one hundred.

The last General Assembly having been composed of 162 members, the reduction to one hundred, as proposed by the report, would be a reduction of more than one-third of the number which composed the last General Assembly.

This is, indeed, a great stride in the system of retrenchment; and if this number should be adopted by the Convention, as also the recommendation of the same committee as to the pay of members of the Legislature, there would be a saving to the State, at each session of the Legislature, of near sixty thousand dollars; a sum, which though small, yet if properly expended, would go some way towards retrieving the credit of the State.

But though the saving, by this retrenchment of the number in the General Assembly, should be large, yet if this saving is effected, by losing sight of, or trenching upon the first principles of representative republics, it were a saving of doubtful expediency. In the legislation of these governments the views, wishes and feelings of the people should be fully and properly represented. This can be done only by allowing to each county at least one representative.

The Intercourse and acquaintance of the people with each other are, most generally, limited and bounded by county lines. They attend at the county seats of their own counties, courts, meetings, conventions, &c., and by constant intercourse and interchange of views and sentiments, they so assimilate, that frequently county lines are the lines of opposite views, habits and wishes.

In order, then, to a proper representation, each county should have its representative. Our State, however, is, unfortunately cut up into small counties, that such a representation might be considered unwieldly and burthensome; and as it is highly probable that no larger number will be adopted by this convention, and as the division between the two houses, of the number reported by the committee, seems to be in proper proportion, he should sustain the report of the committee. But, at the same time, he would say, that when this matter comes properly before the people, and

130

those counties which, under former apportionments, were always entitled to a separate representative, shall, to elect one representative, find themselves attached to smaller counties, and those smaller counties shall find their votes swallowed up in the votes of the larger counties, there will be complaint.

As, however, an amendment may hereafter be made, providing for an increase of this number when the people may vote for such an increase, he would forego his wishes and feelings and vote in favor of the committee's report.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, that he was opposed to the amendment. He advocated a large representation. Every county ought to have a representative. He thought that the Convention should have an eye to those who should come after us. Geography, said Mr. B., does not present a richer valley than that of the Mississippi, and there is no State in that valley equal to Illinois. It possesses a variety of climate and soil unparalleled. It has also a variety of interests which must be attended to, or we shall descend into an aristocracy.

We have a State capable of sustaining a population of 18,000,000. Massachusetts had a population of ninety souls to the square mile. In the same proportion Illinois would sustain a population of 5,000,000. Is the number proposed by the amendment sufficient to represent 5,000,000? Would one representative to 60,000 or 70,000 souls be sufficient? By this system one member would represent six or seven bodies corporate. It has been proposed to increase the number of county commissioners, because three men cannot do the business, yet in the same breath it is proposed to lessen the number of representatives. He saw no propriety or wisdom in this.

If each county shall not be provided with a representative, none but lawyers can get into the Legislature. They travel from county to county, and possess facilities for extending their acquaintance, which are entirely out of the reach of farmers and other classes, whose pursuits confine them at home on their farms and in their shops. If each county is allowed a representative, individuals, other than lawyers, can find their way to the Legislature, for they will be well known throughout their own county.

131

Mr. McCALLEN advocated at some length the adoption of the county representative system.

[Mr. McCALLEN said he did not rise to inflict a speech upon the Convention, but briefly to give his views upon the matter now under consideration, for he regarded it as being a subject of momentous import to the welfare of the people. It seemed to be the disposition of every gentleman in the Convention to carry out what they were pleased to term retrenchment and reform. He would be sorry to doubt the sincerity of gentlemen; he was disposed to attribute to them the same honesty of purpose, the same generosity of motive which he claimed for himself. But, continued Mr. McCALLEN, are they not mistaken in the means by which this economy and this retrenchment are to be brought about?

It seems to be the disposition of the majority, to leave all the important questions which are discussed here open for the decision of the people themselves, or for the future action of the legislature. What, sir, was it that caused the people to call us together? Was it not to settle these questions? To settle and determine principles at least? Why then will not gentlemen take the responsibility of settling those questions which they were sent here to determine; and embody them in the constitution? Gentlemen have assembled here to remedy certain evils, yet they seem most anxious to shift the responsibility from their shoulders, for fear, perhaps, that they might not be able to return again.

With all due deference to the Hon. member from Jefferson, (for there is not a member in this assembly who has a more exalted opinion of his patriotism, and his distinguished talents, than I have; but is not the gentleman as liable to err as some of the rest of us?) I entirely disagree with that honorable gentleman, in regard to his proposed reduction of the General Assembly. The proposition which the gentleman is in favor of, as I understood him, is that the legislature shall be reduced to forty members in the House and twenty in the Senate, in order that we may retrench and economize the expenses of this government. Might not the expenses of the government be better retrenched, and economized, by setting limits to the action of the legislature? By saying to the legislature, thus far thou shalt go, and no farther?

132

If we contend for the principle of a democratic, responsible government, let us carry it out; and I ask this convention, if that principle can be carried out, by limiting the representation in this hall to forty members? If it can, I am prepared to go still further than the gentleman from Brown, who preceded me in this debate. If forty members can do the business of this State, if the great and important interests of the people can be intrusted to so small a number, — why not bring it down at once to the standard of Napoleon's republic; reduce it to a council of three, and have an aristocratic government, an oligarchy at once? It has been very properly suggested here, that the interests of the smaller counties will be swallowed up by the greater, in the indulgence of that love of power which is inherent in the human breast; that as nothing but an imaginary line divides them, the interests of the smaller counties will be absorbed and swallowed up by the larger. True, sir, there is danger; and yet within those lines there are feelings of local interest, feelings which attach every man to his own county. — The same feeling which produces State pride, or pride of country, will operate in regard to counties. State lines are merely imaginary, yet who does not hold his own State first in his affections? The same principle will hold good when we refer to Europe; imaginary lines, only, separate nations, and yet those nations are arrayed in hostile attitude against each other. Sir, if you would in accordance with your professions, protect the rights of the weak against the encroachments of the powerful, then let your small counties be protected in the enjoyment of their privileges. Each county in itself possesses a kind of minor sovereignty; that sovereignty should be represented, and respectably represented in this house. It is said that gentlemen who came from small counties, should not be entitled to the same respect and consideration as those who represent larger ones. If this is to be the decree regarding this thing, let gentlemen openly avow it. Let them not come here sailing under false colors. Let them not come here under the color of democracy, and say that that class to which I belong, those whom they opprobriously style "blue light federalists," and "Mexican whigs," are those who are trampling on the rights and interests of the people. Let them come out under their true colors, and if they are disposed to protect

133

the interests of the great mass of the democracy of this country, let them show it by acts and not by words. I am clearly of opinion with the gentleman from Brown, that should we adopt this policy, and reduce the number of representatives to forty, it will drive from these halls the representatives of that very class, on whose behalf so much is said, and so many professions made; it will prevent the hard-fisted yeomanry of the country from ever attaining a seat in your legislative halls. It will shut out from participating in the legislation of the State the farmer, the mechanic, and if you please the merchant, whose interest and whose welfare are preached from every stump. Another class of men must fill your legislature, if this principle be adopted; and what class will it be?

It has been truly remarked by the gentleman from Brown, that it will be the lawyers, the nabobs of the country; men who can roll in their coaches; whilst the poor man, the farmer, the mechanic, though he may have the embryo talent lurking in his brain of a Clay, a Webster, or a Calhoun, is ruthlessly deprived of all chance of ever arriving at that niche in the temple of fame, which his inherent talent would otherwise give him the capability of attaining. If we are going to be democratic, let us give every county in the State a representative. — But, perhaps, gentlemen have promised reform, which they now find it somewhat inconvenient to carry out; they have promised more, perhaps, than it is agreeable to them to carry out.

For my own part, I came here bound by no pledges; I am free as the air of heaven. That I am honored with a seat here, is but the triumph of the principles by which I am governed, and not because I was willing to subscribe to what appeared to be the wishes of a majority. Rather than beg a seat here, in order to / carry out doctrines which I disapproved, rather than do this, I would dig my political grave deeper than the very caves of the ocean. The people whom I have the honor to represent are not willing that their right of suffrage — that their right of representation here, should be balanced against a paltry sum of dollars and cents. There are questions arising, and always will be, in the progress of the development of the resources of this country, and in the further arrangement of the State, that will require local

134

legislation; and is there a county, in view of this fact, that will not be willing to pay the expenses of a member, rather than be deprived of the services of a representative in the legislature? And another great difficulty which has been raised by many gentlemen on this floor, is this sectional feeling, this county pride. Range two or three of these counties side by side — let them send one representative to the legislature, and which among them will be most neglected? — Undoubtedly the smallest. The main interest of the whole will be laid aside, party politics even will be laid aside, and these local questions are the ones that will be agitated. These are not freaks of the imagination. I come from a county which never sent a representative to the legislature, and it was only by a piece of good fortune that your humble servant obtained a seat here. [A laugh.] Though I would be decidedly opposed to a curtailment of the representation, yet if gentlemen persist in curtailing down to the small number proposed, for the purpose of economizing — if a saving of dollars and cents is to be the word — I will go further than they. I will say clothe your executive with imperial functions, put the imperial crown upon his head, and carry out your doctrine in its utmost rigor. Deny the people the right of representation in the legislature, — send forth from this august body a constitution that will give to your large counties clustered around the centre the full power of the whole State, and I pledge you my life that the people will respond to your acts in a way that will be most unwelcome. The people's rights are not to be bought and sold.

But gentlemen may enquire, what would be my proposition. If we must have a conservative department in this government, in order to check the power of the others; make the most numerous; body of the legislature that conservative department; let the sovereignty of every county in the State, which is able to carry on a county government be represented; then, select your Senators according to the population of the country. It has been justly remarked by the gentleman from Bond, that the conservative character of the Senate of the United States has more than once saved this republic; and I entirely concur with the gentleman. Give the numerous body of the legislature this conservative power and we shall save perhaps the character of this rapidly growing

135

State. Concentrate the power around the capital of the State, and you at once have a civil government, more odious in its character than was ever the consolidated government of Santa Anna; the bordering counties having no more voice in the legislature than if placed beyond the Mississippi; swallowed up by the consolidated power collected around your capitol. — Is this what the people expect from a democratic convention? Is this the kind of democratic doctrine which gentlemen come here to advocate? Do they not place themselves in the position of the Jay, who had borrowed the feathers of the Peacock? Let me tell the gentlemen, there is a breeze of intelligence sweeping over the broad savannah's of this land, that will scatter their brilliant plumes and leave them in their naked deformity. Principles will be test words, and party names will be unknown. I do not intend to consume much of the time of the Convention; I did not come here, as I said on another occasion, deeply learned in the law, yet my constituents thought me not unworthy of a seat in this assembly, and whenever their interests are to be sacrificed upon the alter of penuriousness, than I am to be found battling in their cause. I am not going to sit quietly in my seat, and see the little county which bears the name of that glorious hero, who shed his blood upon the field of Buena Vista, sacrificed to serve the purposes of the democracy of the State.]

Mr. LOUDON said, that he had just come into the Convention, and desired to say a few words on the question, though he did not exactly know what the question was. His constituents were interested in the matter. He had long thought of the matter. It had occurred to him in days past that the Legislature was entirely too large. He had heard the people say so, particularly in the south part of the State. Their sessions were entirely used for log-rolling, &c., which took up a great deal of time, and, therefore, the sessions were too long. He was for a sufficient number, in the Legislature, to carry on the business of government and no more. So far as his county was concerned, he was satisfied mat not one could be found who was not in favor of reducing the number to

136

50 in the House and 25 in the Senate. The committee had reported 75 and 25, and he did not know but that he would vote for striking out. He lived in a small county which would lose a representative, and he had the best feeling for his county and her people, but still he would vote to reduce the lumber of representatives. It might be said that Illinois require a greater number in her Legislature to represent the interests of all her people; but he would introduce the State of Tennessee, who [sic] had a much larger population than Illinois, and a much smaller representation in her Legislature. Much had been said of retrenchment, and he was of opinion that this was a proper way to make it; in fact, the only way to retrench the expenses of the State was to curtail the number of representatives in the Legislature, then reduce their per diem, and then there would be a great saving to the State. This was the only way that it could be done. He had introduced a resolution some weeks ago on this subject, which had expressed his views and the views of his constituents.

But there was apparently a great anxiety, on the part of some gentlemen, that if the number of representatives should be reduced, and several counties put into one district, that they would never get back to the Legislature. He lived in a small county, and one which, if this reduction should pass, would lose a representative, yet he would rather have the honor to represent three or four counties than one. It was no great thing to get into the Legislature! Much better to keep out of it. If he could get elected from a large district, composed of several good sized and respectable counties, why, then he would consider himself a respectable member.

It was all a chance to get into the Legislature anyhow. If a man was respectable and popular in his own county now, and would do everything to keep up that character after he was put into a large district, and let the people then see him and know him, he would stand the same chance, and might be elected. Gentlemen should not be afraid. Young men who are now squirming and trembling about the loss of their chances to get back to the Legislature, should remember that the old ones will die, and get other places, &c., and that they will, in time, have

137

all the chances. Many who are now in will die, and they will be elected to fill their places. That was his only hope.

Mr. PINCKNEY said, that if those gentlemen who were afraid of not getting back to the Legislature would quietly wait till the old ones would die, it would be the better course. He did not know how others felt, but for himself he had not been much enlightened by the speeches of gentlemen upon the principles upon which governments were formed, and even if they had gone back to Greece and Rome, and informed us how their governments had been established, he did not think the result would be much different. He had read all about them in his youth, but did not think he could enlighten the Convention upon the subject at present.

His reasons for rising at all were to have a vote upon the question at once. He would prefer the number to be 80 instead of 75, and that number, he was of opinion, was not too large, but he did not desire to have the number more than that. He thought but little of the argument that small bodies were more easily corrupted than large ones. If this were the case, how came it that the people themselves were corrupted when they met en masse. They were there swayed to and fro by some one man — an orator — who, by appealing to their feelings and passions, carried them like a wave backward and forward. If the number and pay be reduced, it is said that poor men will not be able to canvass the districts. Well, he did not care if men never canvassed the districts, making stump speeches, log-rolling, and using every means to procure their election. He would not care if this were all broken up. The people of his county were willing to pay men a reasonable compensation for their services in the Legislature — not too high nor too low.

Mr. WORCESTER withdrew his motion to strike out the numbers proposed by the committee and insert less ones.

Mr. SCATES advocated the motion made yesterday by him to strike out the numbers proposed by the committee. In doing so he said, that he hoped no one desired to "question" gentlemen down who were disposed to present their views to the Convention on this subject. He was astonished to hear gentlemen say, when great constitutional questions were before them, that there ought

138

to be no more discussion. He had objected, last week, to long discussion upon a very trifling matter of dollars and cents. But now, gentlemen who have spoken themselves, like a man after a feast, think no one hungry because they are satisfied. Gentlemen had also indulged in personal remarks, in sarcasm, and ridicule of those whom they were disposed to silence. He had shared largely in these. In reply, he had only to say, as Job said to his comforters, "miserable comforters ye are," and he would add, with Job, also, "ye are the people and wisdom will die with you." His colleague (Mr. Z. CASEY) had been made to say, by one of the gentlemen who had spoken, that he had lost all confidence in an Illinois Legislature because they had become corrupt. His colleague did not say that he had lost all confidence in the Legislature because it was corrupt. He (Mr. S.) had lost all confidence in an Illinois Legislature, because he had lost confidence in its ever adopting retrenchment and reform; he had lost confidence in it because of its organization. He had no confidence in it when it went on increasing its number till it had reached 162.

Mr. MINSHALL explained, that he had put no such construction upon the language of the gentleman from Jefferson.

Mr. SCATES. Let it pass, then, I so understood the gentleman to represent my colleague. When interrupted, he was about saying that he had known candidates for the Legislature to canvass their counties, and pledge themselves to carry out retrenchment and reform, and to be elected. Yet these same men, who, when they came here, were resolved to carry out their pledges, have been voted down, and, until finding they were unable to do so have abandoned the object. When he saw this, he could well say that he had lost all confidence in the Legislature. The Legislature was too large, and he greatly feared that in this body of 162 members it would be found impracticable to carry out the principles of economy and retrenchment. When he had opposed the scheme to economize one-half dollar in the pay of the clerks and doorkeepers of this House, he did so because he did not think it was in our power to pass a resolution of the kind, and that the subject was too insignificant. Now there was a great opportunity to introduce retrenchment into the government, and gentlemen who had made speeches then upon economy had now an opportunity

139

of showing their sincerity. Let them vote for the smallest number. He was told that Illinoians were too proud to pay a poll tax. This pride would be our ruin. When we propose to economize in the legislative department we are told that the people of Illinois are too proud to submit; that they will never consent to mingle counties into districts, and that the county lines must be kept up. And this, too, when we were not in a condition to pay the interest on our debt. He was prepared to show that we could add to the funds for the liquidation of our debt, by this proposed reduction of the number and pay of the members of the Legislature, and that, too, in considerable amount, without any increase of taxation. — The expenses of the last Legislature amounted — including per diem, mileage, printing of laws, stationery, fuel and other expenses — to $77,659.59. — This was for the Legislature composed of 162 members. Now the question was, how much could we retrench of this sum, without injuring the public interest? Mr. S. then read several tabular statements showing the reduction in the amount of expenses of the Legislature that would follow the adoption of a smaller delegation, and the annual saving to the State. We give the substance. The cost of a session of the Legislature, composed of 60 members, allowed $2 per day — session limited to 60 days — would be $13,766.14. This compared with the last Legislature would be a deduction of $63,872.91. The printing would be reduced, the stationery and the number of laws would be reduced. Thus there would be an annual saving of over $31,891, to go to the payment of our interest on the State debt, without any further taxation. The expenses, at the same rates, of a house of 70 members, would be $15,500 — and the saving would be about $30,000 a year. At 80 in the Legislature, the expenses would be $16,500, and the annual saving would be nearly $30,000. — Fix the number at 100 members, and the cost would be $19,000, a yearly saving of $28,500. This was a considerable saving, which, under the present circumstances of the State, it was very desirable should be made.

But if gentlemen would calculate the difference between the cost and expense that would be incurred by having one hundred members in the Legislature, with that of the number proposed by him — sixty — they would find that in thirty years it would amount

140

to $144,000. He had no hopes that in thirty years our debt would be paid, yet he thought that our creditors would be rejoiced to hear that in that time they would receive that amount. Suppose they were to ask us, would we not pay them $140,000 in thirty years, would not we be glad to have it in our power to promise them we would? They are now here in the in the lobby looking upon your actions, they are watching whether we will suffer any opportunity of saving money to pay them their dues to pass by without embracing it. Look at them and think of the large claims they hold against the State, and forget your constituents. — Do not oppose it because you have too much pride to allow your county to lose a representative. Gentlemen say that 60 members cannot legislate for the whole State of Illinois cannot represent her different interests. How do seven members in Congress so well represent this large area of territory and advance the interests of the people? When they say that one man cannot know and represent the sentiments of several counties is not correct, if so, what becomes of the propriety of your present senatorial districts? New York has an extent of territory of 47,000 square miles, but little less than our own. We have a population of 670,000, and New York has 1,968,000. New York has fixed as a ratio of representation 11,000 to a delegate. She has a population of 43 to a square mile. Illinois has only 3. Her legislature is composed of only 163 members to represent her large and diversified interests. She has agricultural, manufacturing and commercial interests. We have but one — agriculture. Our population is not so diversified, we have but little mechanic and comparatively no manufacturing interests. We have but one principal interest to be represented, and that is agriculture. Gentlemen have cited New York as a model. They were willing to follow New York in every thing. If New York adopts a bad system of general banking, they immediately gave up and adopted it. N. York had adopted it and the matter was settled. New York had a vast amount of revenue arising from the canals; it had a large amount of taxable property. Illinois had not been, and at the present time was not, able to pay the interest on its debt. She was emphatically able to owe it. He would call their attention to the State of New Jersey, which had a population of

141

520,000, and she has a limit in her constitution upon the number of her Legislature to 60. Is New Jersey in debt, or unwilling to pay what she owes, or suspected of a design to swindle her creditors? No; but she has thought proper to guard against a too large and extravagant Legislature, and is an example we might safely follow. Pennsylvania has provided that her legislative body shall not exceed one hundred. Are we willing under our circumstances to go up to the same limit with the great State of Pennsylvania, with so many diversified interests. We are still issuing large numbers of Auditor's warrants to pay these members, they are floating all over the State at a depreciated value. You may knock in vain at the doors of your treasury for their redemption. And now there will be a large amount, say $50,000, issued to pay for this Convention. And gentlemen are talking of paying the State debt, when they are unwilling to reduce the number of the Legislature, and reduce the fast growing amount of Auditor's warrants. Let us go to another State that has prospered under her legislation, and which would be a more proper model for us than New York. Go to Ohio. A State with a large population engaged in agriculture, literature, commerce and every branch of trade. Her march has been onward. And she has limited her Legislature to seventy-two — I am told it is eighty-two. Admit it, but compare her population to the square mile with ours; her prosperity with ours; and the number other Legislature with ours; The constitution of that State says the number may be as low as 36. If we follow the example of any State, I think we should follow that State. Indiana has limited her number to one hundred. Shall we step at once to the maximum? Let gentlemen adopt the lowest number now, and let the Legislature advance to the maximum when our population shall have increased and our State has not creditors. Louisiana has an immense commerce compared with Illinois, yet this State — the great cotton State — has fixed her maximum at sixty-four members of the Legislature. And we are scouted at when we propose to reduce our n Limber to the same. Alabama has fixed the limit of her Legislature to one hundred, and I believe is now legislating with a less number. That State has a territory of 50,000 square miles. The State of Maine has a larger ratio of representatives than any State in the

142

Union. Her limit is not below one hundred, nor "above two hundred; but in that State, and I believe in most of the New England States, they allow every town a representative, the town or county paying all expenses of the members. Arkansas has limited the number to one hundred. — Missouri, too, has adopted the same number. She is larger in territory than Illinois, and though her population is less, the interests of her people are more diversified. She has a larger commercial and a mineral interest to be represented. He thought that if because the State had been heretofore cut up into an extravagant number of counties we were to allow each county a representative in the Legislature, we had better go to work and organize the State over again. Did you notice the touchiness of the gentleman from Hardin? A county that has ever had a representative will never surrender it; the people are too proud to submit to it. Illlnoians had become so proud because they had had a chance to fight and fought well, that they won't pay taxes, is another fact of the gentleman. They had been favored with panegyrics upon their brave who had fallen, and upon the fighting of their troops. Fighting was one thing and paying taxes another; and collectors when they called on the people for the amount of their tax would not be put off by these answers, which gentlemen put into their mouths. Our character, as a State anxious and desirous to adopt every means in our power to pay our debt, will be served abroad by our reducing the number of our Legislature, and the amount of our expenses. I hope, for the saving of $144,000 in thirty years — the probabIe length of time this constitution will continue in force — gentlemen will adopt the number I have proposed. It is also said, that members won't serve for $2 a day; they get men in the State of Kentucky to perform the duties of legislators for that sum. The expenses of the last Legislature are yet unpaid, the warrants for them are in circulation yet; moreover, there were $100,000 appropriated besides, by the Legislature, all of which are yet out and unpaid.

We could easily see the reduction that could be made, were we to have a called session.

The people of my county say the Convention was called too soon; that the day of confirmation is fixed too soon, and I would

143

prefer that the election should take place so as the result might be known just before the August elections of next year. He hoped the Convention would, in justice to the honor of the State, and to wipe off the suspicion of a design to cheat that now hangs over us, go for the reduction of the number. Now is the time. All the people demand it. All speak of retrenchment, and here is an opportunity to accomplish it.

Mr. HARDING. The county I represent has a desire to have a representative in the Legislature. The last number proposed will deprive us of all chance of a member. We have a population of 6,000 and the Legislature has attached us to Knox county. Knox county has a population of 10,000, and they give her one member. Knox and Warren are entitled to one member, and we have to depend on the magnanimity of the people of Knox whether we ever have a member from our county or not. Population is not the fairest basis of representation, it should be taxation and territory. All counties have an interest as counties — a county interest, and it should be represented. Sangamon, for instance, has an interest, a county interest, a Sangamon interest, which is very different from that of any other county. They, in apportioning, throw the fraction from large counties and attach it to a smaller county, and this is unfair. The gentleman from Jefferson may well speak of reducing the representation. His county has two representatives, and pays but $1,250 a year for taxes. Warren county pays $4,000. Jackson county pays $1,800 for taxes and has a representative and a half, we pay $4,000 and have none. Let every county have one member. Go to Pennsylvania, her constitution says that every county shall have a representative, no matter what the population is. Take Cook county, I can see the time when Chicago will have a population of 100,000, and then take a small agricultural county which has no representative, but is thrown in with Cook, what chance of the agricultural interest being represented there?

Jackson and Williamson counties have a large extent of territory but they pay no tax. The rule of putting several counties into one senatorial district, is well enough, because the Senate is the conservative branch.

Give every county a representative, and you will avoid all

144

complaints about gerrymandering. A large extent If territory requires a larger representation than a large population. The Legislature is to make laws for all the counties, and if the small counties are deprived of their representatives, they have no voice in the assessment of taxes. In the proposed plan property is thrown out of view. He who has property has an interest in the country, and the greater part of the taxes comes from the landhold interest. There are those who are engaged in professions and other occupations who derive large incomes and who pay no taxes, but are fully represented under the population basis.

Mr. LOUDON said, he must reply to some of the remarks of the gentleman who had been somewhat personal. He said property should be the basis of representation. He steps down to Jackson and Williamson and there makes some calculations; he then steps up to Cook and there was quite unfortunate. If he carries his principle of a property representation into operation as a basis, he would, standing alongside Cook county, soon find himself like a musquito [sic] in the stern wheel of a steamboat. He (Mr. L.) was from a poor county, and was one of the poorest of the poor in that county, yet, he, and the people of his county, were perfectly willing to run the chance of being united with other counties and of having a joint representative. Gentlemen should go into the canvass then as into a game, take all the chances, enter into the spirit of the game. Let him present himself as a candidate; the people will ask him is he qualified to go to the Legislature. He answers, I think I am; then the people will say, we'll examine you and see if you are. Let him go then into the contest, and if struggles, if he has hope, even as large as a grain of mustard see he can remove anything, he can remove mountains. Let him go to Williamson county, and he will find that there are as many there, who are as anxious to go to the Legislature as anywhere else. Don't be discouraged; don't be frightened at the chances of not getting back. The argument of gentlemen don't hold good, suppose you do give every county a representative the large counties will then have more — two or three — in proportion and the small counties will be in exactly the same minority. No man representing several counties dare neglect to represent the interests of the small ones.

145

He need not be afraid of gerrymandering, there will not be any more of that in one way than in another. Though Williamson county is poor and her population is small, she has raised some cute chaps, who, when they grow up, move off into other parts of the State and become rich; they cannot get rich down there. Let them put Williamson county along with some others and give them all one representative, why, there will be a number of candidates from all counties, and the longest pole will knock the most persimmons. All the people required was a sufficient number in the Legislature to do the business, and a surplus was just as great a nuisance as any other article on a man's hands for which there was no demand.

A motion was made to adjourn till Monday next.

Mr. CHURCHILL demanded the yeas and nays. Which were ordered.

Mr. HURLBUT and others appealed to him to withdraw the demand, that the object was to enable the committees to hold their meetings; the demand not being withdrawn, the motion was withdrawn, and the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. WHITNEY differed from the gentleman who had said there was a manifest desire on the part of the Convention to close the debate on the question. He thought not. Retrenchment and reform had been sounded in his ears so much, had been the subject of so many gentlemen's speeches, that he even heard retrenchment and reform at the corner of the streets. It was now proposed to carry out retrenchment and reform by depriving the people of the right of representation, the grand characteristic of a free government, and the most sacred of all privileges, and that for the purpose of paying the public debt in thirty years. He was certain the people would pay every dollar of the debt; they were anti-repudiators; they desired to pay it, but not by giving up their right of representation. He did not think that the debt could be paid in thirty years, nor would any one there now, who might live thirty years, see the debt paid. He was no repudiator, the paid his taxes and would continue to do so, but would never consent to give up any of the people's right to be heard in their legislative

146

halls. He was opposed at the time, to the passage of the act by which that debt had been created. It had been said that it was unwise legislation. He thought so too, but knowing well the manoeuvering that had been practised by people about here to procure the passage of that bill, he was greatly of opinion that the Legislature that made the law was not only unwise but a little corrupt. Unwise they certainly were. He did not care if the State creditors were in the lobby looking at the acts of the Convention. He had heard the same cry before, when the great internal improvement bill was before them. Then it was said that the capitalists were here in the lobby with the money in their hands and that the eyes of the world were upon us to see if we would be such fools as to let that opportunity pass by, of enriching our State by means of canals and railroads, &c. I am unwilling, even for the purpose of paying the debt, to say that a republican form of government shall be abandoned. To forego the right of representation to pay men, who were as much to blame for the creation of that debt as we are. How are we to save this $144,000 in thirty years? — by cutting down the number of representatives of the people? He would not even say he was willing to cut down the pay of the members of the Legislature to $2 a day — $2 a day in Auditor's warrants! Farmers and mechanics who may come here cannot afford to pay for board equal to what they have on their own table, at that rate. He would go for restricting the amount they should receive each session. If gold and silver were paid, then there might be something saved, but not when they were paid in Auditor's warrants. I hope to see no longer the sheriffs running about the counties, buying up the Auditor's warrants with the gold and silver they received from the people's pockets for taxes, and then making returns in the warrants. New York had been cited. N. Y. was his native State and he loved her, but he loved Illinois more; if a good plan was proposed he did not care where it [had] come from. New York has 128 members in the lower house, and they are apportioned by territory. She has fifty-nine counties and each county has one representative, then after that population is the basis, and 37,680 is the ratio for representatives. When I first came here I lived in Peoria, and our representative had so great an extent of territory to represent

147

that he might as well have been in the British Parliament so far as our interests were concerned, as at Vandalia. He remembered the time when Jo Daviess county furnished representatives for nine counties, and they generally forget our interests in that of the interests of Jo Daviess. The whole of those representatives went in for that bill against the wishes and opinions of the people of my county, as well as of the adjoining counties.

If the report of this committee be adopted, eighteen counties will hold the balance of power in the house, and control the whole State; and the rest of the counties may as well not be represented at all. These eighteen counties will be entitled to thirty-eight representatives — a majority of the whole — if population be made the basis of representation. He hoped every county would have a representative. — He was not to be frightened because of what had been said about small counties. He had seen too much, since yesterday, of gentlemen making calculations of how many representatives their counties would have. He was sure every county would be willing to pay the per diem of its member, rather than go without one.

Property, also, should be the basis of representation, and the unanswerable speech of the gentleman from Warren, showed this fact. If this reduction be adopted, and there should be other exceptions to the constitution, it will endanger its confirmation by the people. His county, with 1200 voters, would go against it. He would like to see the constitution adopted by an overwhelming majority, but this would endanger it. He meant this not as a taunt, but as a fact. No man so poor as would be willing that the bed should be taken from under him, and his wife's and children's clothing should be sold for taxes, to pay our debt, nor did he think our creditors would think the better of us if we refused to have an aristocracy here, and abandon the right of the people to be represented in the hall of the Legislature. It was one of the great essentials of a free government. A representative government was the terror of tyrants. If gentlemen pass this law, he would go for a total abandonment of representation, and have the administration of government in the hands of the executive and the supreme courts, it would be just as well for the small counties as to have no representation.

148

Mr. WILLIAMS was greatly astonished to hear a single member on that floor declare himself ready to attach the pruning knife to the salaries of the judges where but a small sum was to be saved, and not touch the Legislature at all. He was in favor of sixty members, and was satisfied that they could administer the government with justice and fidelity to all the interests in the State. He thought that if the people desired to guard against bribery, they should select men of integrity, to represent them, that is the proper guard and not the number. He would vote against striking out.

Mr. KENNER was not in favor of a large representation, but thought that every county should have a representative. Every county had an interest of its own to be represented, and he thought that if we once denied that interest a representation in the popular branch of the Legislature, that you might as well abolish the house altogether. If each county should not be allowed to have a representative, he would vote for the smallest number that would be proposed. If one member could represent four counties, why not represent twenty? We see one branch of the Legislature representing county rights, the other representing the interests of the State, at large, thus operating as a check, one upon the other. Once destroy this principle of a representation of county rights, and why not throw both houses into one, and thus save the whole expense. As it is the interest of the State to have a general representation, why not let each county have one representative. — We would then steer clear of aristocracy and anarchy. He had merely risen to express his views.

Mr. THORNTON represented a large and a small county, and desired to make some remarks explanatory of the reasons which should control his vote. If he knew the sentiments of his constituents upon any subject, he thought he did upon this. They were, and so was he, in favor of a smaller number to compose the Legislature than that reported by the committee. To hear gentlemen talk, one would suppose that there was a Chinese wall between the several counties of the State. There are not those diversified interests here, as in other States. He would vote against striking out, for fear of getting a large number; but if the motion to strike

149

out prevailed, he would vote for the smallest number. He would vote for the report for a compromise.

Mr. KNAPP of Jersey read a proposition which contained his own views of the question, yet he would vote for the report of the committee. He could not agree with the gentlemen who desired that each county should have a representative. — Such a course would increase the number beyond that which was necessary. Speaking of retrenchment, our constituents are looking to us for no greater move in retrenchment than that which can be affected in the legislative department. He represented a county which would, under the plan reported by the committee, lose its representative, yet, he was willing to forego the privilege of representation, for the purpose of lessening the number of the Legislature. He agreed with much that had fallen from the gentleman from Jefferson, but he feared that even after adopting all the economy proposed, we would not realize the promised reduction of the State debt. He would vote for the report of the committee, fearful that if the numbers therein should be stricken out, that a larger one might be adopted, and for fear, also, that if reduced so suddenly, we might lose the constitution. And then, in addition to all the evils which we experience now, will be the great cost of this Convention.

He did not think that the census of 1845 was a proper basis upon which to district the State; because under it we cannot do justice to the great increase of population that has taken place since then. He was in favor of fixing the number low at present and increase the representation according to the increase of the population. We should embrace every opportunity that is offered to save money, and I think there will be no one where we can save so much as in the present case. Let us reduce the number of representatives in the Legislature, which, as has been shown, is the greatest of all extravagances. He agreed with the gentleman who said he was in favor of allowing a fair and reasonable compensation to the judges; let us leave those places which are small in themselves and where there is a fair return of services for the pay, and turn our attention to the curtailment of the extravagancies of the Legislatures.

Mr. SINGLETON. The committee have reported the very

150

number I advocated when a candidate before the people for a seat in this Convention. Still I am in favor of a smaller number. He was greatly surprised to hear gentlemen say that territory should be the basis of representation. What do we represent — the people or the naked territory? The population as a ratio was said to be democratic doctrine, and he, though not a democrat, at least of the present day, was in favor of it. He could not see the difficulty in reducing the number of representatives or of putting two or more counties into one district. He would be perfectly satisfied to have the gentleman from Pike, or the gentleman from Schuyler, represent Brown in the Legislature. He did not think Brown possessed all the capacity. This would break up this local legislation, and it was this local legislation which had involved us in all our difficulties. If gentlemen were so extremely democratic as to declare that territory is the only true basis of representation, why not extend the right of representation not only to counties but to townships also. Why, at present, if a man is elected from one side of a county, the people on the other side say they are not represented. The town of Quincy has an interest different from that of Mt. Sterling, yet if their representative should be elected from Quincy he did not know that it must affect Mt. Sterling. If we give a representative for territory, it is a property qualification, a land representation, and then why not estimate every species of property and give it a representation. Territory was no more than a land or real property qualification, and not more entitled to a representation than any other species of property. Gentlemen had said that if we made the districts so large, that none but lawyers could get elected as representatives. This was but a poor argument, and one of those long standing means of raising prejudices against lawyers or doctors. He thought that clerks of circuit courts were as fond and as desirous of coming to the Legislature, of holding an office, or two or three of them, if they could get them, as anybody else. He thought it very undignified in his colleague to speak in this manner. It required judgment and discretion to administer the government and not numbers; the only advantage in having large bodies is that the wants of the people can be made known; if sixty can do this, then sixty is enough. If a less number can do it, why then a less number is

151

sufficient. He was not in favor of a large number and then reducing their pay to the very lowest, but he was in favor of a small number, and allowing them a fair compensation. If the State was in good circumstances he would be glad to see them receive good pay.

Mr. THOMPSON wished to define his position before his constituents, and to offer a few remarks injustice to the committee, of which he had the honor to be a member. There were a number of propositions before the committee, none of them, however, exceeding one hundred. The number for the Senate was generally low, three, and sometimes four, to one. He thought at first that the number as reported by the committee was a little too large, and would have voted for the motion to strike out, but, now, fearing that he might hazard the reduction, he would vote against striking out. Gentlemen had alluded to the State of Massachusetts, which he did not think was a fair example. The large number of representatives in the State of Massachusetts was the result of incorporations. When that state was first settled the inhabitants were nearly all gathered into small communities on the coast; these soon were made into incorporations, and afterwards, when the State became more closely settled, and the people in the interior increased, they were incorporated and were allowed a representative. And when the corporations were increased, they, too, claimed a representative and obtained it. In this way then, had that State increased her representatives to a great number.

In this discussion, he had observed the same two great traits of human nature — pride and interest. It was my county, my township, and my people. It reminded him of a toast given by a Connecticut farmer at an agricultural dinner, given in that State. It was this; "Here's to the United States, the garden of the world; here's to the State of Connecticut, the garden of the United States; here's to the County of Wyndam, the garden of the State of Connecticut; and here's to my farm, the garden of the County of Wyndham."

There was a burst of patriotism!

Messrs. LOGAN and SCATES continued the debate at much length; the former advocating the adoption of the report and in

152

opposition to the motion to strike out. The latter, in reply to Mr. L., in support of his views as expressed by him in the morning, and in advocacy of the motion to strike out. The great length to which the debate was extended, has compelled us to defer the publication of the remarks of these gentlemen.

Mr. HOGUE was satisfied that if he understood the sentiments of the people whom he represented upon any subject, that he did on the subject of the number of the Legislature. His constituents were of one opinion and that was that the number should be reduced below one hundred. He was in favor of striking out, and would go for the number of eighty — ninety as the excess. He would oppose all over ninety and vote for any number less. He was satisfied that the gentleman from Edwards had not expressed the views of his constituents. We had spoken together before the people upon this subject, and he had agreed with me that the number should be reduced.

Mr. KENNER. No, sir, we did not.

Mr. HOGUE reiterated that they had.

Mr. CALDWELL asked that the question should be divided so as to [be] taken, first on striking out75, and then on striking out 25. And the vote being taken separately, both motions were lost.

Mr. DEITZ moved to amend the resolution so as to s[t]rike out "Legislative committee" and insert "that a committee of one from each of the senatorial districts shall be appointed, who shall proceed to divide the State into senatorial and representative districts."

Mr. SHERMAN moved to amend the amendment by striking out "one" and inserting "three," and striking out "senatorial" and inserting "judicial."

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till Monday next.

153

XII. Monday, June 21, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BERGEN.

Mr. ROBBINS moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to offer a resolution, that the Convention should now proceed to the election of an assistant secretary, to copy the journal for publication; and the rules were suspended. The vote was then taken on the adoption of the resolution, and it was lost — yeas 40, nays not counted.

A motion to reconsider was made and lost — yeas 38.

Mr. MINSHALL offered (the rules being suspended) a resolution; which was laid on the table.

Mr. SCATES offered a resolution calling for information from the clerks of the circuit courts of the State.

Mr. DAVIS, of Montgomery, opposed the resolution because of the impossibility of its being satisfactorily answered, and because of the great cost which it would be to the State.

Mr. DEMENT moved to lay the resolution on the table. Carried.

Mr. SHERMAN (the report of the committee on the Legislative Department and the amendment thereto being taken up,) said, that his object in moving the amendment proposed by him on Saturday was, that it was more usual to select the committees from the judicial districts of the State — there being nine judicial districts, and taking three from each would make the committee consist of twenty-seven members. This was large enough, and they ought to be able to arrive at the proper apportionment. He had not made this proposed amendment from any feeling of distrust in the committee on Legislative Business, but because he thought this committee would be better able to perform the duty, they coming from all parts of the State, and their labor might be more satisfactory to the people. He was of opinion that no standing committee, unless selected for the purpose, could give the same satisfaction as one chosen from the several sections of the State. It was well known that the districting the State would

154

create much feeling any way, and he thought the mode which would be the least objectionable would be the better.

Mr. WHITNEY was in hopes that the amendment would prevail. By the selection of the committee in this way, territory would be more likely to be represented. He advocated the appointment of this select committee, not from any feeling of distrust in the standing committee, but because he thought a committee selected from each judicial district could better represent the views and interests of the several counties than one selected in any other way.

Mr. DEITZ withdrew his amendment.

Mr. SINGLETON offered an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. KITCHELL explained the reasons why he had moved, on Saturday, to lay the amendments on the table. It was not for the purpose of defeating the appointment of a select committee, but to test the propriety of the Convention undertaking the task of districting the State, instead of leaving it to the Legislature.

Mr. THOMAS moved to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table; which motion was carried — yeas 76, nays 55.

Mr. HARDING offered an amendment to the amendment, which, on motion, was laid on the table.

He also offered another amendment to the amendment, pro viding that no one county shall be entitled to more than one representative nor one senator.

Mr. SINGLETON moved to lay this amendment to the amendment on the table; which was decided in the affirmative — yeas 69, nays 60.

Mr. HARDING offered another amendment to the amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Madison, moved to lay the whole subject on the table; a division of the question was demanded, and the vote being taken on laying the amendment to the amendment on the table, it was lost — yeas 49; and then the motion to lay the amendment on the table was decided in the negative.

Mr. HAYES offered the following as a substitute for the amendment to the amendment, which was accepted:

"Provided, That when more than one county is thrown into one representative district, the entire number of representatives

155

to which those counties may be entitled shall be elected by the entire district."

Mr. GEDDES advocated, briefly, the adoption of the proviso.

Mr. WEAD considered that the amendment, as it was proposed by the gentleman from Warren, contained the true and correct principle in relation to the matter, but that the modification offered by the gentleman from White, and which had been accepted, did not; but a principle that was calculated to do much injury to the rights of the larger counties.

Mr. TURNBULL agreed with the gentleman last up, and opposed the principle of representation or apportionment as provided by that amendment.

Mr. ARCHER, also, opposed the amendment as one not at all calculated to do justice to the rights of those counties who had a fraction of population above the ratio entitling them to a representation. — He stated several examples wherein he thought the injustice of the plan was fully demonstrated.

Mr. McCALLEN was a representative of a small county, and, under the present system, was not represented in the Legislature. At present the county of Gallatin was entitled to two representatives, and Gallatin and Hardin one. The people of Gallatin had the right to vote for three representatives and the people of Hardin but for a half a representative. Under the proposed plan of the amendment, the people of Hardin would have nothing more than what was Just, the right of having a vote of equal weight with that of the people of Gallatin.

Mr. CHURCHILL was not in favor of the apportionments by the committee. He had drawn up his views, and were it not now out of order would offer them as an amendment. He would read to the Convolution his plan, as a part of his remarks: Provided that the Senate districts shall be composed of entire counties, and that the county commissioners of each county composing the several Senate districts be authorized, either by themselves or one of their number, to meet at some proper place in the district and organize the Senate districts into separate representative districts according to population, as near as may be.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery was in favor of the plan suggested by the amendment proposed by the gentleman from White. He

156

thought it not only just to the large counties, but the best mode of apportionment for those small counties that had not sufficient population to entitle them to a member.

Messrs. BROCKMAN and WOODSON, both, advocated the amendment to the amendment, as the best thing for the interests of the smaller counties.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess opposed the amendment as containing a plan to elect the General Assembly by general ticket, and as unjust to the larger counties, by permitting the small ones to vote for the whole ticket, and thereby controlling, perhaps, the election of the representatives of that county to which they might be attached. Thus giving the voters of a county which had not sufficient population to entitle them to one member a voice in the election of three or four.

Messrs. HURLBUT and DEMENT, both, opposed the amendment.

Mr. HARVEY agreed with the gentleman from Jo Daviess in his view of the matter. He looked upon it as nothing more than a plan to select the General Assembly by general ticket. The county of Knox had a population of ten thousand and would be entitled to a member, then by adding to it the county of Warren and the fraction of some other county, they, together, would be entitled to another; this was not anything more than just. But by adding those two to the county of Knox they would be entitled to two members, which under the plan proposed would have to be elected by a general vote of the three counties. By this Knox county might be controlled in the choice of her representatives, and that for the gratification of Warren, He had no particular desire that his county should be married forever to Warren, and hoped that some way would be discovered that he might procure a divorce. He moved the indefinite postponement of all the amendments, because he thought the discussion at present premature.

Mr. LOGAN did not agree with the plan proposed by the gentleman in all its details. He had drawn up an amendment which he would like to see carried out. He read it to the Convention. It proposes that when one or more small counties shall be added to a large one having a surplus over and above the ratio, that the large county shall vote for its own representative and for

157

the one to which the joint fractions are entitled. But before the judges shall proceed to give a certificate they shall count all the votes and after calculating the proportion the whole vote of the county bears to the fraction over and above the ratio, in the same proportion shall the vote cast by the large county for the representative for the smaller ones and itself, bear in the general vote between the candidates. Mr. L. explained the proposition and urged that the only thing required was to have sheriffs and judges of elections competent to work a sum in the rule of three.

Mr. HAYES defended the plan of apportionment submitted by him and pointed out the difficulties attending the practical operation of the plan of the member from Sangamon.

The Convention than adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. DEMENT opposed the plan of the gentleman from White in a few remarks.

Mr. GREGG was opposed to the Legislature undertaking the task of districting the State at all; but if it was to be done he was in favor of the amendment.

Messrs. KINNEY of Bureau and KNAPP of Jersey opposed the amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS replied briefly to Mr. K. of Jersey, and declared himself in favor of the amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL still further opposed any mode of apportionment of the State by the Convention and read a series of propositions that he had prepared on the subject ať,id which he had submitted to some friends for their approval.

Mr. DEITZ advocated the adoption of single districts.

Mr. SHUMWAY expressed his opposition to the plan of apportionment before them, and was followed by Mr. FARWELL on the same side.

Mr. LOGAN was in favor of an apportionment by the Convention, but he thought that before we discussed the mode, we had better take a vote to ascertain whether the Convention would undertake to apportion the State or not. With that view he moved to lay all the amendments and that portion of the resolution which provides for the districting the State, on the table.

158

Mr. HARDING withdrew his modified amendment for the present; and the vote being taken on laying the amendment (Mr. SHERMAN'S) on the table, it was lost.

Mr. HARDING then renewed his amendment and it was adopted, and then the amendment as amended was adopted, and the resolution passed.

Mr. SERVANT presented a petition from a large number of citizens of Randolph county praying an extension of all rights to every class without distinction of color, and moved its reference to the committee on elections and right of suffrage. Carried.

A communication from the Auditor, in reply to a call far information was read: it contained an account of the expenses of the last Legislature.

Mr. THOMAS moved that it lie on the table and 200 copies thereof be printed.

Mr. LOGAN moved that the number be 1,000. Ordered.

Mr. HENDERSON moved that the Secretary of State be requested to furnish the Convention with a statement of the last census, and that when furnished 200 copies be printed.

On motion, laid on the table.

On motion, the Convention adjourned.

159

XIII. TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BAILEY.

The following gentlemen compose the committee to district the State into senatorial and representative districts:

Gregg, Whiteside, Whitney, Archer, Armstrong, Davis of Massac, Sim, Hogue, Davis of McLean, Kitchell, Knapp of Jersey, Palmer of Macoupin, Dummer, Edmonson, West, Farwell, Pratt, McClure, Shumway, Vance, Harvey, Pinckney, Harlan, Hunsaker, Jackson, Minshall and Hill.

Mr. ARCHER, from the committee on the Organization of Departments, and Officers Connected with the Executive Department, reported back sundry resolutions which had been referred to said committee, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof. Agreed to.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin moved to take up certain resolutions, offered by him some days before, and refer them to the Judiciary committee, which after they had been modified, were so referred.

Mr. SCATES moved to take up the resolutions offered by him yesterday calling for information from the circuit court clerks, &c.

Mr. WHITNEY advocated the adoption of the resolution, because the committee were of opinion that the information was needed, and the Convention should pass the call for the same.

Mr. MARSHALL of Mason could see no necessity for the adoption of the resolution. The information required by it would impose an immense amount of labor on the clerks of the courts, which could not be performed for many weeks, so that it was highly probable that whatever information would be furnished,

160

would not be ready for the use of the Convention for six weeks, a period when he expected the duties of the Convention would have been performed. He hoped it would not be taken up, and, on a division, the motion to take up the resolution was lost.

Mr. HAYES offered a resolution referring certain parts of the constitution to the committee on Law Reform, and also instructing that committee to inquire into the expediency of abolishing all differences between courts of chancery and common law, also the modification of the laws and the abolition of all English statutes now in force.

Mr. CHURCH thought this resolution properly belonged to the consideration of the committee on the Judiciary; he thought there was a manifest inclination to deprive that committee of its proper subjects by giving them to the committee on Law Reform.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean thought the committee on Law Reform was peculiarly the proper committee to take charge of the inquiry contemplated in the present resolution.

Mr. HAYES said, that in offering the resolution he did not think of committing himself in its favor; the, subject was one which had been spoken of by many persons, and by legal men, and he hoped the reference would be made so that the subject might be examined. Motion carried.

Mr. KENNER moved to take up a resolution, offered by him some days ago, with a view of referring it to a commit. Motion lost.

Mr. WEST offered a resolution that the Convention proceed to the election of an assistant secretary to copy me journal of the Convention.

Mr. THOMAS offered a substitute providing that the secretary shall select an assistant secretary at a compensation of $3 per day whose duty it shall be to copy the Journal; and that the same be printed and bound &c., and that the president and secretary, after the adjournment of the Convention, should attach thereto a certificate of its authenticity; which substitute was accepted.

Mr. LOGAN offered an amendment, that the Secretary of State be requested to furnish them with a book or books in which to keep the journal, and after the same shall be printed, that he issue a notice for proposals for binding, &c.

161

Mr. BROCKMAN opposed the resolutions. He thought some weeks ago we had settled this question of the right of this Convention to limit the pay of the officers of the Convention. He was no lawyer, but he thought he was able to give a common sense interpretation of a statute, and the act which called them together allowed them certain officers and fixed their pay. He considered that our power in this respect was a delegated one, and we had no authority to delegate that to another, the act of the Legislature conferred upon the Convention the power of appointing certain officers, and he did not believe we had the right to delegate that power to the secretary or anybody else.

Mr. THOMAS thought that a person who chose to accept the appointment of an assistant secretary, at the rate fixed by this resolution, was bound by his contract. He did not admit that our powers were delegated.

Mr. PRATT agreed with the gentleman from Brown, that the powers of the Convention in relation to the secretaries and doorkeepers, were delegated to it by the Convention, and that the well established legal maxim, that delegated powers cannot be delegated, applied to the resolution now before them. He was opposed to the resolution, though he desired to have the journal printed, in order that it might be placed daily on their table, and that it might progress with their progress.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery sincerely hoped that they would have no more legal arguments about delegated powers, &c. One week of the Convention had already been wasted upon that subject, and he knew that if they did elect a secretary, or authorize the appointment of one as this resolution contemplated, it would be of very little importance; neither their acts, nor the constitution they might form would, in either case, be void. He was in favor of the resolution, because it looked to the performance of the work — the printing of the Journal and the binding of it in strong books — in accordance with all past legislation. The only difference was the pay at $3 a day, while he understood the Legislature allowed a copyist last year $3.50. If gentlemen would move an amendment changing the pay to that amount, he would have no objection to voting for it. There was, however, no such thing to be expected

162

as having the journal upon the table every day, there was no precedent for such a course.

Mr. THOMAS made some remarks, when the vote was taken on the amendment and adopted, and the resolution as amended was decided in the affirmative — yeas 76, nays 43.

Mr. GREGG moved to take up the report of the committee on the Executive Department, made some days ago; which motion was carried. He then, the chairman of the committee being absent, moved that it be made the special order for Tuesday next. Carried.

Mr. PRATT said that Mr. MARKLEY had been called home on particular business — sickness in his family — and had requested him to beg a leave of absence for him for ten days. Granted.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon submitted a resolution instructing the committee on the Legislative Department to inquire into the expediency of incorporating a number of stated provisions on several matters, into the constitution.

Mr. WITT moved to amend by striking out so much of the resolution as required the committee to inquire into the modes of taking the census hereafter. He said that the committee had agreed upon that matter and upon a very different mode than that contained in the proposition of the gentleman from Sangamon. It would be well to have a vote upon the matter now, in order that the question might be tested, whether the plan proposed by the committee would meet the views of the Convention, if not, then the committee would feel themselves instructed and would report accordingly.

Mr. THOMAS suggested that the resolution was one directing an inquiry by the committee only, and, even if the committee had determined upon a plan, could do no harm; moreover many would vote for the reference who might be opposed to the propositions contained in the resolutions and that could be no test vote.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon said that he had hoped the resolution would have been permitted to go to the committee without debate. He was opposed to the amendments offered by the gentleman from Greene. His object in presenting the reso lutions was to direct an inquiry as to the best mode of stopping all

163

electioneering for offices either under the State or general government, by members of the Legislature, or through the friends of the members, or by reason of their weight or influence, also, that no member of the Legislature should hold or be eligible to any office created by the Legislature of which he was a member, or the salary of which had been increased by that body while he was there. He had offered them, because he thought that perhaps the committee might not have had all these subjects under their consideration.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, that he had no doubt but the Convention, when the committee should report, would agree with them in the main principles set forth. But the present resolution was merely one of inquiry, and there could be no harm in adopting it, nor would it interfere in any way with the report of the committee, which he understood had been agreed on.

Mr. CHURCH said, he would like to see the form of the oath contained in one of the resolutions amended.

Mr. EDWARDS explained that it was only an oath to support the constitution.

Mr. DEMENT said, that the committee had inquired into the matters contained in the resolutions, and that the subject of the first of them — the time and mode of taking the census — had been settled by that committee, and if the Convention had no objection it was desirable that a vote should be taken upon the subject at once, and the matter tested. He had no objection to the inquiry, but the committee had inquired into the subject, and had come to a conclusion, and why not have a test vote now, and say whether this resolution contains the views of the Convention. He asked that the vote might be taken on this resolution separately. The yeas and nays were demanded.

Mr. LOGAN said, that he could not see how this vote could be a test. Many were in favor of referring the resolutions who might be in favor of the report of the committee.

Mr. NORTON said, he was desirous to give his reason? why he should vote in the affirmative. He was not prepared to vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Sangamon, but if any gentleman proposed a mere resolution of inquiry, as he understood

164

this to be, he would always vote for reference, and, if the yeas and nays were called, he desired that the reasons of his vote might be expressed.

Mr. CHURCHILL read a proposition bearing on the matter, which he would like to offer if in order.

The demand for the yeas and nays was withdrawn, and the resolution passed.

Mr. CHURCHILL moved a suspension of the rules, to enable him to present a resolution. Lost.

BANKS

The resolution of instruction to the committee on Incorporations, and the substitute therefor — offered on Friday last — then came up in order.

Mr. GREGG offered the following amendments to the amendment, as a substitute therefor:

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so limiting the power of the General Assembly as to prohibit the establishment of corporations, or associations, with banking privileges, except on the basis of the following provisions:

1st. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass any act granting any special charter for banking purposes but corporations or associations free to all the inhabitants of this State may be formed for such purposes under general laws.

2d. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass any law sanctioning in any manner, directly or Indirectly, the suspension of specie payments by any person, association, or corporation, issuing bank notes of any description.

3d. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the registry of all bills, or notes, issued, or put in circulation as money; and shall require ample security, by the pledge of public stocks, or otherwise, for the redemption of the same in specie.

4th. The stockholders in every corporation and joint stock association, for banking purposes, issuing bank notes, or any kind of paper credits to circulate as money, shall be individually responsible for all its debts and liabities; and to make provision for the payment of such debts and liabilities they shall be required

165

to furnish unexceptionable security of twice the amount of their respective share in any such corporation or association.

5th. In case of the insolvency of any banking association, the bill holders thereof shall be entitled to preference of payment over all other creditors of such association.

6th. The embezzlement of the funds or property of any corporation, or joint association, for banking purposes by any officer or agent thereof, shall be deemed felony, and it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to provide for the punishment of such felony, by imprisonment in the penitentiary.

7th. No act of the General Assembly authorizing corporations or associati[o]ns with banking powers shall go into effect, or in any manner be in force, unless the same shall be directly submitted to the people at the general election next succeeding the passage thereof, and shall be approved by a majority of all the votes cast at such election.

8th. Any general law of this State authorizing the creation of corporations, or associations, with banking powers may be repealed by the General Assembly.

Mr. GREGG said, that he desired to express, briefly, a few of the considerations which had induced him to present the proposition. He was opposed to banks in any shape or form. He would be in favor of an entire prohibition of them. He was one of those who believed banks, in any shape, manner or form, to be an unmitigated evil, and that their consequences were always disastrous and destructive to the people. He was not prepared then to go into a discussion of the question of banks and banking, but when the matter should come before them, from the hands of the committee, then he would enter into the subject more fully. It had been indicated by votes that had been taken — a manifest intention has been shown by the Convention, that there should be banks of some description. A majority of the Convention had made this manifest declaration. The question then presented to us was, "shall we leave the power to create these banks, or to adopt a system of banking, with the Legislature or with the people?"

Should we leave the Legislature with a power so great, which will, if put into force, affect the wealth and prosperity of the whole State.

166

He was opposed to this. He was unwilling to leave the power to adopt this dangerous and destructive system with any body but the people themselves. If there was a determination on the part of the Convention to adopt some system of banking, let us present it to the people in the most modified form, and permit the evil in the least objectionable shape, and it will go to the people who will vote understandingly upon the subject. He thought his proposition presented the odious evil in the least objectionable form; people could vote upon the proposition itself, instead of voting for men to frame the system. He believed banks to be great evils in any shape and any form. If the Legislature was to be trusted with the power to credit those institution, let us place restrictions upon them, so that they may clearly see their powers and limits; but if the people are to be afflicted with any system of evil, he thought they should have every opportunity of voting understandingly upon the subject and of saying in what way it should be done. He was not prepared now to enter further into the discussion of the question, but would at some future time, go into a full exposition of his views and of the proposition submitted. He did not think the convention was prepared to discuss, the matter now, and he was in favor of referring all the propositions to the committee on Incorporations.

Mr. CHURCHILL was in favor of referring the whole subject to the committee of the whole.

Mr. THOMAS would prefer that we should have the report of the committee on Incorporations on the subject, and then go into the committee of the whole, and discuss the propositions together. He would suggest that when such things as a system of banking were to be referred to the people for their approval or condemnation, you denied the people the right of selecting a system they might be in favor of, and if allowed a choice, would select a system very different from that which you presented to them, as contemplated by the substitute offered today; the submitting to the people whether they would adopt a particular plan, was not extending to them much of a privilege.

Mr. GREGG said, that when the committee should make a report, the whole subject would again be discussed, and he saw

167

no use in such a course as debating the subject now, and when the report was made, to discuss it all over again.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery thought the question might be discussed now as well as at any other time, and he was in favor of proceeding at once. He was in favor of an unqualified prohibition to be inserted in the constitution. He was not willing to declare or admit that the majority of this convention was in favor of banks. Nor was he one of those who acting thus would propose a system of banking. He did not believe in gentlemen asserting that they were opposed to banks in any shape, and then proposing a system of banking! Let those who say that banks are evils, come out boldly and meet the question, and first say that there shall be no banks. He would vote to make it the special order for 2 o'clock this day. He was afraid they would get less in number by delaying the question; the prohibition party was already in a small minority. He was certain they would get less by postponing the debate, particularly when we see those who say that they are opposed to all banks proposing schemes of banking without showing any sort of fight. There were some ready to come up to the rack anyhow, and he hoped the debate would go on now.

Mr. LOGAN said, he rose to defend the gentleman from Cook (Mr. GREGG) from the attack of the gentleman from Montgomery (Mr. DAVIS.) — There was little or no difference between the plan proposed by the gentleman from Cook and an entire prohibition, for he was sure that if there was to be no bank in the State except according to the plan proposed, no application would ever be made for a charter. He was in favor of taking up some one of the questions now, and, before the committee blocks out: the system, or the article go[es] into the constitution, we could give them some intimation of the opinion of the Convention on the subject. — If the Convention should come to the conclusion to have no banks, why, they could so inform the committee; if they determine to have banks, they could agree in some way upon the restrictions; and again, if the power to charter banks is to be given to the Legislature, say whether it shall be given with or without restrictions; if with restrictions, define them. He thought this question of banks the most important — the main question — to be decided by the

168

Convention; that is, the most important controverted subject they would be called to act upon. He moved to refer it to the committee of the whole, and made the special order of the day for Friday next.

Mr. HAYES hoped the resolutions and amendments would all be referred to the committee upon Incorporations instead of the committee of the whole, when gentlemen were not prepared to discuss the matter at so short a notice. The gentleman who had proposed the substitute was in favor of referring it to the committee on Incorporations, and he thought the Convention should do so. He differed from the gentleman from Bond, in supposing that the number of those whom they voted with on this subject, would grow less by delay: on the contrary, he thought it would be better for them to fight some definite plan, and to have some scheme to rally against.

Mr. GEDDES was rather astonished to hear his friend from Montgomery charge upon the gentleman from Cook. There appeared to him but little difference between them; they both looked upon banks as a hydra-headed monster; the gentleman from Montgomery proposed to kill him right out; the gentleman from Cook proposed to chain him, and the gentleman from Jefferson offered to knock him in the head after he was chained. It was all one thing. He would vote for referring the matter to the committee on Incorporations.

Mr. HENDERSON said, he would prefer that the committee should first make a report, so that the Convention might have something tangible before them to discuss. He moved a reference to the committee on Incorporations.

Mr. DAVIS, of Montgomery, was still in favor of giving the whole subject to the committee of the whole, because he thought that those who were opposed to banking would have the best way of meeting all the propositions for and against banks and banking. He saw that the great objection to going into a discussion now comes not from those who are opposed to banking, but from those tender-footed gentlemen who are more than half in favor of banks and yet are opposed to them.

Mr. PALMER, of Macoupin, differed from the gentleman last up in this particular, though not on others. That gentleman

169

was orthodox upon the real subject. He was not in favor of proceeding now with the discussion. He thought the friends of the banks ought to come forward with their proposition, and then we could oppose it. We were altogether on the defensive, and he much preferred a regular field fight to this system of guerrilla warfare. This question of banks was the most important one that would come before the Convention, as it would affect the future interests and prosperity of the State, and it depended on our resistance to defeat the evils. If they were to be beaten, and the State was to have banks, he would prefer that the friends of these institutions should prepare that system which their wisdom and experience would allow. If the rights of the people were to be invaded let it be done by the friends of the system.

Mr. THOMAS said, that it was much better that the committee should first report before we commenced the discussion, and when the committee had reported one plan, these propositions of the gentlemen, or any others, might be offered as amendments, and in this way the whole subject would be regularly before them. He would say to the gentleman from Macoupin that upon this question he might find himself in a position not altogether on the defensive. We may adopt banks or a system of banks, and then when the gentleman comes to put restrictions upon them, he will find himself attacking the right of the people to have such an institution as they thought proper. If this matter was to be discussed, he desired to have the whole subject before them and gentlemen would be obliged to show their hands.

Mr. PALMER, of Macoupin, said, so far as he understood the sentiments of the people of Illinois, he considered that those who spoke of having banks should always speak of restrictions upon them. — He was certain that no one dare send to the people a system of banking without attaching to it many restrictions. He stood there on the side of the people, behind a prohibitory clause, and while his party presented a perfectly invulnerable barrier to protect the people from any such system as banks or backing, the other party were compelled to come forward with restrictive policy; something put around the plan to sweeten the dose, and showed that they were unwilling to turn the monster unrestricted

170

upon the people. He thought that the proper mode of discussing the question was to have some definite plan or proposition before them, for if we turned the Convention out upon the sea of banks and banking systems, they would be weeks at it before they came to any conclusion upon the subject.

Mr. HURLBUT was in favor of referring the whole subject to the committee of the whole, as he thought it would shorten the discussion and have a principle decided at once. And the question being taken on referring the propositions on the subject to the committee of the whole, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 71, nays 50.

Mr. KNOX offered a series of resolutions in reference to the qualification, &c. of free white male inhabitants of the State to vote; which he moved to refer to the committee on Elections and Right of Suffrage.

Mr. WHITNEY moved to strike out the word "white" wherever it occurred in the resolutions; and the vote being taken by yeas and nays, was decided in the negative — yeas 7, nays 137. The resolution was then referred.

Mr. DAWSON offered a resolution directing an inquiry, by the committee on Finance, in relation to the school fund.

Mr. HOGUE offered a substitute; which was accepted.

Mr. LOGAN offered an amendment; which was accepted.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 9 A. M.

171

XIV. Wednesday, June 23, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BARGER.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean presented a petition of a number of citizens of McLean county, praying the Convention to adopt some constitutional provision, for the appointment of a superintendent of public instruction with a liberal salary; which was read and referred to the committee on Education.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison, from the committee on Education, reported the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the committee on Education be instructed to consider and report as to the propriety of a constitutional provision for the security of the college, seminary and common school funds from conversion or destruction by the Legislature; also, for the establishment of such a system of common schools as will, by taxation, combined with the State funds, afford the means of education to every child in the State, and for the appointment of a State Superintendant [sic], with an adequate salary to give effect to such a system.

In presenting the reported resolutions from the committee Mr. E. said, that the first object contemplated by the resolutions was to secure the fund belonging to the college, seminary and common schools from all misappropriations from its true and sacred object.

The second was to establish some sure and permanent system of appropriation and distribution of the fund, combined with a fair and reasonable taxation and the State funds, give such credit and security that every child in the State of Illinois may have the invaluable and incalculable advantages of education. The third branch of the resolution had reference to the appointment of a State Superintendant of education. There could be no question of the necessity of providing for the security of the college, school and seminary fund — which necessity arose from the large amount of the fund — from being squandered by the Legislature for purposes different from the object of the fund.

172

The amount of the fund was $800,000 and was fast accumulating from the 3 per cent. fund provided by the general government. It was true that one-sixth of this 3 per cent. fund was appropriated by the general government for the purpose of building a university, but fortunately for the State no time had been prescribed by law for the completion or commencement of this work, and the Legislature has wisely appropriated the whole of it to the school fund. The greatest care should be kept of this fund, and its purposes and objects should be guarded and protected from any control or disposition of [it] by the Legislature. It should be esteemed by all as a sacred trust in the hands of the State, whose duty and interest it was to see properly administered.

He would cite one instance of this kind — the Transylvania Institution, which was at one time one of the most promising and flourishing institutions of the character in the country, but which, by improvident legislation, owing to the curious state of politics of the time, had been reduced and dwindled down to an institution but little above a common school. It was an essential element in the establishment of common schools with a large fund, that it should be so provided that the fund should be permanently and safely invested and the interest distributed all over the State, and thus secure the benefits of education to the youth of every town and village in Illinois. He would appeal to the experience of the president and other members of the Convention to the danger of improvident legislation, of the attempts to distribute the fund to the several counties, and thereby to lose the whole; while the best and only safe plan was to have the fund all remain permanently invested and the interest only to be distributed. He was not prepared to say that the Convention can make any such provision as to secure permanency of this fund. The great difficulty with the people was the many changes, and the uncertainty of the present system; the spirit of innovation was forever at work and the people are always in the dark; the changes were so often and repeated that they could not know how the matter stands. He hoped that something would be done. The last part of the resolution looks to the appointment of a State Superintendant of instruction, and in support of that appointment he would refer to the example and experience of other States; and he had no fear

173

of contradiction when he said that in no State had they succeeded with their school funds, without establishing such an office. New York, Massachusetts and Ohio, all have an officer of this kind, and through his influence, labors and experience every township and village in the State had a school. He would like to present to the members of the Convention the report of the superintendant of public instruction of Ohio, and when the Convention would see the labor of that officer and its results, upon the system of education and the fund, he would think the matter settled.

Let them look at the complicated machinery of the administration of this office, its various sources of information and the facilities with which all errors could be corrected, and no man could deny the utility of the office. But he was met with the expense of such an office. Sir, said he, we are met here in the capacity of a convention to reform our system in all its branches; we may save an immense amount of money by applying the pruning knife of retrenchment to the several departments of our government, and in so doing he was willing to go as far as any man in the principle of economy, but not in a niggardly picayune system.

Let us apply a portion of this amount saved to the payment of this officer and the people will not complain. We may then go, after saving this amount from other branches of the government, before the people and show them that we have economized all the expenses of the State, and saved them annually much more than the salary of this officer, and in view of the immense benefits they will derive from the administration of the school fund by him, no county will receive his appointment without approbation.

The labors of the office of Secretary of State are too much and too arduous to enable him to do justice to the exofficio office of superintendant of public instruction.

Mr. E. here read an extract from the report of the Ex-Secretary of State, now a member on this floor. Mr. E. pursued the subject for some time pointing out the many advantages flowing from a general diffusion of knowledge and a complete system of education among the people, he painted the beneficial results of such institutions in the most vivid and glowing terms, and hoped that some encouragement would be given by a constitutional provision, to young men who were poor and now in obscurity. In conclusion

174

he said that since he had been here he had listened with pleasure and profit to the maiden efforts of several young men, who had, themselves derived benefits from education, and he appealed to them to lend their aid in laying the foundations of a good, sound and perfect system of common schools, which would afford other youths an opportunity to become a benefit and ornament to their country. To the older ones he deemed such an appeal unnecessary.

The PRESIDENT said that he had suffered the debate to proceed, being unaware that there was a resol[u]tion pending at the adjournment of the Convention yesterday.

The following resolution, as modified, then came up before the Convention:

Resolved, That the committee on Education be instructed to inquire into the expediency of adopting a constitutional provision for increasing the common school fund, and to prevent the Legislature from borrowing any portion of the school, college or seminary fund in [the] future.

Mr. LOGAN offered to amend by adding thereto, "to defray the ordinary expenses of the government," also the following:

"And that the same committee be instructed, also, to inquire into the expediency of providing by the constitution that the moneys hereafter received from the school, college and seminary funds shall be invested in the bonds of this State at their market value; and, also, that the interest on bonds so purchased shall be punctually paid, to defray the ordinary expenses of the State debt."

Mr. DEITZ moved to add, after the first amendment of Mr. L., the following:

"And that hereafter the first moneys that shall come into the treasury in each and every year shall be set apart for payment to the proper authorities, or persons entitled by law to their respective proportion of the interest annually accruing upon the school, college and seminary fund."

Mr. LOGAN advocated his plan of adding to the school fund. He illustrated the operation of it thus: His proposition was, that the State should authorize the commissioner of the school fund to go into the market and invest it in bonds of the State of Illinois. Thus with the school fund you could buy, with one hundred thousand dollars, two hundred thousand dollars worth of the bonds —

175

putting the market value of the bonds at 50 cents. — The State, then, would pay the interest on two hundred thousand dollars into the school fund, the school fund would be doubled, the bonds would be out of the hands of foreign creditors, and no one would be injured. Mr. L. expatiated at length on this plan of increasing and benefitting the school fund.

Mr. DAVIS, of Montgomery, opposed the plan as reflecting on the honor and integrity of the State. He thought that it was not honorable or just for the State, after having, by unwise, if not worse, legislation become in debt, and then depreciated her own bonds, to go into the market and buy them up at half their value, and appropriate the profits of the shaving to pay its debts to another fund.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, he was in favor of the resolution of the gentleman from Sangamon for three reasons, and would be glad to see the whole of the school fund invested by the school commissioner in the State bonds. His reasons were, that the school fund would be doubled or greatly increased; that the debt would become a domestic instead of a foreign one; and that the people would gladly and willingly pay the taxes to meet the interest upon the bonds, when they knew they were contributing to a fund so beneficial to themselves and children.

Mr. WEST made a few remarks in opposition, which led to an explanation by Mr. C. and Mr. LOGAN.

Mr. THOMAS was not only in favor of the plan proposed by the gentleman from Sangamon, but he would go further and require that the fund belonging to every township in the State should be invested in State bonds, and then the people would more readily pay their taxes, being conscious that every cent they paid would be going for the advancement of their own interest and the benefit and education of their children. It would also lead to the permanency and perpetuity of the institutions of the State, to have her debt all owing to the various townships and funds and citizens of her own State. He cited the cases of France and Great Britain, whose debt was held by her own citizens, and to this he ascribed the safety of England from a revolution.

Mr. TURNBULL opposed, briefly, the adoption of any system

176

compelling the townships to invest their money in State stock or in any way other than at present, or than the people desired.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, that he approved of the plan if he understood it properly. If this money was invested in the school fund and the interest paid out to the townships in gold or silver, or in par funds, he was with them; but if the interest was to be paid out as it is now, in Auditor's warrants of depreciated value, he would oppose the whole system.

Mr. ARMSTRONG was opposed to any such disposition of the township funds as had been shadowed forth by the gentleman from Morgan, because it was now invested in good mortgaged property, and the interest was paid in gold and silver. He was opposed to the system of furnishing the counties with their respective shares of the school fund in Auditor's warrants, when the people paid their taxes in gold and silver.

Mr. CHURCHILL said, that for the past two years, at least, the Auditor sends the money to the school commissioner, and if they receive nothing but Auditor's warrants it was the fault of the officer. He was opposed to any distribution of the fund in any shape, manner or form.

Mr. KENNER made a few remarks in relation to the difficulty in obtaining teachers for the schools, when they were to receive nothing but Auditor's warrants for their pay.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean was in favor of the plan of the gentleman from Sangamon, and also that spoken of by the gentleman from Morgan. He could see no possible objection to the former, as it was the most feasible plan of increasing the school fund with advantage and without doing the least injury to anyone. It might be called a crying shame were the State to send a man into the market to buy up her own bonds at a depreciated value, and thus avoid the payment of half her debt; but not so if the commissioner of the school fund make the purchase of the bonds at the market value, as the State would still have to pay the whole amount of her bonds with interest. He would show how much the school fund would be increased, by supposing a case. Say the commissioner with $100,000 of the school fund bought up, at the market value, bonds of the State amounting to $200,000. In the first place, the amount of the school fund would be doubled, and when

177

the interest on the $100,000 would be $6,000 that on the $200,000 would be $12,000, thereby increasing to double the amount the sum to be distributed for the purposes of education. And who was to lose? No one. And the children all over the State would be greatly benefitted by this increase of the means of education. Mr. D. then pointed out the vast benefits which, in his opinion, would follow from the investment of the township funds in this stock, in comparison to the present system of loaning it out to private individuals.

Mr. SHERMAN opposed everything like a provision directing the investment of the township fund in stocks of the State. In his county they had an excellent fund, upon which they received 12 per cent. interest; they paid their teachers in cash, and he did not want the Convention to come there and make them invest it in State bonds bearing 6 per cent. only — and that, too, in Auditor's warrants.

[Mr. DEMENT said, admitting, for the sake of argument, that there is nothing immoral or improper in the State using her school fund to pay up her own bonds at their present depreciated market value, the resolution seemed to him to be placing the character of the State in a most unenviable position. The whole project, when taken together, contemplates, under the agency and action of the State, by solemn constitutional provision, not only to provide for purchasing the bonds, at a brokerage rate, from the creditors, but it carries with it a determination to make a palpable distinction in the payment of interest in favor of the bonds held by the State. Mr. D. said, I say State, for I cannot separate the State from the people — or make a distinction between one fund, owned by the people of the State, and another. Any act which may be performed by the State, for the benefit of the people of the State, and their children, and particularly in the most imposing of all forms — by a convention of the representatives of the people of the State, assembled to remodel their organic law, will never be viewed in any other light by the civilized world than the act of the State — the people of the State.

It will be useless for us to say that it is intended for a separate department of the State government — that is for a special purpose.

178

In the minds of the disinterested we cannot make a distinction, particularly when the proposition is coupled with the provision that the interest on the bonds, bought by the State, shall be punctually paid out of the first money in the treasury, while at the same time we cannot pay more than one per cent. on bonds of a similar character held by our creditors, who have the public faith solemnly pledged for their redemption.

When our creditors contemplate the character and full force of this project, it does appear to me that quite a different impression will be created upon the minds of our bondholders than some gentlemen anticipate. I think it more likely that they will see in the scheme a disposition to speculate and shave our own obligations, and that having the power to "prefer our creditors," we unblushingly prefer ourselves as a creditor of ourselves. After we have taken this step, so partial to ourselves — so yielding to a feeling of unjustifiable cupidity, it will be useless for us to allege that it was done for a laudable purpose — for the enhancement of a sacred fund.

I am aware, said Mr. D., that it is a forcible appeal to the popular impulses — an appeal in favor of the education of the youth of our State, but the objections I urge are an impassable barrier between myself and the project. I would gladly support any feasible plan for the augmentation of the school fund, but it must be an honorable one. We all, doubtless, have the same object in view, but differ as to the means of attaining that object.

There is another objection which I have, which is, to the practical effect which this mode of increasing the school fund must and will have upon the people in the way of a tax; not direct, but which seems to me not altogether indirect. For illustration: say we now raise a direct tax of $50,000 per annum, and pay it out as interest on the school fund. Now suppose, to make the illustration clear, that we were in a situation to invest all the school fund in States bonds, at fifty cents to a dollar, with a view to double the principal nominally, and to double the interest substantially, and in fact, and at the same time contemplate the prompt payment of the whole amount of school fund now doubled by this honest(?) speculation, as gentlemen please to consider it, will we not have to provide for the payment of the additional

179

$50,000 of interest per annum, by a direct tax upon the people? which must be in addition to the present heavy rate of taxation, or by absorbing that much of our present means of paying the interest we are now paying on our bonds. I think this will be well understood by our bondholders as, to some extent, practically repudiating the interest, at least, on our debt; and the people will, understand, distinctly feel the additional tax. But gentlemen say this is only to effect the subject so far as the school fund shall hereafter be received, but, sir, if the principle is not right in the whole extent, it cannot be because the transaction is small or limited.

I object, also, said Mr. D., to sending an agent into the market with this sacred fund, intended to store the minds of our youth with knowledge, and an appreciation of correct morals and principles, subjecting it to the losses and misfortunes heretofore experienced in our monetary transactions. I doubt the propriety of risking this money in this wild speculation, when I am impressed that it is more than suspected that there are large amounts of spurious bonds in circulation so like the genuine that the men who made them can hardly distinguish the true from the false.]

Mr. LOGAN asked if the gentleman from Montgomery, who opposed this amendment, was prepared to say that the debt to the school fund should fare the same fate as the other debts of the State and that no provision should be made towards its payment. We were not able to pay our debt, but should we neglect to advance or increase our school fund, until we were able to pay that debt. We had a right to prefer debts. It was a well established legal principle that a man can prefer a debt in one creditor's hands to that of another. If this plan be adopted and we purchased these bonds the people will have no hesitation to pay the whole interest when they know it is to be applied to the advancement of education, and the means of improving the morals and integrity of the people. The present question before them was a single one; the propriety of appropriating the school fund to the purchase of these State bonds. It had nothing to do with the township money.

180

That was another question and he did not want his proposition to be prejudiced by having other subjects connected with the discussion of it. He had lived in this county fifteen years, and he was certain that the question whether the township funds turned out profitable or otherwise depended on the sort of men you choose for your commissioners. During the whole of the time he had lived here, they had had prudent commissioners, except for two years, then the commissioner squandered a large slice of the fund. He might also instance a case of the same kind that occurred in Macoupin.

Mr. GEDDES was in favor of the plan of the gentleman from Sangamon, because it made the fund permanent and safe and increased it. He was also in favor of the suggestion of the gentleman from Morgan.

Mr. KNOWLTON expressed himself at some length in favor of the amendment and in reply to the gentleman from Lee. He could see no dishonesty in the plan and would view it merely as a business transaction. Those who held the bonds might or might not sell their bonds at 50 cents, no one could compel them to take less than the full amount, and they might retain them till the State was able to pay the whole sum. He was opposed to the proposition that the township fund should be used up in the purchase of the State bonds.

Mr. KNOX said, that the only question with him was did the plan if carried out affect the honor or integrity of the State. He did not think that anyone there believed the State could with its present resources, ever be able to pay the interest on the State debt. And how was it to be paid? When, by the increase of population the wealth and means of the State were enlarged. And in his opinion the proceedings of this Convention had much to do with it. Suppose we go to our creditors and tell them our circumstances and ask them shall we make a provision in our constitution for the education and moral improvement of our children, he was sure they would reply, yes, do so, and let it be a liberal one. There is a provision in our law, made by the Legislature to build school houses, and the property of non-residents was taxed to pay it, and he had heard some of them say they were glad that such a tax had been levied, because it would increase the value of their

181

lands. He would vote for the resolution of the gentleman from Sangamon.

Mr. MASON thought that so far from the present question involving a principle of dishonesty, on which ground objections had been made, that it presented itself most favorably in a moral point of view. There were many who held our stock, which was now very low, and who could not afford to live on fancy stocks or upon promises to pay, which never were redeemed, and, if in case this passed our stock would rise in the market as he was sure it would, these persons might dispose of it to some advantage.

Mr. THOMAS moved the previous question. Ayes 65 — Noes 66; not seconded.

A motion to adjourn till to-morrow was lost. Ayes 48.

On motion, the Convention adjourned till 3 o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. DEITZ briefly explained the nature of his amendment.

Mr. ROUNTREE said, he was not in favor of binding the Legislature to invest this fund in the State bonds, but he would like to see it so amended as to read — "in stocks most safe and productive," and the interest only to be distributed. He thought it very probable that in twenty years the proposition of the gentleman from Sangamon might appear a little exceptionable.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought it sufficient only to understand the proposition to be in favor of it.

Mr. LOGAN apologized for speaking again upon this question, inasmuch as he felt a great interest in it; it was one of his hobbys [sic]. After some remarks upon the practice of the Legislature in drawing the gold and silver belonging to this fund for the purpose of paying their per diem, he said he thought we were oh the eve of some great speculation. And he appealed to the Convention not to leave with the Governor and Legislature, the power of investing this fund in any scheme they thought proper. Very soon some person or another would have a railroad or a plank road company, and it could be calculated up that by investing this fund in the stock that it would yield some 18 per cent. The Governor would, if permitted to act according to the suggestion of the Legislature be sure to invest it in some moonshine stock which, like when the

182

system of internal improvements was before them, would be shown by figures "which could not lie," would yield immense profits. The fund would be safe in the State stock, but if you left the power to the Legislature, to invest it as they thought proper, they would run mad as they had run mad before.

Mr. DAVIS, of Massac, inquired what was to be done for the interest on those bonds not bought up by this fund? And being answered that it was to remain as at present, he opposed the discrimination as unjust to the other holders of the bonds.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, he thought when he told the gentlemen in the morning that he was with them, that the bonds were to be purchased at par, and not at the market price. Understanding now that this was contemplated he would vote against it. States, in his opinion, were like individuals, and what was dishonest in an individual was dishonest in a State. Things cast their shadows before them. It was said we were on the eve of a speculation, and the first thing going that way was a proposition to swindle the creditors of the State. It had also been said that the constitution would not live long enough to see the State debt paid; he was afraid it would not live at all, although it was yet in embryo, so many odious plans and provisions were to be engrafted upon it, he did not think it would be adopted. He supposed another part of the speculation would be in relation to a bank, but when that come[s] before the Convention we will attend to them.

Mr. PALMER, of Marshall, said, that he had listened to all that had been said upon the question, and his mind had come to the same conclusion before the discussion that it had now. He had looked at the foundation of the two debts of the State of Illinois; the first was contracted by the State with individuals who lent us the money, they at the same time acting as their own agents, and he had always thought that both parties were in fault in relation to the matter. Though not in the Legislature, he read the newspapers and journals of the day — indeed, they were his reading except when engaged with the bible and other religious works. He thought the State unwise in the undertaking, and the gentlemen who loaned the money should have known that the works could never be completed. — The other is a sacred debt — it is a debt of the orphans and widows. It always took two parties to

183

a covenant. Illinois had an agent who stood up for her, but the orphans had no one. The State laid hold of this sacred fund, and appropriated it to pay their own expenses; and now, when they call for their share of the fund, they receive Auditor's warrants. He was in favor of honesty, and could see no injustice or dishonesty in the plan now before them. The stocks of the State were not in the hands of the original holders, but were held by brokers and stock-jobbers, and if any person desired to buy them up they were at liberty [to] do so, and at the very lowest price, and why not Illinois do so with her school fund; particularly when the fatherless and the orphan, who can never expect a schooling except by the school fund, were in numbers throughout the State. He hoped gentlemen would all take it upon themselves to assist the widow in educating the rising generation, and after that he would vote for taxation to pay the whole debt. He had been a stickler for 40 years on the side of honesty, and had fought in the cause of honesty and religion, and almost 66 cold winters had rolled over his head while engaged in the study of honesty, yet he had been unable to discover the least dishonesty in the whole plan.

Mr. ARCHER said, that as this was a mere resolution of enquiry, he would vote for it. This was a question of the utmost interest, and this debate which has ensued on a mere resolution of enquiry gave evidence of the deep feeling on the subject. He was not disposed to discuss it in its present shape, but would remark that he could not see those glaring faults in the plan, which others pretended to have discovered.

Mr. WOODSON advocated the adoption of the resolution, because, by investing the school fund in this way, no harm could be done. If he understood the plan, it was to invest a portion or the whole of the school fund in State bonds, which could be purchased, say at 40 to 50, and thereby double the amount of the fund, and of the interest that would be distributed for the purpose of education. Who could be injured by such a plan? Illinois would be greatly benefitted. The bondholder could not complain, for the very fact of this investment would enhance the value of the bonds. If, therefore, it was not unjust to them, was it immoral to make use of the fund. If not unjust nor dishonest, we have a right to prefer the credit or whom we will pay. — This was a principle

184

of law, so well settled that no lawyer would deny it. This fund belongs to the children of the State, and she has a right to invest it in such a way as is best for their interest. If this plan was not dishonest, enhanced the value of the bonds, was not unjust, injured no one, and increased the fund — why should not the Convention act in the matter? The Legislature had been dishonest in appropriating the money, and the Convention should adopt some measures to close the door against anything further of the kind.

Mr. NORTON was in favor of giving this resolution the course of all resolutions of enquiry; he would vote for it, but he was not altogether prepared to vote for the plan set forth by it, because he feared there might be many serious and unsurmountable objections to it. He thought well of the school fund, and was ready to go with anyone, in furthering and advancing the cause, but he was unwilling to adopt anything unjust or dishonest. If he understood the proposition correctly, we were to go into market to buy up our own stock at a depreciated value, and at the loss of our creditors. — Would they not say to us, it is your duty to educate your children at your own cost and not ours. He supposed that no one would say that it would be just were we to buy up our bonds and thus get rid of the debt, but the excuse for the present. plan is, that it is not for the benefit of the State but for the youth. Mr. N. then stated the plan in detail, and said, suppose we did buy up one hundred thousand dollars of the bonds, on which the State was now paying two per cent., and add it to the school fund, where we will have to pay six per cent., where would this difference of four per cent., come from? It would come from our other creditors and bondholders, for if we were now able only to pay two per cent. of interest on our debt, would we not be reducing our means to pay even that, if we paid six per cent. on that portion of our bonds thus purchased by the school fund. Well might our creditors say, that we should educate our children ourselves, and not by using their means. And, sir, there may be persons holding these bonds who are not able to contribute to the education of our children, and how can they educate their own children ? He said the same principles would apply to the State as to individuals. Suppose, said he, I had a quantity of my paper afloat which I was unable to pay, and it was worth but 40 cents, at the same

185

time there was in my hands a legacy belonging to my child, would it be honest in me to buy up with this fund a portion of my own paper, and then, by thus doubling the legacy, devote all my means to the payment of the interest on my paper thus held by my child? He thought not. Mr. N. pursued the subject at some length, and, in conclusion, said that he might be wrong in his views, and if satisfied that it was proper and just, he would go heart in hand with the gentleman.

Mr. KINNEY of Bureau advocated the plan contained in the amendment.

Mr. THORNTON made a few remarks in reply to Mr. NORTON, and the question was taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. DEITZ, and it was carried — yeas 76.

The two other amendments were then adopted, and the resolution as amended was passed.

The report of the committee on Education, submitted this morning, was then taken up.

Mr. GREGG hoped the resolution reported by the committee would be postponed till Saturday, as the gentleman from Jo Daviess, who was chairman of the committee, was absent and would be till that day. He was in favor of the resolution, and concurred with the gentleman from Madison in every word he had uttered.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison hoped the resolution would be postponed.

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to postpone till Tuesday.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought it unnecessary to postpone as the resolution was one of simple inquiry only, and which might as well be passed now as at any other time.

Mr. EVEY expressed a similar view.

Mr. GREGG then moved that the subject be postponed till Monday next.

Mr. KNOWLTON did not think it was necessary for the chairman of the committee to be here, for a proper discussion of the subject.

Mr. SERVANT thought the resolution might be referred without debate, but if they were to debate it he thought courtesy would favor a postponement.

186

Mr. PINCKNEY advocated a discussion at once, as he understood that the committee had reported the resolution to elicit from the Convention an expression upon the subject.

Mr. CONSTABLE offered the following amendment to the resolution:

"Also, as to the propriety of creating a sinking fund connected with the debt due from the State to the college, school and seminary fund, so as to provide for its early repayment, and the investment of that fund in the bonds of this State at their market value, at the same time contemplating the prompt payment of interest on the bonds so purchased by the said fund."

The amendment was adopted, and the resolution as amended was passed.

Mr. JONES made a report of the majority of the committee. on the Revenue; which he moved to lay on the table and two hundred copies be printed.

Mr. THOMAS made a report from the minority of the committee on the Revenue, which was laid on the table and two hundred copies order to be printed.

Messrs. THOMAS and Z. CASEY made some remarks, each upon the nature of the reports.

[Mr. THOMAS moved that it be laid upon the table and printed; and accompanied the motion with some remarks in relation to the views entertained by the minority of the committee. Revenue, he remarked, lay at the very foundation of government, and without it a Government could not exist. This being admitted, he said, the great consideration was in regard to the subjects or objects of taxation. The minority had attempted to make some specifications in regard to this matter; and their reason for doing so was, that it was a thing which was not usually found in the constitutions of other States; and the consequence was that disputes more frequently arose in the legislatures of those States, upon the subject of taxation than upon any other subject. It was desirable, as far as possible, to place this subject beyond dispute. There had also in this State, been great difficulty and much controversy in regard to the mode of taxation. That difficulty had grown out of a provision in the constitution of

187

Illinois which was not found in many, if in any, of the constitutions of other States, and that was, that property was to be taxed according to valuation — so that every one should pay a tax in proportion to the value of the property which he possessed. This provision of the constitution it was argued by some, excluded from taxation the persons of citizens, and it was contended that it took away the right of the State legislature to levy a poll tax; and that was the reason, perhaps, why no poll tax had been established since the organization of the State government. Another question of great difficulty had arisen, and [was] discussed very extensively, in the courts of law, in regard to the manner of ascertaining the value of property, and what taxes were to be assessed. There was great difficulty in ascertaining the value of property, in a large taxable district, because its value was so much a matter of opinion, that it was hard to get an agreement of opinion from even three persons in the same county.

It had therefore been contended by some that under the constitution, as it now exists in Illinois, the legislature had no power to fix a valuation upon the lands throughout the State in any other manner than by appointing persons to make a valuation; and the laws which had been passed, and imposed upon the State ever since it was a State, fixing a valuation and classifying the lands, were unconstitutional, because, as it was said, the legislature had no power to do it. That provision of law had been changed, he believed, in 1828 or '29, and the lands were valued thereafter according to their true valuation. It was then found that the revenue of the State fell short, and that we had not the means of going on with the State government. This made it necessary for the State government to fix a minimum valuation; and they fixed it at three dollars per acre. This, he had no doubt, was done with an honest intent; and it was very possible that the men who voted for that minimum were satisfied that by doing so they placed a large quantity of the lands of the State at a valuation greater than they were really worth; but they had no other mode of getting along. They had to adopt some method, and this was deemed the most expedient. He supposed that if, in the same minimum law, there had been a provision that all the lands should be taxed in proportion to their true value, there would have

188

been an equality of taxation; because, if the poorest land was valued at three dollars per acre, it would be easy to calculate what the richest land would be worth. It was desirable to get rid of the difficulty under which the government had so long labored in regard to this matter; and this was the object of the minority of the committee in reporting a classification, and a valuation by the legislature. The operation of it would be, that the legislature would provide for the classification of lands, and there would be one man appointed in each county to classify it according to quality and situation; and when this had been done, its valuation would be found prescribed in the law. This provision, it would be perceived, was expressly intended for the raising of revenue; but he hoped that gentlemen would not take fright at it until they had examined it, and considered the true situation in which the matter stood, because without some such provision, by which revenue could be collected, we might as well give up our system of government at once. A government could not subsist upon credit. Our auditor's warrants were down to eighty cents in the dollar, and now the school fund was about to be taken away from the legislature; without such a provision, therefore, this convention might as well adjourn, and give up the State. He made these remarks by way of apology for introducing into the convention a proposition which looked so strongly for raising a revenue.

It was true that the legislature might so provide as to make the valuation very small or very large; but there were limitations on the power of the legislature, and upon the power of the county officers executing the law, which were essential to certainty in the assessment and collection of revenue. If these provisions were omitted in the constitution which was to be formed, the legislative department would have unlimited power over the subject; and they would be in the same condition in which they had heretofore been. He hoped that no gentleman would form an opinion against the proposition without looking at the consequences which would result from a different course.

Mr. Z. CASEY said he imagined that the question upon the merits of the proposition was not now properly before the Convention, the present question being to lay upon the table and print the report of the minority of the committee. He might be permitted

189

to say, however, that the difference, as he understood it, between the two propositions from the committee was simply this: that, while one proposed to ascertain the worth of property by a valuation, to be made by inspectors appointed for that purpose, and when the intrinsic worth was ascertained, to fix upon it a rate of tax sufficient to answer the purposes of government; the other contemplated that there should be an arbitrary valuation fixed upon the property. He was opposed to an arbitrary valuation. It seemed to him that the other mode was the proper one; in all other respects he approved of the report of the majority of the committee. He would not oppose the printing of the report of the minority; he hoped it would be printed, that the whole subject might be brought at once before the convention, and fairly discussed and decided.]

Mr. DEMENT, from the committee on the Legislative Department, made a report — a motion was made to print — and then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

190

XV. Thursday, June 24, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. HALE.

The motion pending, to print 200 copies of the report of the Legislative committee, made yesterday, was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. CONSTABLE introduced a resolution directing the door-keeper to contract for a sufficient amount of ice for the use of the members of the Convention.

Mr. SCATES offered an amendment — "for such members as choose to pay therefor."

Mr. SERVANT offered an amendment — "that no person shall use any of the said ice unless he furnish his portion of the money to purchase the same."

Mr. WITT moved to lay the amendments on the table. Carried.

Mr. SERVANT was opposed to laying the resolution on the table. If he thought that his constituents were not willing that he should have a lump of ice in this hot weather he would leave the Convention and go home in disgust. A motion was made to lay the resolution on the table, and the yeas and nays were ordered. They resulted — yeas 108, nays 34.

Mr. ARCHER, from the committee on Organization of Departments and Officers connected with the Executive Department, reported back sundry resolutions, with amendments to the constitution — that the Auditor of Public Accounts shall be elected every four years, and a salary of $1,000; a State Treasurer elected for a term of two years, and a salary of $800; a Secretary of State to hold office same time as Governor, with a salary of $800; and that the General Assembly should authorize the advertising for proposals for public printing, to be let out to the lowest bidder; and that the subject of a State's Attorney be referred to the committee on Judiciary. Which report, on motion, was laid on the table, and 200 copies ordered to be printed.

Mr. GREGG, from the committee on the Division of the

191

State into Senatorial and Representative Districts, reported a resolution calling for 30 outline maps, and printing 200 copies of the census. — He stated, that the committee were unanimously of opinion that the maps should be had. It had been ascertained that no copies of the census were in the office of the Secretary of State, as had been suggested the other day, and it would be conceded that it was necessary they should have the census printed for their use.

Mr. ECCLES doubted the necessity of procuring the maps.

Mr. WEST said, he had inquired at the Auditor's office and had been informed that the maps could be furnished by Monday next, at a cost not exceeding six bits each.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon said, he had a map that had been furnished him at the last session of the Legislature, which had cost but 50 cents; it was at the service of the chairman of the committee. His map had the population of every county marked upon its face.

Mr. SHUMWAY offered an amendment, "that the number of free white population in each county should be marked on the maps." Carried, and then the resolution was adopted.

Mr. SCATES offered a resolution, that the committee on Finance be directed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a provision to tax the government lands; which resolution, after explaining it, he moved be postponed till Wednesday next. — Carried.

Mr. DAWSON offered a resolution directing an inquiry by the committee on Rights, to report a prohibition of duelling Carried.

Mr. WEAD offered a resolution appointing a special committee of eleven to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the county commissioners' court, and report a plan of organization of townships. Carried.

Mr. GEDDES offered a resolution that the committee on Military Affairs should inquire into the expediency of adding to the 2d section of the 5th article of the constitution a provision that all persons who do not perform military duty should pay a fine of from fifty cents to a dollar, which should be added to the school fund.

192

He said, that from his little experience in such matters, he had come to the conclusion that our present military organization was a mere farce. Nine-tenths of the people do no military duty; he did not know, but supposed it was owing to the inefficiency of the law. It had become so now, that no one but those who pleased did military duty. If the constitution of the United States did not require otherwise he would like to see the whole system abolished. These fines would amount to a considerable amount, and if added to the school fund would be a good increase. Military training had become useless, for if they desired to effect anything they should be kept together a week and do camp duty.

Mr. CHURCH offered an amendment — "that any poll tax levied and collected shall be in lieu of military duty."

Mr. BROCKMAN opposed any fines for a non-performance of military duty; he was in favor of a full organization. In his county they were organized better than in any other in the State, and they collected no fines.

Mr. SHIELDS moved to lay the resolution and amendment on the table. Carried.

Mr. ROUNTREE offered a resolution that the committee on the Revenue should be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a provision in the constitution fixing a maximum rate of taxation to continue for — years.

He said, that he desired that the committee should report a maximum rate of taxation, beyond which the Legislature could not go. This course would, in his opinion, do away with much of the prejudice now felt by emigrants against settling in our State, and which, owing to our large debt and the necessity for taxation, deters many from coming here who otherwise would. It would allay all doubt and uncertanity about the amount of interest each, man would be called upon to pay, and our citizens would be able to fix a real value upon their land. It would throw light upon the pathway of the emigrant, and he may be induced to settle in Illinois instead of seeking more favored lands unburthened with a public debt. In fixing this maximum, a due regard should be had to the rates as fixed by our adjacent States, so that we should not exceed theirs, and turn the tide of emigration from our own soil into theirs. This was manifest, for if we fixed it at $2 and

193

Missouri at $1, she would get all the emigration, and if we fixed it too high we would be adopting the best plan of rendering the surrounding States more advantageous for emigrants than our own. He thought that, inasmuch as retrenchment would be carried into the various branches of the government, our present rate would be sufficient.

Mr. ECCLES suggested that the object of the gentleman would be accomplished just as well when the reports of the committee, made yesterday, came before the house, by offering his plan as an amendment. The majority of the committee had reported a system of taxation ad valorem, and the minority a classification and a minimum; when these came properly before the Convention, if he thought proper to change either, he might move in the way of amendment.

Mr. ROUNTREE replied, that we had the ad valorem principle now, and the rate fixed was two mills. The object of the resolution was to inquire into the expediency of fixing the rate of the maximum.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery, thought the resolution ought to pass. He was in favor of fixing in the constitution a rate of taxation above which the Legislature should never go, and another rate below which it should not fall. We should settle this matter permanently and break of[f] the system of demagogueism practised by candidates for the Legislature. The great theme on the stump was that we were taxed to death, and that the taxes should be reduced, and these men came here to carry out this scheme, and the matter was never settled. It would also serve the character of the State abroad, when it would be known that we had fixed in our constitution a permanent rate of taxation to be applied to the payment of our State debt, and to wipe out the black stain of repudiation which was upon us.

Mr. SCATES had no objection to a resolution of inquiry but he was satisfied that this Convention would never adopt a maximum rate of taxation. Revenue was as vital to a government as blood is to the the human system, and in attempting to measure the amount of it was to often destructive to the whole system: suppose in a case of rebellion or civil insurrection, or of a foreign invasion, when the whole and the utmost means of the people would be

194

required for the defence of the State, we are stopped by a constitutional provision from raising the necessary means to meet the emergency, a constitutional provision restraining us from increasing the taxes. The only maximum he would vote for would be 50 cents on the dollar, because he believed that half of our property would be sufficient for any emergency. A maximum by law was not so bad, because that could be repealed, but not so with one in the constitution.

Mr. THOMPSON said, that he had had an opportunity of testing this matter two years ago when travelling in the Eastern States. He had then an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the opinions entertained in relation to this State, and was astonished to hear the deep rooted objections and prejudices against emigration to this State, on account of our debt. He returned and on the boat he met some six or seven hundred emigrants, and they said they were going to Michigan; he asked them why not come to Illinois; why not stop at Chicago? They answered, Illinois has a debt too great. And to carry out what the gentleman from Jefferson said about the life blood of the system — they added — you touch one jugular, with your heavy taxes, the very moment we come there. After he had got home, he looked over some statistics, to see how Illinois stood, in this respect, with other States in the Union, and found that we stood much lower than many other States. He believed that if this matter was left with the General Assembly, it, being governed by patriotic desires to encourage emigrants, would never have high taxes. He said that he believed that the prejudices existing against Illinois, was [sic] the work of other States, and their agents. He would vote for the resolution.

Mr. Z. CASEY said, that perhaps it would be proper in him to state that this subject had been enquired into, and discussed in committee, and they thought it would be better to report, and let the Convention fill up the rate of the maximum, below or above which the Legislature should never go, or at least until certain objects had been accomplished. He would suggest that as the committee had reported, it would be as well, when that report came up, for the gentleman to present his plan, and not to ask the committee to re-enquire into a question which they had acted upon.

195

Mr. ROUNTREE said, he would rather the resolution should go back to the committee.

Mr. HARVEY said, that he was always in favor of voting for resolutions of enquiry, but his mind was so made up, and his opinions so fixed, upon this subject, that for once he would vote against even a resolution of enquiry. If we were to fix a rate in the constitution, and the people were to become more able to pay their debt, here was a barrier against their paying it, except in the slow means which this rate would allow. He was not afraid of the debt, or of the people's not paying it. The idea of repudiation is not entertained by any of the people, and he was prepared to say, for he had not the information before him nor did he know the amount of the debt, but that the people now were able to pay the whole amount of interest. He hoped the resolution would not even go to the people.

Mr. HARDING said, he hoped the resolution would pass. He was not willing to give the Legislature unlimited power of taxing the property of the people.

Mr. LOUDON made a few remarks, when the previous question was moved and seconded.

And the vote being taken on the adoption of the resolution, it was carried.

Mr. KENNER offered a resolution, directing the committee on the Legislative Department to enquire into the expediency of drafting a provision prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law the power to pass which is not expressed in the constitution. And also that the yeas and nays should always be taken on the final passage of every bill, and that a majority of all the members elect shall be necessary to pass a bill.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, that as the committee have already reported on this subject, he moved to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. THORNTON asked him to withdraw, and he said there was a difference between the report and resolution.

The resolution was then laid on the table.

Mr. KITCHELL offered a resolution, directing &c., the committee on Law Reform to provide for a prohibition of the Legislature amending any general law, till the same be published. Carried.

196

Mr. CHURCHILL offered a resolution, appointing a committee to inquire into the agricultural, mineralogical and other resources of State; which was carried.

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough offered a resolution, directing the president to issue certificates to the members for the amount of their pay and mileage to the 24th inst.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean, moved to lay the resolution on the table; which was lost.

Mr. CONSTABLE hoped the resolution would not pass till its propriety had been discussed. Though he did not admit that we were governed by the law of the Legislature, still as it was the opinion of the Convention, we should conform to its provisions. He doubted whether we had the power to withdraw money from the treasury until we had completed the session.

Mr. GEDDES, though not himself in want of money, there might be some gentleman who had need of the money, and the ought to be permitted to have it.

Mr. PALMER, of Macoupin, read from the law, and said, there was no force in the ejection and the only question was, should the members have it. He thought they ought, and the objection was untenable.

Mr. WOODSON offered an amendment to the resolution, "that such sum should not exceed two dollars a day."

Mr. DAVIS, of Massac, moved to lay the amendment on the table; the yeas and nays were ordered, and resulted, yeas 78, nays 60.

Mr. CONSTABLE moved to amend by adding that "the president should issue such certificates every Saturday."

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, he was not wealthy nor had he much money, but in case he did, he had friends from whom he could obtain what he wanted. But he could not understand how gentlemen, who had voted in the Legislature for four dollars a day for themselves and for this Convention, and who had voted to take the gold and silver from the treasury, belonging to the school fund, and to the children of the State, to pay themselves with, should now be found voting for this amendment. He regretted this proposition to take $2 a day had been introduced.

He would, in due course of time, introduce a resolution providing

197

that those who voted for and presented resolutions allowing members $2 a day should be compelled to take only what they voted for, and then let gentlemen come forward with their patriotism and Buncumbe resolutions in proper style.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, it was not very difficult to see that the remarks of the gentleman were directed to him; and he wished to say a few words in explanation of his course in the Legislature, not because any feeling had been excited, for he felt not in any way the force of the remarks. He had performed his duty as a member of the Legislature; the manner in which he had performed that duty had been before his constituents, and he flattered himself that they had shown their approval of his conduct. He was not a $2 a day man. He had voted for paying the members of the Legislature $4 a day, and had voted for allowing the members of this Convention $4 a day, because he thought that sum not too much.

He then explained at length in relation to the appropriation of the money belonging to the school fund. He said that there were men here who held Auditor's warrants — speculators and brokers — and who hearing that the money was in the treasury were about to demand it; and the Treasurer had recommended them to appropriate it to the payment of their expenses.

Messrs. MINSHALL, DAVIS, of Montgomery, and CONSTABLE continued the debate.

Mr. WILLIAMS thought that the Convention should feel themselves under great obligations to the members of the last Legislature, for their kind provision for them of $4 a day. And that we should be more kind and tender towards them in our speeches. They had assumed all the responsibility of making this provision for us and we should feel quite comfortable under their provision, and should speak more kindly of them. He had voted for our receiving but $2 a day, because if we were going to cut down the pay of all future Legislatures we should fortify our precept by our example.

Mr. BOND explained the object he had in view in offering the resolution which he did at the opening of the Convention.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac said, that he was in the last Legislature and had voted for $4 a day, because he thought that sum

198

was not too much. He had not voted for the bill calling for this Convention, because he considered some of its provisions unconstitutional; however, if the item appropriating $4 a day for the pay of the members of this Convention had been an isolated item, he would have voted for it. The course of the gentleman from Wabash was highly honorable, and tended to break up the spirit of demagogulsm. He hoped that they would not leave this Convention until they had fixed the pay of the members of the Legislature at a permanent sum; and thus break up all this contrivance and management about the pay of the members of the Legislature. He was now as he was at the session of the Legislature, and when the appropriation came up to pay the members $4 a day, he had voted for it, because he thought it was not too much for a faithful member of the General Assembly. He did not think we had power to repeal that part of the act of the Legislature which provides for the pay of the Members of this Convention; and he had no doubt that if such an act were done that a madamus could be got out and the officer compelled to pay the sum fixed by law. He believed that there were but a very few of the members of the last legislature in the Convention, but a majority of those who were here were $4 men.

Messrs. WOODSON, DAVIS of Montgomery, LOGAN, CONSTABLE and SERVANT, continued the debate; which, between the two first, became rather excited and warm, and which was prolonged to much length by explanation, queries, &c.

A motion to adjourn was taken and lost.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin, said, it was to be regretted that so much feeling had been shown — they should learn to take every thing in good feeling, and to give back in the same spirit. He came here from a county where they took and gave everything. He had come here to receive $4 per day, and when he was elected his constituents knew how much he was to receive, and they knew also that he would not take anything less. Gentlemen had insinuated that those who were disposed to take the $4 per day sheltered themselves behind the act of the Legislature. He sheltered himself behind no law. If there was no law, he would vote for $4 a day, because he thought it was no more than just. He would use no special pleading, but he would meet them in the

199

general issue. He had listened with his accustomed admiration to what had fallen from the gentleman from Sangamon and admired its ingenuity. He had admired that gentleman from the first time he made his acquaintance, for his never-failing ingenuity, and he did not know but that it was, in some degree, owing to the fact that the very first case he (Mr. P.) had in the supreme court the gentleman from Sangamon had trembled him out of it.

He hoped the resolution would pass. Many of the members may want the money, and he appealed to the gentleman from Wabash to withdraw his amendment. Although, said he, I would not care if the money could be drawn out weekly. He knew what he could do with it. And there were many of his constituents who would be very glad to receive weekly remittances from him.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, that after the good natured speech of the gentleman, he would withdraw his amendment.

And the resolution was passed.

Motions to adjourn till to-morrow at 8 1-2, and 9 and 10, A. M., and till this afternoon at 7, 6 1-2, 6 and 5 were made and lost.

And then the Convention adjourned to meet at 4 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. ROBBINS offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee to provide for the alteration and amendment of the constitution inquire into the expediency of amending article 7th of the constitution, by substituting in place thereof, the following, to-wit: Whenever two-thirds of the General Assembly of this State shall think it necessary to alter or amend this constitution, they shall propose such alterations or amendments to the people, and it shall be the duty of the Governor, by proclamation, to lay the same before the people, at least four months before the next ensuing election for members of the General Assembly; and if a majority of all the members of both branches of the General Assembly, elected at the said election, shall approve of all or part of the said proposed amendments, the amendment or amendments so approved of, shall be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection, and such amendments as shall be so ratified by a majority of the legal voters of this State shall become a part of the constitution.

200

Mr. KITCHELL offered a substitute, instructing the committee to report an article, &c., differing slightly with the original.

Mr. ECCLES moved to amend the substitute by making it a resolution of inquiry.

Mr. KITCHELL said, he had drawn this substitute with a view of taking the sense of the Convention. The vote being taken, the amendment was carried.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac moved to lay the subject on the table. Lost.

Mr. DEITZ offered an amendment, that amendments to the constitution should not be submitted but once in five years. Lost.

And the vote being taken on the substitute, it resulted — yeas 40, nays 41. No quorum.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison moved to lay the substitute on the table — yeas 61, nays 37. No quorum.

Mr. WITT moved a call of the Convention, and afterwards withdrew it; and the vote being taken on laying the substitute on the table was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. KENNER offered an amendment.

Mr. SCATES said, he had no objection to a resolution of inquiry, but he would oppose the principle of giving the Legislature power to propose amendments to the constitution. They would never let it alone, but at every session would be tinkering at it.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, if there was any force in the remarks of the gentleman they would apply as well to the constitution of the United States, which allowed amendments to be proposed at any time; yet he did not see that Congress was very often tinkering the constitution. The gentleman seemed to think that the conservative principles of the State was [sic] collected in that Convention, and that when we went away it would be forever lost; that the Legislature nor anybody else would ever go right; that all the wisdom of the State was centered in that Convention, and in the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. SCATES) particularly.

Mr. BROCKMAN agreed with the gentleman from Jefferson. He thought stability was required for our safe government, and that our constitution should not be left open for amendment. He felt confident that the Legislature would be always at work upon it.

201

Mr. WHITNEY, though he admired the gentleman from Jefferson for the ardor and sincerity with which he supported every view taken by him in the Convention, he was compelled to disagree with him on this subject. He (Mr. W.) had lived in a State where such a provision was in the constitution, and from the years 1821 to 1836 there had been but few amendments proposed — not more than four or five.

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved the previous question — seconded and the resolution was adopted.

Mr. McCALLEN offered a resolution in relation to military affairs, but withdrew it at the suggestion of Mr. WHITESIDE, who said the committee were ready to report.

Mr. CONSTABLE offered a resolution, that the committee on Bill of Rights Inquire, &c., of omitting the restrictions upon those people who had rights in common in certain lands, and contained in article 8, section 8, of the present constitution.

Mr. SERVANT said, that he had several petitions on the subject, and had written home for some information, and when it arrived he would like them all to go together before the committee.

Mr. CONSTABLE then withdrew his resolution.

Mr. SPENCER offered a resolution that the committee on Rights be, &c., report a provision that property of married women be exempt from execution. Adopted.

Mr. LOGAN offered an additional rule that two-thirds of the members shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for business, but that a less number might order a call of the Convention and adjourn. Carried.

Mr. BOSBYSHELL offered a resolution calling upon the Auditor for certain information. Adopted.

Mr. VERNOR offered a resolution that the committee on Legislative Business should inquire, &c., and prohibit any person holding two lucrative offices at one time. Carried.

Mr. KENNER offered a resolution referring to county organization; which on motion, was laid on the table till 4th of July, 1849.

Mr. BOND offered a resolution that the committee on Rights be instructed to report a provision prohibiting free negroes from emigrating into this State, and that no person shall bring slaves

202

into this State from other States and set them free, and that sufficient penalties be provided to effect the object in view.

He said, that he thought this the proper time to give this question a fair and calm discussion, and had so framed the resolution as a test. He proceeded to give his reasons for introducing the resolution, and to state the grounds he occupied on this question. In doing so, he said, he had no desire to wound the feelings of any delegate, or impugn the motives which governed other gentlemen who occupied a different position. There was no one who had a greater desire to do justice to that class of unfortunate individuals, called free negroes. But they already had become a great annoyance, if not a nuisance, to the people of Illinois. While he would do the utmost to protect the rights of those who held this kind of property, which was recognized by the domestic institutions of sister States, he would do nothing to fasten more tightly the bonds by which these people were held in slavery. In his part of the State he had seen little settlements of these free negroes spring up, and their object was to aid slaves from the south to escape their masters. This was not right. But while he would not go to a man's stable, unlock it, and steal therefrom a horse, he might, if he met a negro whom he thought was escaping from his master, not ask the man to give an account of himself, and thereby stop him in his flight. He considered that there was no use of extending our philanthropy in favor of these people, unless we were willing to admit them to the privilege of the ballot box, and give them all the rights of freemen and citizens of a free republic. Can we, or ought we to, do this? He would answer nay. After alluding to the objects of colonization, he said, that he wanted no persons to come into this State, unless they came with right to be our equals in all things, and as freemen.

Mr. LOUDON offered an amendment; which was ruled out of order.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, that the people of his county were unanimous in their opposition to the emigration [sic] of negroes. The people of Schuyler and Brown were nearly all opposed to it. The negroes have no rights in common with the people, they can have

203

no rights; the distinction between the two races is so great as to preclude the possibility of their ever living together upon equal terms.

Mr. ADAMS moved to amend by striking out all after the word "resolved" and inserting the following: "the Legislature shall have no power to pass laws of a severe or oppressive character applicable to persons of color."

A motion to lay the amendment on the table was made, and the yeas and nays were ordered and taken — yeas 92, nays 46.

Messrs. CHURCH and PINCKNEY explained their position on this question.

Mr. CYRUS EDWARDS' name being called, he rose and said, that if the vote were taken without a word of explanation, it might be inferred that those in favor of laying the amendment on the table, would be in favor of the adoption of the converse proposition to that contained in the amendment. He wished to exclude that conclusion, as far as he was concerned, and he would therefore state that he should vote for laying the amendment on the table, under a rule which he had prescribed for himself, that in those points where he considered the constitution to be correct as it stands, he would make no attempt to alter it; and in relation to this subject, he considered the constitution as it stands could not be improved by any alteration.

Mr. LOGAN'S name being called, he rose and said that he thought it was necessary to make a brief explanation. It was a subject of a good deal of delicacy and one upon which it was difficult at all times clearly to distinguish between judgment and prejudice. He should vote to lay this amendment on the table, however, upon the ground that he regarded it more in the light of an abstract proposition than anything else. The question as to what laws would be oppressive, was one for the consideration of the legislature, and one which ought to be left to their judgment to determine.

Mr. MINSHALL'S name being called, he observed, that he considered such a provision as that embraced in this amendment wholly superfluous, and, he thought, the constitution, therefore, ought not to be encumbered with it. He would vote for laying the amendment on the table.

204

Mr. SERVANT'S name being called, he said he adopted the reasons stated by the gentlemen from Madison and Sangamon, and would vote yea.

The yeas and nays being taken they resulted as follows: — yeas 92, nays 46.

The question then being on the adoption of the resolution —

Mr. BOND desired the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHURCH would not make a speech, but desired to offer a few remarks. Gentlemen characterized what he deemed sound principles on the subject under discussion, as abstractions. His object was not to deal in abstractions, but to view matters in the light of common sense. It had been stated that nature had set up a barrier against blacks as a race, and that the privileges of common humanity should not be extended to them. If this be so, nature was wrong; which he was not willing to admit. This doctrine was behind the spirit of the age, and if we were to sustain it, we should be the objects of scorn to the world. Would emigrants from Pennsylvania and others imbued with sentiments of humanity, come to this State, If the proposition made here in relation to blacks were to become a part of our organic law? No, sir; and they would regard such a provision as violating, not only the plain dictates of humanity, but the principles contained in the great charter of our rights — the Declaration of Independence. He desired that on the subject of slavery, the Constitution should leave it where it was left by the Ordinance of '87 — that there shall be no slavery or involuntary servitude in the State. Our present constitution provides for slavery as it existed when adopted; and although susceptible of a different construction, slavery was continued for years, under the juggling of courts in their judicial decisions. Gentlemen here have gloried in this as a free State. He would indeed glory in such a State. And he was therefore opposed to engrafting in the constitution any doubtful provision, or one which required every officer of the government, from the Governor down, to be a picket guard, to oppress the colored race.

He wanted the constitution to be worthy of a free State — and to render it so, he would not have it, in the remotest degree, nor by any possible construction, sanction slavery, or oppress the colored race. He was opposed to laws on this subject, which

205

were a blot upon our statute book, but would leave that matter with the legislature, with the confident hope that the dictates of humanity would control the action of that body, when it shall convene under the amended constitution, if we shall be so fortunate as to perfect a constitution which shall receive the sanction of the people.

Mr. CHURCH moved to lay the resolution on the table.

At the request of Mr. PINCKNEY the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. PINCKNEY said: Mr. President, I hope the motion to lay upon the table will be withdrawn, that I may have an opportunity of explaining.

It was not my purpose to agitate this question unless it were forced upon me; and I should have said nothing upon these resolutions of the gentleman from Clinton, had not the ayes and nays been called.

But as the case now stands, and driven as I now am, and have before been into a kind of dilemma, I claim and shall take the privilege of explaining myself. I have been, by what I consider the indiscreet zeal of gentlemen from the North and South, called upon to place my vote upon the journal, on questions that it did not suit my views either to favor or oppose, in the shape in which they were presented to the convention, but nevertheless, I voted unflinchingly, and without any effort at an explanation.

I am willing, sir, to occupy this position in silence no longer; the position is one forced upon me. It is a very singular position. How does it happen that at the North I am termed a pro-slavery man; and here, by some, an Abolitionist? How does it occur that in passing from my home to this place, about 200 miles, I find my principles identically the same, viewed in so different a light? I know not, except it be that I occupy a middle ground between two parties contending with each other, and as all mediators are, I am obliged to receive the blows and balls of both.

An Abolitionist! Why, Mr. President, I would as soon be called almost anything else on earth as a political abolitionist; and yet, I suppose I must patiently bear it, as there is no remedy.

The gentleman from Clinton has again sprung this question upon me, and the ayes and noes are called. To let it pass as I

206

have others touching the same points, I cannot; and yet, I will barely explain.

The gentleman says, the time for action upon this subject has come, and we must defend our State. My own opinion was that the time had not come, and therefore I wished to let the matter rest; but, if the gentleman is correct, and the proper time is here in which we should act, it would seem as though we should first wipe out the dark stain that now rests upon our State. It becomes us to remove the foul stigma, which some of our odious laws have brought upon us. I most unhesitatingly assert here before this body, and am willing to declare it before the world, that some of our late laws touching the treatment of negroes are a disgrace to our State; they would be a disgrace to any people claiming to be free, enlightened and humane.

The gentleman has an object in view in moving these resolutions — he would show by making them a part of our constitution — by keeping negroes out of our State under a heavy penalty, that we are determined to protect the rights of our sister States. Rights! What rights? The right to chase an oppressed and unfortunate fellow being through our territory; to drag him to prison; to beat him, and at the same time to prohibit me, or any man on this floor from giving him a morsel of bread or meat, though he be starving? A right to compel us to force a perishing woman from our door; and drive her forth into the pitiless peltings of the midnight storm! Are these their rights? I can not admit them; they conflict with higher authority. They fly in the face of Jehovah. His law calls upon me to feed the hungry and succor the distressed. This with me settles all; and I shall endeavor ro obey it, notwithstanding these rights.

Do not misunderstand me; while I would feed the unfortunate hungry negro, I would take no part in stealing or secreting him. The gentleman would put a stop to the system of stealing negroes and running them off through our State. He cannot more strongly disapprobate the "under ground railroad " than do I. It is a disgrace to any man to be aiding or abetting that system. I look with supreme contempt upon that man who enters the premises of a master for the purpose of enticing away his slave; who teaches that slave to escape at all hazards; to cut his master's throat; to

207

steal his best horse, to ride him to death, and then steal another. These things I cannot approve, nor can I commend; nay, I must censure those who countenance them.

The gentleman says, if among us, they are not to have a vote, nor to hold office. My vote stands recorded upon this subject, and it agrees with his views. I am not for passing laws to give them the right of suffrage, but for a different reason from the gentleman's. It is simply this: no class of men in our popular government can enjoy equal rights and privileges with us, until the mass are willing to grant the same, all legislation to the contrary notwithstanding. This alone is sufficient to determine my course with reference to the African suffrage. The people will not yield it. If any man propose to keep these unfortunate persons from our State by just and humane measures, I shall not object. I am in favor of removing them not only from this State, but from all the States, that they may in some other place enjoy human rights and privileges, in truth as well as in name; but I desire it not to be done by violence. I therefore concur with the gentlemen in giving the Colonization Society great praise; it deserves it; it has my best wishes and my warm support.

The gentleman from Brown expressed a view that I was sorry to hear on this floor. Is it possible that he would rather see this a slave State, than have it longer exposed to the ingress of negroes? Is it true that God has made so broad a mark of distinction between blacks and whites, that the latter cannot endure the proximity of the former? My observations here teach me that they are somewhat intimate; but I forbear to dwell on what is so apparent to all, and I leave the subject.

Mr. TURNBULL said he considered this matter as properly belonging to the legislature, if it were necessary to make any enactment in relation to it; but he was of the opinion that as it stood at present it was about as well as they could make it. Nothing was to be gained, he thought, by agitating the question.]

Mr. ALLEN said, he saw nothing in the resolutions to call out this discussion. He had listened to the gentleman last up (Mr.

208

PINCKNEY) in his effort to define his position, but really did not know where he stood; on which side, or on both sides. He could not see what this resolution had to do with the present statute laws of the State. It only provided that no negroes should come here for the future. He was in favor of a prohibitory clause against their emigration [sic] into the State, for those that were here were good for nothing, either to the state, the church, or themselves. They were all idle and lazy and the part of the State that he came from was overrun with them. It had been the custom for some time for the people of Kentucky, Alabama and other states to bring their old and worn out negroes, and those whom they emancipated, into this State and into his section of country, and the people desired to prevent this, and to get rid of those already there.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin thought the introduction of this subject was unwise and productive of no good. Almost all the evil growing out of the excitement upon this question had been produced by the persons occupying the extremes of both parties. On the one side were those who were honest, sincere and consistent in their opinion, and men of the most respectable character, who devote all their zeal, ardor and means for the accomplishment of their object; men of the one idea principle; and on the other side was a class of persons who, to check abolition, used the most violent language and often occupied very untenable ground, and they together have contributed, more than anything else, to create the great excitement on this question. He would ask gentlemen to reflect upon the consequences of this resolution. If it was adopted and its provisions inserted in the constitution, a large class of the community would be against its adoption. Why then unnecessarily provoke a battle against the constitution. Intemperance on one side was as bad as on another. Every impulse of his heart and every feeling of his, was in opposition to slavery, and if his acts or votes here would do anything to ameliorate the condition of those held in bondage no man would exert himself more zealously than he; no one would do more to remove the great stain of moral guilt now upon this great republic — but he looked upon every proposition either for or against that object as checking the good

209

work, and sooner than adopt such a proposition as is now before them, every vote in his county would go to sustain the old constitution.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved an adjournment. Carried.

210

XVI. Friday, June 25, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. BARGER.

Mr. THORNTON offered an amendment to the resolution pending at the adjournment yesterday — providing that the Legislature should have power to make all necessary laws in relation to negroes. In presenting the amendment he said, that he did so because he thought we should leave the matter with the Legislature for their action, and to public sentiment.

Mr. NORTON said, that he desired to state the reasons which would govern him in his vote upon this question, and why he should vote against the resolution and the amendment. He was happy to say that he did not find himself in the dilemma in which other gentlemen were placed. He opposed this resolution because he deemed it wrong in principle and wrong in practice, and could give the reasons for going against it without feeling himself called upon to define his position. He would give his views, founded, as he thought, upon principles of right. The resolution, as he understood it, had two objects — the first, the exclusion, by penal enactments, of all free negroes; the second, a prohibition against their emancipation and settlement in this State. The first of these he considered a direct infring[e]ment of the constitution of the United States, which he, as a member of the Convention, had taken an oath to support, and which was regarded as the glory of the country, and gave us a character abroad. No one would contend that we had the power to infringe that constitution in any of its provisions. That constitution says, "that the citizens of one State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities in the several States."

This resolution prohibits free negroes from coming into the State. Does that sacred instrument — the constitution of the United States — say "white" citizens. No, sir, you may search in vain in that instrument for the word white, or black, or yellow. What citizens does the constitution recognize? — All native born and naturalized citizens. He would refer gentlemen

211

to the State of Vermont, no distinction is made in her constitution; there these people have all the priv[i]leges possessed by the whites; they have property and a right to vote. Go to Massachusetts, where he thought they had a little notion of what was liberty — government and right, and there they are entitled to hold property, a right to vote, and, in theory, if not in practice, a privilege of a seat in the General Assembly. These men are citizens of those States. Can we say then that a citizen of Massachusetts, Vermont or New York shall be prohibited from settling in the State of Illinois, in direct violation of an article of the constitution of the United States? If that constitution can be violated in one provision, it can be in another. Was any such distinction contemplated at the adoption of that constitution? Do you think that the men who framed that constitution would ever have permitted the word "white" to go into the constitution? Every delegate in the Convention that framed that constitution from the North — from Virginia and Maryland, would have voted against it. And if they had put it in, the constitution would never [have] been adopted by the people. He came not there to produce excitement by a discussion on this subject. He would rather have avoided it, but by the Introduction of this resolution the question had been forced upon them. He would ask the gentleman who introduced this resolution, if he remembered the time, when it was attempted to put such a provision as this in the constitution of Missouri, how the whole north opposed it, and that Missouri could never have been admitted into the Union with that provision in her constitution, without some explanatory clauses. The people, would have let her fall into the dust before they would have consented. He was not prepared to say that those born in servitude and yet slaves are citizens, this question did not arise, and he was not disposed to argue it. The first principle of this resolution is unequal, unjust and opposed to the first principles of free government. These colored people came to this country not of their own accord, we brought them here, they cannot get away; it is said to colonize them, how? they cannot colonize themselves. He would not insert a provision inviting them to our State; nor would he have one to prohibit them. Is it just, equal or republican to say in our constitution that an honest colored man, with property and perhaps

212

education, shall not come to this State because some men of color who are here are lazy? Our armies were now fighting at the south and the probability is that we will extend the area of our freedom, and that States are to come into the Union with people of every stripe and color, and can they come in without full and equal rights? If this clause be inserted into the constitution he would guaranty 10,000 votes against it, and in the county of Will he would guaranty a majority of 1,000. The whole north would oppose it. This resolution was the very thing to produce excitement; such things had been always the cause of it all over the length and breadth of the land. Having thus justified his vote, he did not consider he should define his position.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery was not desirous of discussing this subject; but while he was sitting there, willing to let resolutions of inquiry, to which he was opposed, pass in silence, he was not willing that gentlemen should tell him that the green north was opposed to this and that subject, and if it passed, the green north would defeat it. Gentlemen get up here and unblushingly say that negroes are equal to them, and unblushingly say that they should enjoy all the privileges of life, social and political, and then charge the south with having caused the excitement. Who first introduced this matter by a motion to strike the word ‘white’ out of a resolution, and then moved the yeas and nays upon it. A gentleman from the north. It was the north that had caused this excitement and not the south. When, sir, I get up here and advocate that negroes are entitled to all the privileges of citizenship — social and political — I hope the tongue which now speaks may cleave to the roof of my mouth. There is a barrier between the two races which it is vain to attempt to destroy. He had not arisen to discuss this matter and create excitement, but to repudiate the assertion that our morals should justify us in admitting negroes to the enjoyment of our social and political rights. The gentlemen from the north speak their sentiments, and those of the south have the same right. He said that the object of the abolitionists was to dissolve the Union. He had no more confidence in the abolitionists than he had in the dark and damnable demons of the lower regions.

Mr. NORTON rose — but

213

Mr. WILLIAMS claimed the floor as a peacemaker. He said the people had gone to great expense in calling this Convention to reform and revise the government, and not for the purpose of Speaking or making provisions about negroes or other little things. There was [sic] the Legislative and Judiciary Departments which required reformation, and it was for this object that the people sent them there. He regretted that in carrying out these principles they had permitted those subjects to be introduced. He had no fault to find with the mover of the resolution or with those who differ from him.

The question was not an abolition one, nor one to admit negroes to social and political equality — but simply, will we permit negroes, after they have given security not to become a burden upon the State, and complied with our laws, to the poor privilege of cultivating our soil and breathing our air. He was not inviting them to come to the State. The African race had been degraded, not from their own crimes, but they had been raised in servitude and without education. Take the heroes of Buena Vista and Cerro Gordo and carry them into a foreign land, and subject them to servitude, and the 4th generation will be as degraded as the negro race. Mr. W. cited several cases which had come under his notice of negroes working and toiling for money with which they desired to purchase friends and relations then in slavery. In conclusion he said, the resolution was more suited for the 14th than the 19th century.

Mr. WITT moved the previous question.

Mr. LOGAN said, that this was a subject which he had always expected would agitate this Convention. At the same time, it was one which he hoped gentlemen would learn to discuss with temper. — He hoped that the discussion would proceed and with good temper, and that the Convention would listen calmly to what was to be advanced for and against the proposition. He trusted that the gag law would not be put in force on a question which a large number of the people considered of vital importance. He was not afraid to discuss any question on God's earth. He respected the abolitionists and believed them to be honest and sincere, and was willing to listen to what they had to say. He was certain the result would be to leave the constitution as it now

214

is. The question was one which affected the interests and feelings of a large population of the State, not only abolitionists but others, and he was desirous that their representatives might be heard. Mr. SHIELDS thought that as the question had been discussed so fully in Congress and in other places, no new light could be thrown upon the matter now by a longer discussion.

Mr. HURLBUT hoped the previous question would not be seconded. There was no use in dodging the question, which might as well be settled now as at any other time. He was not to be affected by taunts from the north, nor will he suffer them to be thrown in his teeth from the south. He would discuss it on principles of law and morals.

Mr. DEMENT said, he would vote to sustain the previous question, because he intended to vote upon the question with those gentlemen who desired to be heard. He had heard sufficient from them, even before the discussion, to induce him to go with them on this particular subject. He hoped, therefore, they would not think hard of him when he voted for the previous question. He did not care for hearing an argument when his mind was made up.

Mr. SERVANT opposed the previous question.

Mr. WEST said, that although he was a young man, he did hope the previous question would not be seconded, because he had a desire to express his views on the subject. The county he represented had more of this population than almost any other, and he knew his constituents desired that their representatives might be heard. He would discuss the question with a proper temper.

Mr. MINSHALL was not afraid to hear the discussion upon this or any other subject; and he thought that if any steam had been engendered that it would be better to let it off at once.

Messrs. HOGUE, DAVIS of Montgomery, and MASON, all opposed the previous question, and advocated a discussion now. And the vote was taken and the previous question was not seconded.

Mr. MASON moved to lay the resolution on the table, and that all the laws in relation to negroes be printed.

Mr. KITCHELL moved to lay the motion on the table. A division of the question was demanded, and the motion to print

215

was laid on the table. The question was then taken on laying on the table the motion to lay on the table, and decided in the negative.

Mr. HURLBUT said, he desired to discuss this question without branching off into a discussion of collateral subjects, or exciting angry feelings. He said he would rather vote for the resolution than for the amendment, because it was more direct; but he would vote against both upon principle. The constitution of the U. S. says, a citizen of one State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the other States. It is not in the power of the Convention to infringe this — they cannot get over it. A citizen of Massachusetts was entitled to become a citizen of any other State. The south had raised an enquiry whether the colored persons have the rights of citizenship; that question was not applicable here. The question was, have we the power to say that citizens of those States shall not come here. It will not do for Illinois to say that other States have not the power to make citizens, when she has made citizens of a class of persons in a way unknown to other States. Suppose we should pass a law that a citizen of New York shall not come into this State, how will you enforce it? The constitution of the U. S. directly overrules it. As to the policy of the law: the gentlemen from the counties on the Mississippi, say they suffer from these free negroes — that is one of the evils of all frontier States; that they come there and are a bad population. But have we the power to make a penal law applicable to one class of citizens, and not generally. No doubt the State has power to pass a general law requiring all persons coming into the State, to give a bond not to become a burden on the State. N. York has the power to pass a law, requiring captains of emigrant vessels to observe certain restrictions, but that is only the exercise of an internal police regulation and is general. Let us make a law as applicable to those who come into the State at the north, as well as those at the south, one is as good as the other and the only difference is, that one is white and the other black. Let the law be general; but if we pass a sweeping general law, which is special in its application, it must be apparent that it is unconstitutional. It was a thing which he never would consent to. He was not sufficiently acquainted with

216

those parts of the State affected by these people to know if these laws are required; but he would believe the statements of the gentlemen, as it was not his design to impugn the assertions of anyone. He would vote against the resolution, if on no other ground, because its adoption would endanger the ratification of the constitution.

Mr. KINNEY of St. Clair said, that the present question was one in which his county felt a very lively interest. It was situated near St. Louis; they had already nearly five hundred free colored persons collected there from Missouri, and they were perfectly familiar with their habits. He was satisfied that a large majority of the people of his county would vote to sustain the resolution of the gentleman from Clinton. Those members from the northern part of the State did not know how lazy, and good-for-nothing these people were. If they did and could witness their worthlessness their opinions would be changed. He was in favor of a fair and calm discussion of this question and saw no necessity for excitement. It had nothing to do with abolition and abolitionists, and appeared to him a mere question of State policy — a political question. It has been said by the gentleman from Will (Mr. NORTON) that he has objections to this resolution because it infringes the constitution of the United States. He says that it guaranties to citizens of one State the rights and privileges of citizens of other States. He forgets that that article of the constitution has been construed to mean that citizens from other States shall be entitled only to the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the State into which they came. Have we not by our present constitution prohibited them from voting — a right enjoyed by citizens of our State — and has not that constitution been ratified by the Congress of the United States. He says we have the power to put these negroes under bond not to become a charge upon the State — this admission is all we want. Suppose a citizen of another State should come here, could we compel him to give this bond? No, sir; we could not. His argument, therefore, is groundless. To carry it out, suppose in another State a negro was entitled to hold an office, and he came here to this State, would he not be entitled to hold office here too? The supreme court of the United States says that citizens of one State shall enjoy the same

217

privileges as are enjoyed by citizens of the other States. The gentleman from Boone says he holds not to the grounds of the abolitionists, yet, he, (Mr. K.) was much surprised to hear him say that the foreigners, who come to our State, were no better than the negroes. It is not good policy to engraft upon our constitution — the fundamental law of the State — a prohibition against this class of worthless population, and his reason for it was that we are surrounded by a number of slave States, all of whom had an exclusive provision in their constitution against these free negroes. Where, then, do they go? They cannot reside in those States, and they all come into Illinois. When they get old, decrepid [sic] and good-for-nothing, their owners emancipate them and send them into this State. We may have laws upon our statute books against persons bringing or sending them here, but how can we enforce it against a man in another State. He would ask gentlemen to look at Ohio, the greatest abolition State in the Union, and when Randolph's negroes were emancipated the agent attempted to settle them in that State, but the people rose in a body and drove them back and would not allow them to come there. They did not want them, they knew what sort of a population they were, and how worthless and degraded they become, and how troublesome they always were. If we would allow the negroes any kind of equality we must admit them to the social hearth. It was then that equality commenced. We must live with them and permit them to mingle with us in all our social affairs, and, also, if they desired it, must not object to proposals to marry our daughters.

Mr. ARMSTRONG moved to lay the substitute on the table, so as to get at the original resolution and make it a resolution of inquiry; but withdrew it at the request of

Mr. WEST, who desired to express his views. He said, that the gentleman last up had alluded to what was correctly the construction to be placed on the article in the constitution of the United States. He said, that it could hardly be presumed that a citizen of the State of Massachusetts should be entitled to the privileges of our citizens. He believed that free negroes living amongst our people was a great evil, and that the best way to remedy that evil was, by a prohibitory clause in our constitution,

218

to confine them to those free States where they could find a secure and a more equal home. One of the primary influences which induced the people of his county to settle in Illinois, was that they might not only be relieved from the evil effects of slavery, but, also, of a colored population. These negroes were, mostly, idle and worthless persons, and his people were very anxious to get rid of them. He had received a letter from one of his constituents this morning, which said that several horses had been stolen, and that to guard against these negroes, it was almost necessary to keep a watch.

Allusion had been made to Massachusetts. He loved and venerated that State, but there were principles contained in some of her laws which he never could recognize. The gentlemen from the north, who had spoken on this question, had come from counties which have but five, ten, or fifteen negroes; in our county there were 500, and he would say that the evil was 500 times greater. He hoped some provision would pass, so as to have this matter settled and prevent scenes of violence. We had already had such scenes — the scenes of 1837 — and they were to be regretted, and they must ever cast a shame upon our State. He had heard it said in the Convention that in the canvass, the tree of public sentiment had been shaken, and that the fruits had been gathered in that hall; and when he looked around him he felt proud of his State, on account other representatives, and he must be permitted to say, that he never before beheld such an august assembly.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean did not agree with the gentleman from Madison. He could not believe that the evil existed to such an alarming extent. He said that he was in favor of leaving the matter stand as it does in our present constitution, and was unwilling to pass any provision which would endanger the adoption of the constitution. He had no desire to engraft anything in that constitution which would offend the people of any portion of the State. He was satisfied that he was sent here to remedy certain great evils in the government, and after having done so was not disposed to have the work rendered useless or endanger its adoption by this or any other such provision. He would leave the matter for future legislation and public sentiment, to dispose of it as the times should require. He was opposed to allowing people

219

of color the right to vote, and he regretted that the gentleman from Boone had said that people from other countries were to be put upon a par with negroes. This was casting another fire-brand into the Convention.

Mr. CHURCH said, he desired not to make a speech for the purpose of making one, but merely to allude to some parts which had not yet been touched upon. He asked if such a provision were inserted, how could it be enforced? The laws they had already were not sufficient to keep these people out. He would like to hear some gentleman define this. He had been a little amused, when this question came up yesterday, to hear the gentleman from Sangamon say it was nothing but an abstract principle. [He read from the constitution of the United States, Mr. LOGAN explained.] The gentleman from Montgomery had said there was a barrier between the two races — the blacks and the whites — If there was, why attempt to raise it higher. If nature had placed it there, leave it to nature, and not, by your laws, make the difference wider. Put this provision in the constitution and you exclude more whites from the State than you do blacks. We are unable to extend the report of Mr. C.'s remarks further. He advocated that the matter should be left to the action of the Legislature, and deprecated the introduction of this provision into the constitution as unsafe, unjust, and impolitic. He also asked, if the ordinance was in force, and Illinois a free State, how was it that, at the last census, 380 slaves were returned?

Mr. LOGAN replied to the gentleman last up, and told the gentlemen of the north that when they said that if this provision was inserted in the constitution, that they would all vote against it, they should remember that the north was only a part of the State; that the State had two ends, and if the north voted against the constitution because of this provision, the south had the same right to say they would vote against it if it was not inserted. He advocated for some time a midway policy of leaving the matter to the Legislature. He was opposed to making this provision the all absorbing topic that was to influence the people's votes upon the adoption of the constitution. This would be the case in many of the counties, if this provision was inserted.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, that he was sorry to hear gentlemen

220

throwing out threats that if such a provision was adopted that they would defeat the whole constitution. The people of his county were much concerned in this question, but they would not reject the constitution upon this or any one subject. If we are to cling to some favorite question, and if we do not succeed defeat the whole, we had much better adjourn and go home. He had been opposed to the reduction of the members of the Legislature, because it affected his county, but if the Convention had reduced the number down to 60, he would have submitted, and would have voted for the constitution. The majority should govern, that was the true democratic principle. He had never heard before that negroes were citizens under the constitution of the United States, and entitled to all the rights and immunities of citizens. Would gentlemen like to see their posterity sitting in a legislative assembly with a mixed delegation, as was the case in other places? We must either admit these negroes as citizens or exclude them. He would vote for the exclusion forever. On motion the Convention adjourned.

AFTERNOON

Mr. JENKINS said, it was perhaps necessary for him to define his position. If the naked abstract question of the right of one man to hold another in slavery were presented to him, he would very probably answer no. But no such question was now before them. He considered that the slaves were in a better condition now than if they were in their own country. He believed the negroes were a degraded race, and could not agree with the gentleman from Adams, that the heroes of Cerro Gordo could ever be reduced by servitude to any such degradation. He conceived this could not be the case, and he would cite the Indian race, which never could be reduced to slavery. The question of slavery was the one which would, if at all, divide the Union, and it must be discussed. — But he considered the question before them as a political one — one of State policy only; and it was, whether, in the present state of circumstances, we should introduce a provision into our constitution to exclude negroes from coming into our State. It had been agreed that we should restrict the Legislature in many things, so as they might not hereafter be disturbed;

221

and he asked if there were any questions which would be more difficult to settle by a Legislature than the present one, and if there was a more proper time to settle it than the present? — If a man votes for this resolution, he can hardly escape the charge of being inhuman, and of a desire to render the negroes more degraded than at present, but self preservation was the first law, and for the purpose of peace and harmony, it was our duty to so fix the constitution so that this matter should be forever settled. We had only to look at our sister States, and see that this population had led the people into tumult and violence, to know that it was our duty to put a stop upon it. It might, for a while, be a punishment upon them, but eventually result in their own good. It would compel them to fix their residence in those States where they belonged, and the people of those States might do something to benefit their condition. Our friends at the north do not understand our position at the south. They think us wrong, because they cannot see the evils of this class of population among us. They have in their counties but few negroes, whose interest and policy it was to behave themselves. But we have them in large numbers, whole settlements of them, who do nothing, idle away their time, and are as trifling, worthless, filthy, and degraded as in any part of the Union. It had been said that if we put this into the constitution that the people of the north will go against the constitution. Now, suppose we say that if they put into the constitution a power to create banks, which our people are opposed to, will they hesitate because it may endanger the adoption of the constitution? They do not change their course, but insist upon such a provision. If the provision contained in the resolution be put into the constitution and thereby it is defeated, let it be so; it is much better to have this question put at rest. It has been said on all sides that there was no confidence to be put in the Legislature. Why leave this question, then, with them, where it will forever be open to agitation, and by the abolitionists, whose policy was always to agitate.

Mr. PALMER of Marshall opposed the resolution in a few words, and then addressed the Convention upon the benefits of colonization.

222

Mr. MOFFETT offered an amendment, that if the resolution passed it should be submitted to the people in a separate article.

Mr. BOND said, that it might appear strange that he differed from the gentleman from Adams, (Mr. WILLIAMS) because people had often said that in case that gentleman should drop off first, he (Mr. B.) would be obliged to think for himself. He then replied, at length, to the gentleman from Will, and reminded the Convention that his resolution was only applicable to those negroes who may hereafter come into the State.

Messrs. CHURCHILL, KITCHELL and KNOWLTON, each, made some remarks on the question; which we are unable to give for want of room.

Mr. SINGLETON advocated, in a speech of some time, the adoption of the resolution; and while we have a report of his remarks, we regret that want of space precludes their insertion.

Mr. GEDDES advocated the resolution, and Messrs. DEITZ SHARPE and POWERS opposed it.

Mr. KITCHELL, who proceeded to address the Convention. He desired to see such steps taken by the Legislature as would arrest the increase of the negro population in this State; and he was for leaving the subject to be disposed of by that body.

Mr. KNOWLTON addressed the Convention, in opposition to the resolution. He was opposed to any alteration of the present constitution in relation to this matter. He was opposed to the introduction of any subject that would excite sectional feelings, and he was extremely sorry to hear the terms north and south so often reiterated in this debate. They were not assembled to make a constitution for a particular latitude; they were not here to consider the interests of one particular portion of the State to the exclusion of another. For his own part, he was for pursuing the course which, to his judgment, seemed the best calculated to promote the interests of the whole State. He could say, as some other gentlemen had done, that he had come here free and un-trammeled upon this question, as well as almost every other; and he should endeavor to act entirely free from prejudice and sectional bias. He was for leaving the present constitution exactly as it stood in relation to this matter.

223

Mr. SINGLETON said, that he had a proposition which he desired to submit, and he would have submitted it, had he been here, when the resolution now before the body was presented, and before the pending amendments had been offered. As he was not, he would not be able to present his proposition at this time; but he desired, before the vote was taken, to make a few remarks explanatory of the position which he occupied upon this subject, and of the views which his constituents, and nearly all the inhabitants of that region of country in which he resided, entertained.

A great deal had been said about the effect which the incorporation of such a provision as that contained in the resolution now under consideration, was to have upon the North and upon the South. It seemed to him that gentlemen should not consider the effect which the incorporation of a principle in the constitution was to have upon any particular portion of the State. The only enquiry should be, was it a correct principle? Was it calculated to advance the interests — to preserve the peace and quietude of the State? These were proper inquiries. But if there was to be a system of log-rolling, if a principle was to be adopted because — it was desired by any one portion of the State as an offset for some advantage to be granted to, or gained by another portion, then he thought it would be better to adjourn and go home. No good could be accomplished by acting upon such a system as that. He would vote for what he considered to be right, no matter whether his constituents coincided in opinion with him or not. If he believed that a principle was right, he would not stop to inquire whether it was so considered by the people at large. If he was convinced of its correctness it was all that was required to secure his vote. His own feelings had always been upon the side of slavery. He came from a slave State. He had lost none of his sympathies for slave-holders and slaves. He had a deep sympathy for slaves, for he knew that the conduct of those men in his State and in others, who pretended to be endeavoring to better the condition of slaves, instead of bettering their condition, was involving them in deeper degradation. This question ought to be met with an honest endeavor to preserve and promote as far as possible the happiness of the unfortunate negro, and to set at rest all those animosities which have heretofore disturbed the

224

country. There was no question which had disturbed, and which would in future disturb and agitate this country so much as this question of slavery. He feared it was to be the power which was to break the cord which had bound us together as a nation. The federal cords he feared were to be broken by it. This union, unless a different course were to be pursued, would be dissolved, and it would be by means of this very question. It would not be so if we were to come up and meet the question as we ought. We were told that we would build up an abolition party, here by the adoption of such a resolution as the present. He cared not though this should be the result. — Were we to be deterred from the avowal of our principles, because by doing so we might array a party against us? This was not a sound doctrine. It was right that there should be some constitutional provision upon this subject. It should not be left to the uncertainty of future legislation. We came here professing to have in view retrenchment. — This he conceived would be a very important step towards that object; for if the question were left open for the next ten years, one-quarter of the time of the sessions of the legislature would be consumed by legislating upon this very question. Petitions would come in, asking for the abolishment of existing laws, and the subject would be continually agitated.

The object of the resolution, as he understood it, was to provide some permanent rule by which both parties should be governed upon this subject. He was aware that a great number of persons had come to Illinois for the purpose of getting rid of slavery, not for the purpose of interfering with their neighbors, and of breaking down the institution of slavery; but to avoid the evils attending that institution, seeking repose, and endeavoring to get rid of the annoyances to which they were subjected in a slave State. Such men had a right — it was their duty to use every means in their power to keep free negroes, as well as slaves out of the State. Now, if we are to have, continued Mr. S., any slavery, that is negro slavery (for God knows we have enough of every other kind), it is useless for gentlemen to talk about making this a free State. The States have agreed among themselves that no person who is bound to labor in one State, shall escape into another and be protected in consequence of any law in force

225

in that State to which he has escaped, and this has laid the foundation for a constitutional provision. The United States upon the adoption of a federal constitution, thought it best that a general rule should be laid down upon this particular subject. It was then expected that individual States would each carry out the provision thus inserted in the constitution of the United States by the enactment of State laws. But we see that it has not been done. Pennsylvania at one time decided that the legislature had no power to carry out the provisions, and Illinois decided that it had. For myself, I believe that each of the States had the power, and that we have the power to enforce it by legislation as well as by constitutional provisions. But I prefer that it should be a constitutional provision, in order to give it permanency, in order to avoid that fluctuation to which the laws of Illinois are very subject. Now, are we to leave this subject open, and permit Illinois to be a receptacle for all the worthless, superannuated negroes that slave-holders may chance to send into the State? Sir, it is not because that I dislike the negroes that I object to their coming into the State. I feel a sympathy for them; but this is a matter of self-defence. We are bound as a defensive measure to incorporate some provision of this sort into the constitution. We do not know how soon the question may come up in the legislature, in such a manner as will endanger the peace of the whole State. We know that it is a most exciting question, and by whatever method we can most effectually avoid its recurrence, it will be the best policy for us to adopt that course; and nothing less will do, it appears to me, than the insertion of a provision in the constitution, which will settle the question as long as the constitution remains in force.

Now, it has been contended by those who are opposed to the resolution, that we have no power to do it, because the constitution of the United States provides that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities which are enjoyed by the citizens of another State to which they may emigrate. Now, suppose a person acquired citizenship at the age of seventeen in the State of New York, and should then come to this State; would he be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen here? No sir, he would be subject to the limitations and restrictions

226

which are imposed by the laws of Illinois, in regard to citizen ship. Well, have we not the same power to limit as to color that we have in regard to age? Unquestionably.

It is a curious argument that has been used by some gentlemen, that by excluding negroes we exclude white men. I do not know how this is to operate, unless it apply to some particularly attached friend of the negro, who may feel disposed to follow him. If that be the case, then we should express it fully in the provisions which we adopt. Now, if there are men in Illinois who prefer the society of negroes, if there are men so extraordinarily anxious to associate with negroes, let them accompany their favorites to some locality where their presence may not be objectionable. But in this State, there are men who prefer the society of white men, and who have come here to get rid of an intolerable nuisance. Sir, I could with some patience listen to a proposition for the toleration of the presence of the negroes in this State, if it came from the negroes themselves, but when I have it coming from those who are acting from motives of interest, who are contemplating profit from the presence of negroes in the State, I have no patience. The distinction which God has made between the races can never be abolished. Sir, I do hope that the resolution will pass, and I have here another which I intend to bring before this Convention at the proper time.

Mr. SINGLETON here read the resolution which he had intended to offer.

The objections which will be brought up against a proposition of this sort are the very same as those which are urged against the proposition now before the convention. That this convention ought not to legislate upon the subject, for it is legislating. It is high order of legislation, and those are very questions for this body to legislate upon. Now, I ask is it not proper that we should adopt some permanent provision on the subject? Is it not a question of sufficient importance to demand the action of this body? If not, then let the subject be disposed of at once. If it is, let us say to those who are advocating the introduction of negroes here, and for extending to them all the privileges to which citizens are entitled, that we are not disposed to engage in any thing of the sort either now or hereafter.

227

But it is said, it is better to postpone the consideration of this subject. Now, I think every man's mind must be made up in regard to it. What would you think of a man who would say to you, I have a negro and you have a pretty daughter, I should like a marriage contracted between them, I do not want you to decide now, postpone your decision until some other time? Now, this is what is proposed here. It is an indirect proposition that the people of this State shall abolish all these distinctions which have heretofore preserved and protected society for the benefit (I do not know whether it is for the benefit, whether it is for the amelioration) of the condition of the negro or degradation of the white population. I did not intend when I arose to detain the convention so long as I have, but it is a subject on which I feel deeply, and it is a question of more importance, I think, than it seems to be considered by gentlemen who have been discussing it. I hope at least that gentlemen will consider well, before they give their votes, whether it is not better to adopt a permanent rule on the subject, than to leave it open to future legislation.

Mr. GEDDES next addressed the Convention. He was desirous that some prohibition against the introduction of a black population into the State should be enacted, but he was apprehensive that the insertion of such a provision into the constitution would create much difficulty, and might endanger its final adoption. If he were here in a legislative capacity, he would feel himself called upon to sustain such a proposition as the one now offered, but he thought it would be better that it should not be made a constitutional provision. He felt deeply for the condition of the unfortunate negro. He regarded slavery as a moral evil, but he did not believe that it could be abolished in the United States without creating ten-fold greater evil. The people of the South he regarded as the best friends of the blacks, and the climate of the South was best suited to them. He thought, therefore, that there would be no hardship or inhumanity in prohibiting them from entering this State; and he would be glad, therefore, to see such a prohibition enacted by the Legislature.]

Mr. LEMON was in favor of a prohibitory clause against

228

negroes coming into the State for many reasons, which we have it not in our power to furnish. In conclusion, he said, that he did not believe they were altogether human beings. If any gentleman thought they were, he would ask him to look at a negro's foot! (Laughter.) What was his leg doing in the middle of it? If that was not sufficient, let him go and examine their nose; (roars of laughter) then look at their lips. Why, their sculls [sic] were three inches thicker than white people's.

Mr. WEAD briefly opposed any provision in the constitution, as the Legislature had full powers to legislate on the matter.

Mr. McCALLEN opposed leaving this matter for future legislation, and advocated the adoption of the provision.

Mr. VANCE moved the previous question.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin moved to lay it on the table.

Mr. SINGLETON moved an adjournment. Lost. The yeas and nays were taken on laying the subject on the table — and resulted — yeas 80, nays 55.

Mr. LOGAN moved that Mrs. BROWN and daughters have the use of the Senate chamber on Saturday evening, for a concert. Carried.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

229

XVII. Saturday, June 26, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. PALMER.

Mr. SINGLETON presented the petition of H. G. Grimsley and others, for a provision in the constitution to prevent the emigration of negroes to, and the emancipation of, slaves in this State. Referred to the committee on the Bill of rights.

[Mr. S. said: It would be a reflection upon the sagacity of the House to attempt to conceal his object in presenting, at this time, the petition that had just been read. The subject had been largely discussed, and on yesterday laid upon the table of this house, where gentlemen intend it shall remain. He was not content with this discussion, or satisfied with the course taken upon the subject of this petition, by honorable gentlemen on this floor. He was determined not to be satisfied. It was a question of importance to the people of Illinois, and so considered by his constituents, and for them he should speak. He had, therefore, availed himself of this method of reflecting the will of his constituents, and of expressing his own deep feelings upon the subject. If I had asked this house to reconsider their vote of yesterday, upon the resolution of the honorable gentleman from Clinton, and that reconsideration had, the proposition would not have been in a shape most acceptable to its friends. In order, then, to present this question to the convention in another and different shape, and at the earliest moment allowed by its rules, the form of petition has presented itself as the only practicable mode.

My object, continued Mr. S., is not to abridge the privileges of the unfortunate negro, except as incident to the assertion of a principle and the correction of a most dangerous and diabolical practice. I speak, sir, upon this floor for my constituents and for myself, leaving to the superior ability of each friend of the proposition, contained in the prayer of the petitioners, the expression of their own views and the feelings of those they represent.

The petitioners have indicated in their prayer to this body,

230

their desire for such a permanent constitutional rule, upon the subject of free negroes, as will of itself effectually prevent their introduction amongst us, and at the same time prohibit the interference of our citizens with the negro property of our neighboring States, and secure the States and territories of the United States against any violation, by the inhabitants of this State, of those rights which have their foundation in the constitution of the United States, and acknowledged and respected by their laws.

But, Mr. President, it has been objected upon this floor, and elsewhere, that this is not the proper subject of constitutional law. And this objection, sir, comes from a quarter hitherto respected. Shall I believe, sir, that gentlemen who urge this objection are sincere? Shall I be thus free to yield up this question — my high opinion of their legal learning and sagacity? Or shall I concede that it was made for the mere sport of the breeze, and when the storm should rage, new counsel would be heard? Sir, I cannot consent to be guilty of such gross injustice to those gentlemen as would result from an acknowledgment of their sincerity. Do gentlemen who support this objection see that if it prevails, that they have contributed to the attainment of a most important and desirable object by the abolitionists — that it lays the foundation, is the basis, the very platform of all their future operations — that without this foundation no substantial fabric can be erected by them in this State — but upon such a foundation they would erect a superstructure that would last until the hour of a bloody revolution?

But at this point I am met by the arguments of gentlemen on the other side, "that the legislature will have ample power to correct this evil." Sir, I ask the gentlemen in reply, whether this is not a subject worthy of a permanent rule, and that it ought not to be subject to the changes that characterize the legislation of Illinois? And I ask gentlemen, whether the legislature, influenced by the example of this convention, would not rid themselves of the responsibility by postponing the subject to a succeeding legislature, and so on, until the evil shall have subdued our strength, and conquered all our hopes? If this matter is left open for the action of the legislature, away with all hopes of domestic happiness in Illinois. If this subject, of such high importance to

231

the social condition of Illinois, is not worthy of a place in our constitution, then had we better return to our constituents, never again to ask the honor of their trust and confidence.

Gentlemen have said, that the principles asserted by the resolutions were correct, but could not be enforced without legislative enactments. Sir, the friends of this measure desire for many reasons to take the matter out of the hands of the legislature entirely. Hence, the resolution provides that "the constitution shall of itself contain sufficient power to correct the evils complained of." As a matter of retrenchment, a constitutional provision would be eminently useful to bring the expenses of the legislature within proper limits. All these exciting and time-absorbing questions should be excluded from its jurisdiction. If the question should be left to the legislature, it would become the subject of barter and exchange in adjusting the various interests of the State. Gentlemen representing counties where the evil did not exist, would readily exchange their votes for or against the black laws, as they are called, for the purpose of securing some favorite measure of his [sic] constituents. It would at once hoist the flood-gates of corruption, and from the fountain of power would our country be overwhelmed.

But two other objections have been urged to the proposed provision, and with much energy upon the part of their respective friends. The honorable gentleman from Sangamon objects, because in his opinion, it would endanger the adoption of the amended constitution. The gentleman from Boone objects, because in his opinion, the North would reject the constitution, and for the additional high and weighty consideration, that we should be contravening the constitution of the United States. Sir, the constitution of the United States has laid the foundation for this provision; the States conceived it necessary in justice to each other, for their mutual peace and good will, and for the perpetuation of national harmony, that it should be so laid. The second section of the fourth article of the constitution of the United States, is intended to operate upon those only who are held to service or labor in any State or territory within the limits and under the Jurisdiction of the United States, and who may escape from such service or labor into this or any other State or territory within the

232

prescribed limits. The States owe it to each other, that this provision should be strictly enforced, by the adoption of such permanent and constitutional provisions as will effectually prevent the interference of the inhabitants of each, with the negro property of the other. But, Mr. President, this is not the constitutional provision by which the honorable gentleman from Boone (Mr. HURLBUT), seeks to establish the want of power in this Convention to enforce the proposition before it on yesterday; that provision is in these words: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." The gentleman supposes that all distinctions of color are, or may become unconstitutional, — that if a negro, who by the laws of New York is a citizen, and may exercise the right of suffrage, should emigrate to this State, he would in consequence of the laws of New York, and his emigration to the State, be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free white citizens of Illinois. Sir, this doctrine is too absurd to excite the least alarm. I apprehend that the gentleman would not insist that a boy of the State of New York, who was by the laws of that State entitled to vote, would upon his arrival here, in consequence of the New York laws, be taken out of the limitations and provisions of our own laws concerning minors? Has New York the right to fix an age of majority for us, and the qualifications of our electors? — Have we not full power to limit the rights of suffrage to those who have resided twelve months in this State? And have we not, sir, a perfect and indefeasible right to limit it to free white men over the age of twenty-one years? The objections of the honorable gentleman from Sangamon (Mr. LOGAN), do not apply to the proposition now before this Convention, nor sir, did they well apply to the proposition which was laid upon your table on yesterday. Sir, we have no desire to encumber the various amendments that will be submitted to the people: — or rather, sir, we wish this proposition not to be encumbered or endangered by any other amendment, and therefore the proposition now before the house is, that it shall be submitted as a distinct and separate amendment. Its friends rely upon its own intrinsic merit, and upon the high sense of popular honor and popular justice. But, sir, suppose it was not proposed to submit this to the people as a distinct and separate

233

provision — as was the case with the proposition of my honorable friend from Clinton, are we Sir, to be deterred from doing our duty here, because the gentleman objects that the North will reject the constitution? Has Illinois no other point but the North? Is there no South, no East, no West to the State? Have these points no power, no votes to give, for or against, the constitution? Is the voice of the North to prevail upon this floor to the exclusion of every other interest? Then, sir, let the south, the east and the west unite their feeble voices for their mutual security. If it is the determination of northern men to draw a line of distinction between the north and the south, — if the north is resolved upon a mixed society of free blacks and white population, with equal privileges, then, sir, let the line be formed that my constituents and myself may seek repose upon its southern side.

What, Mr. President, are we to think if gentlemen are truly representing the north upon this subject? How monstrous the declaration they have made! How threatening to the peace and all the sacred virtues of the State! Have gentlemen who would claim for New York negroes, or the negroes of any other country, the privileges of free white citizens of Illinois, sir, inquired into the extent of these privileges? If they have not, sir, let them divide the sovereign power of this State into as many parts as there are free white male citizens over the age of twenty-one years, and each part will be found to contain the privileges of a citizen, they will be astonished at the extent of privileges they claim for that degraded race. Sir, the fairest daughter in the land is not beyond their reach; the highest pinnacle of power and station, is accessible to their ambition; all the refinements of society are crushed and swallowed up in their progress, till not a virtue is left to mark our once exalted and dignified race. There are, sir, upon this floor undisguised abolitionists, who have in this hall voted directly upon the subject of abolishing the distinction of color. Sir, I admire the manly independence of those gentlemen, the color of their flag is not concealed, whilst I hate and despise their principles; but, sir I cannot express the slightest approbation of the conduct of gentlemen, who from various motives have voted with the abolitionists in securing a most important advantage to them and alike dangerous to us. If gentlemen have been actuated

234

by their regard for northern men, and what are here represented as northern principles, then let us have an open avowal, — throw off the flimsy cover of specious theory, and frankly acknowledge their degeneracy, that southern opinion, and southern principles may see and know by what they are opposed.

I cannot, sir, from my knowledge of northern gentlemen and ladies, believe that they are truly represented in all things upon this floor. Among them are many I feel proud to call friends, and to whom the idea of being reduced to the society of negroes would be most frightfully revolting. But, sir. If I did believe it, my course here would not be changed. I have made the proper inquiry of my conscience, and my constituents; they answer that I am right. They are not willing that a handful of abolitionists should trample over the great body of the people of this State, because they threaten to vote against the adoption of the constitution. Gentlemen should not be deterred by such threats from giving their support to correct principles, irrespective of men or places.

The effect of a principle upon a given portion of the State ought not to be considered. Enquire and learn the general tendency, effect and correctness of a principle, and apply it alike to all. But, sir, let me say, if local prejudices are to smother great and permanent principles, that I will pledge my constituents and myself against any constitution that may come from the hands of abolitionists without the desired prohibition. If gentlemen persist in arguing that it is not the duty of this Convention to act upon the question, then, sir, am I willing to meet them upon halfway ground, and strike out from the constitution everything which relates to slavery and involuntary servitude, if nothing but the society of negroes will suit gentlemen. Then, sir, leave every citizen of the State at liberty to introduce slaves if he pleases, and those who do not like the relation of master and servant will have an opportunity of indulging their taste.

The honorable gentleman from Winnebago added one other to the objections already noticed, that if this provision is adopted, it will drive many of our best citizens from the States. Truly, Mr. President, a most deplorable event that we shall lose that portion of our population who prefer the society of negroes to that of their

235

own race and condition! Sir, if there are such men in this State as the honorable gentleman speaks of, they can now have my leave of absence. Is the time of this Convention to be employed in attempting to reconcile men of this kind? Sir, the world is large enough for us all, and I have no desire to impose any restraint upon the taste of any men, if they are anxious to become the associates of negroes, or if they desire to establish any other relation between themselves and the negroes. I hope they may be indulged, but not at the expense of those who have no such taste or ambition.

When a petition was presented a few days since, praying among other things, that this Convention should abolish all distinction between the white man and negro, I moved to lay the petition on the table until December a year, because sir, it was an insult to this body, who were asked by the petitioners to degrade themselves; abolish all distinction between ourselves and the worthless herd of innumerable wretches that would flock to our State; but, sir, that petition was referred. For what, sir? For mere formal respect to the petitioners! Gentlemen thought and declared that it was right it should be considered. I will again refer to the case I supposed on yesterday — that there are two men living in the same neighborhood, one has a beautiful and interesting daughter, the other, had a well bred negro man in his employment; the latter proposes to his neighbor, sir, I wish you to receive my negro man into your family as a gentleman; extend to him the society of your daughter, and encourage their marriage together. Now, sir, I ask, could such a request be listened to by any man of ordinary self-respect with any degree of patience? Would he indulge the audacity of his unprincipled neighbor by delaying his answer? No, sir! Time is not necessary for the consideration of subject, and the answer, no, with a corresponding action, would put the contaminating wretch to flight. All such petitions contain in substance the same request, and ought to be as summarily disposed of. Members' minds were made upon this subject and they were ready to decide, but out of show of respect the petition must be referred. I have no respect, sir, for such petitions, or those who sign them, nor would I have them believe from this deceptive policy of referring that I had; and I am grateful to know that my

236

name stands among the independent spirits of this body who voted against its reference.

Allow me Mr. President, to return for a moment to that objection which seems most popular and plausible with gentlemen who have opposed our views on this discussion. It has been reiterated upon this floor, that this subject more properly belonged to the legislature. If it does, then let me ask if this body does not constitute the supreme legislative or law-making power of this State? It is the highest legislative power known to civil society, for whose good government and laws have been instituted — an object worthy of our action and patient deliberation — upon the organization of society governments were erected for their security and protection, and as society lies at the foundation, of government, all laws, either supreme or subordinate, should be framed with reference to its preservation and protection. It is our duty to see that it is not crushed and destroyed by the blighting curse of neglect. Society has given birth to power, and in the exercise of that power, its claims should first command our attention, and be the last to be postponed. Whilst the time and attention of the Convention is employed in arranging the length, breadth and power of office, and officers, the mere details of government is a great and paramount principle, to be overlooked, the influence of which is felt everywhere, extending itself to the family altar and the peaceful fireside. Sir, I cannot be content with such neglect of such a principle.

I now come, Mr. President, to consider the effect of leaving this question open, having already adverted to the effect of such a course upon the legislature, and the possibility of a further postponement by that body. I will consider briefly, its influence upon the question of equality as presented by abolitionists, and its moral effect upon the community at large.

Illinois has already been the theatre of outrages which brand her with almost indelible disgrace. The rights of neighboring States have been openly disregarded, the property of our neighbors forcibly taken, and forcibly withheld. Our own halls of justice have been invaded to inflict this violence, and now, sir, the public peace and tranquility, public and private justice, a due regard for the compact between the States, our self-respect, our

237

peace at home and our character abroad, all unite in demanding a remedy. If this question is postponed, an important point is gained by the abolitionist, without which they could not succeed with their iniquitous schemes; hence they are emboldened by this temporary triumph, they see their influence is felt and acknowledged, they will come out from their hiding places, and that which has been done under cover of night will be openly transacted. The negroes, sir, will be emboldened, and the public highways will scarcely afford them room to pass, such will be the rapid increase of their numbers and consequence.

The States that surround us have taken measures to rid themselves of this nuisance whilst Illinois, with open arms, invites them to her embrace. It is substantially an invitation to the superannuated and worthless free negroes of the south to come within our borders; it gives them assurance of present liberty, and future equality. It is in effect, a license to those who wish to engage in the lucrative business of negro-stealing from our sister States. It furnishes such men with facilities that could not be otherwise supplied, free negroes, thus introduced, become the agents and willing instruments of designing abolitionists; their depots will be erected upon each line of "underground railway," under the superintendence of some bold and enterprising free negro; and Illinois become the receptacle of this worthless and refuse population of all the States. — And we shall not find good citizens from abroad coming here, sir, to seek their society; but, on the contrary, those good citizens of Illinois, not lost to all the finer feelings of their nature, will seek another home. That equality here boldly proposed, will gradually but imperceptibly fix itself upon the institutions of the State. A Nat Turner will spring up to conduct a war of extermination against the whites.

If, sir, in the slave States an attempt to exterminate the whites should have been made, is it beyond the limits of probability, that in Illinois, where all legislation tends to encourage it, that it would also be attempted? The scenes of South Hampton in Virginia, will be re-enacted in Illinois; and the blood of our citizens be the alarming sacrifice. A minority of this body have demanded a remedy, without it their voice can never be still; though small in number, I am proud to be one of them; our position now is that

238

of sentinels upon the outer walls of the ramparts of social liberty, and our exertions will ever be to awaken Illinois to a sense of her danger. History presents to us an example that gives us hope; the example of our revolutionary fathers forbids us despair.

The patriotism of our glorious revolution first found in the hearts of a few, resisting the waves of British vengeance that lashed our shores, strikingly illustrates the power of the few, when coupled with unconquerable determination; but, sir, there is still another and broader foundation for our hopes, to be found in the more calm and deliberate consideration of this subject, by honorable members of this convention; when they look at the tendency of this great question to break the cords that bind us together as a nation; when they consider the inevitable tendency of their decision, they cannot consent to return to their consituents without repairing the insult and the wrong they have done them.

The effect of this question may be seen in the condition of our federal Union. The strength of our government has so far been equal to every internal division; but, sir, it owes its success to the concentrated power of a united people. The odious doctrine of abolition will "divide and conquer," and too much reliance on the strength of our government exposes us to a weaker power; broad, deep and firm as this government may be in its foundation, bold and commanding in its superstructure, it is not beyond the reach of such odious steps as have been allowed to abolitionists upon this floor. And when the time comes, sir, who will sympathize with Illinois, when the hideous shouts of exultation rise from a victorious negro population in Illinois? What sound but the death shrieks of liberty? Shall we hear it?]

PERSONAL

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, asked to be excused from any longer serving on the committee on Education. He assured the Convention, that in making this request, he was not influenced by any change of feelings or abatement of zeal, in regard to the great cause of education. Whatever situation he might occupy, his best efforts should continue to be directed to the advancement

239

of that cause, upon which depends in an eminent degree the moral, religious and political prosperity of the people.

Mr. GREGG said, that the course of the gentleman from Jo Daviess (Mr. CAMPBELL) was not unexpected to him (Mr. G.) after what had occurred the other day during the absence of that gentleman. I hope, however, said Mr. G., that what has occurred will not cause him to withdraw from the committee where his experience may be so serviceable to the Convention and the State.

[In order to make the report intelligible, the reporter would here state, that Mr. CAMPBELL is chairman of the committee on Education, and for the purpose of obtaining information and statistics, relating to the questions which had arisen and were likely to arise in the committee and the Convention, he went to Jacksonville on Wednesday last, after having apprised the committee of the object of his visit. On the following morning, Mr. EDWARDS of Madison, from the committee on Education, introduced a resolution, that that committee be requested to consider and report provisions for the security of the school fund; for a system of common schools, calculated to furnish Education to every child in the State; and also for the appointment of a superintendent. After submitting the resolution, Mr. EDWARDS made a long speech upon it, which, after it was concluded, the chair ruled out of order, on account of a resolution then on the table, which was entitled to precedence. Further action upon Mr. E.'s resolution was then postponed till the resolution entitled to precedence was disposed of; when that of Mr. E. again came up, Mr. GREGG moved to postpone it until Saturday, when Mr. CAMPBELL would be present. Messrs. EDWARDS of Madison, CHURCHILL and SERVANT, also advocated its postponement. Messrs. WILLIAMS, EVEY, DAVIS of Montgomery, PINCKNEY and KNOWLTON opposed it, and, after being amended, the resolution was adopted.]

Mr. EDWARDS, of Madison said, for one, Mr. President, I exceedingly regret that circumstances have occur[r]ed to produce an unfavorable impression upon the mind of the honorable member from Jo Daviess (Mr. CAMPBELL) in relation to what transpired during his absence. There is no gentleman in this State for whom I entertain a more profound respect, than the gentleman who

240

stands at the head of the committee on Education, and I assure him and his friends, that the part I bore in the action of the committee which was had during his absence, was not prompted by the least disrespect to him, but a desire to settle certain preliminaries and to pave the way to the consideration and investigation of questions which it was expected would come before the committee. I sincerely thought that the presentation of the resolution and the reference of the subjects included in it to the committee, would be approved by the honorable chairman of that committee. It was agreed by the committee, that no final auction should be had upon those subjects, until after the return of the chairman, in order that he might participate in the deliberations which might be had.

So far as I was concerned, Mr. President, I had but one desire, that of settling preliminaries necessary to enable the committee to enter upon the duties appropriately belonging to them. I was but an humble pioneer in the important matters involved in the resolution, and it was not my purpose to act upon them, in the absence of the chairman, whose experience and information were indispensible to an efficient performance of the duties assigned to the committee. I was too deeply impressed with a sense of that gentleman's capacity, to attempt to act without the aid of his abilities. The high estimation in which he is held by the people, and his past services in the cause of education, entitle his opinions and suggestions, on all questions before that committee, to more than ordinary consideration.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I will repeat, that the imputation that the committee acted in any manner inconsistent with a sentiment of the highest respect for the honorable chairman, is undeserved, and I hope that he will be induced to remain on the committee where his services are so much required.

Mr. DEMENT said, that the course of the member from Jo Daviess (Mr. CAMPBELL) was not unexpected by him (Mr. D.). I have, said Mr. D., heard the explanation of the honorable gentleman from Madison (Mr. EDWARDS) with much pleasure, and I should regret to have the member from Jo Daviess persist in his application to be excused from serving on the committee. I hope that he will reconsider his application, and not withdraw

241

from a station which he is so eminently qualified to fill, with honor to himself and advantage to the State. I hope that he will be satisfied with the explanation of the member from Madison.

I think that the difficulty has arisen in consequence of a desire on the part of the committee to act seasonably upon the matters before them; but I think, inasmuch as the chairman was absent for a day or two, for the purpose of collecting data and information to aid the committee in their investigations, that they ought to have awaited his return. I did think that there was ground for disagreeable feelings until I heard the explanation of the gentleman from Madison.

It is well known to the Convention that the subject of education is one in which the member from Jo Daviess takes the deepest interest. He was the first to present the propositions embraced in the resolution, and he has distinguished himself for the zeal he has manifested in an improvement of the school system. These facts are well known, and will account for his desire to participate in the action of the committee upon subjects that may be referred to them.

I am satisfied that there are no bad feelings on the part of the, committee towards him, and I hope that he and his friends, of whom I am proud to be one, will be satisfied with the explanation that has been made.

Mr. CHURCHILL said, that he supposed, when the resolution was introduced, that the committee was doing what the chairman would approve of. — He was, at the time, opposed to any final action upon the matters embraced in the resolution, but he did not then object to their being referred to the committee.

Mr. PINCKNEY said, he hoped that the gentleman would remain on the committee. He (Mr. P.) did not know, when the gentleman was absent, that he was engaged in the business of the committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL said, that he had apprised the committee of his intended visit to Jacksonville, and the object of it.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, that if the gentleman from Jo Daviess had been present when the resolution was offered he would not have taken exceptions to what took place on that occasion. The resolution was merely one of inquiry, not intended to be acted

242

upon by the Convention at that time; and when the gentleman from Cook (Mr. GREGG) proposed to postpone the debate till the chairman of the committee should have returned, no member on the floor was more warmly in favor of a postponement than the honorable member from Madison (Mr. EDWARDS). He thought that his friend from Jo Daviess was under a false impression in relation to the treatment he had received at the hands of the committee, and he desired that he would withdraw his application for a discharge, and consent to continue to serve as chairman.

Mr. SHIELDS said, that he was persuaded that the committee intended no disrespect to the gentleman from Jo Daviess. He had told the gentleman from Ogle (Mr. PINCKNEY) that the chairman of the committee was absent, and that he (Mr. S.) thought it proper to defer action until his return.

Mr. PRATT. As a friend and colleague of the member from Jo Daviess, it may not be regarded as improper in me, to express my views in relation to the subject which has given rise to this debate. In doing so, sir, I will not say that I am prepared to urge him to persist in his request to be discharged from the committee, after what has been said; but I will say, that I approved of his application, because I deemed it the only step he could take to maintain his own dignity and that of his constituents. It is known to this body, that my colleague had been absent from the people he now represents, for a period of four years, and that he returned to them only a few days before his election. He had been, during the period of his absence, serving the people in the capacity of Secretary of State, to his own detriment, so far as pecuniary matters are concerned, and it was his purpose, when he returned to Galena, to engage in the practice of his profession and repair the pecuniary loss he had sustained by accepting office. Independently of the ardent friendship entertained for him by the people of Jo Daviess, he had other pretensions to a seat in this body, among which were the services he had rendered in behalf of education. These, together with his great personal popularity, led his constituents to urge him to return to Springfield as a delegate to this Convention. He consented to make the sacrifice, and it is but natural that a desire should be felt to sustain the high estimation in which he is held by his constituents. In this, however,

243

he is doomed to disappointment, if the newspaper report of the proceedings of Wednesday last, is to go abroad without explanation. In these reports there is no explanation of the cause of his absence from his seat. — [Mr. P. here read the reports of the Journal and Register newspapers, which did not state that Mr. CAMPBELL was absent on the business of the committee.] His constituents (continued Mr. P.) might infer from this report, that he was absent from his post at the very moment when his services, as chairman of the committee on Education, were required; and this circumstance, unexplained, might go far to prejudice him in the confidence of those whom it is his highest aim to faithfully represent. This, together with a refusal by the Convention to postpone action on the resolutions offered by Mr. EDWARDS, until the chairman of the committee could be heard, would in the absence of explanation be a poor compliment to that gentleman, and in addition, would furnish to his enemies, abroad from here, quite too ready a weapon, which they might wield to his injury. These things were well calculated to mortify his feelings.

It is due to the honorable gentleman from Madison to say that, at the time the motion to postpone was made by the gentleman from Cook, it was seconded by him and urged in an appropriate manner; but I must say, sir, in this connection, that the gentleman from Ogle did not, in my judgment, act in this matter with that delicacy and courtesy which some years' acquaintance with his good name and reputation had taught me to expect from him. When my colleague, the chairman of the committee on Education, notified the committee of his intended absence, it was but courteous to postpone any action in the Convention on subjects previously brought by him before that committee, until his return; yet the gentleman from Ogle, when the gentleman from Cook proposed to postpone the resolution, opposed the postponement. If wrong in this, the gentleman can now correct me. The course of gentlemen, who opposed the suggested postponement, together with the final action of the Convention upon the subject, I cannot, if I would, deny was a source of mortification to me, and especially so when I recollected that when the report of the committee on the Executive Department was printed and laid on our tables, the consideration of the report was unanimously postponed on account

244

of the absence of the honorable chairman, who was away at the same time and for the same purposes as my colleague.

When I said, sir, that I regarded my colleague's withdrawal from the committee as an act due to himself and his constituents, I did not mean to be understood as advising him not to reconsider his application for a discharge. My desire was that he might be placed in a proper light before the country, and it is a matter within his own discretion, whether he shall, after what has been said, deem it proper to yield to the general wish of the Convention and consent to remain on the committee.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, I do not recollect that the member from Ogle urged an unqualified discussion of the question on Wednesday last. I understood that he desired, if discussion was to be had, that the honorable chairman should be present. I think that the member from Jo Daviess (Mr. PRATT) does not recollect the precise position taken by the member from Ogle.

Mr. SCATES. I think that the honorable chairman's course is right. It was proper for him to call the matter up in some form, and place himself right before his constituents. I am satisfied, from what has been said, that no disrespect towards him was intended, and I sincerely hope that he will now be satisfied and consent to remain on the committee.

Mr. SERVANT said, that as he had partaken in the debate at the time the committee had reported the resolution, he thought it would not be wrong in him to say a few words upon the matter before the Convention. He thought the matter was not viewed in a proper light. He never imagined that the least disrespect was intended by the committee, nor shown by any member of the Convention, towards the honorable gentleman from Jo Daviess, whose services and labors in the cause of education were so highly valued and esteemed. He hoped that gentleman would withdraw his request and that he would continue to afford the committee the benefit of his great talents and information. He thought the cause given for the request was without foundation, and he trusted the gentleman would be satisfied with the manifest opinion in which the house concurred that no disrespect was intended.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac hoped the gentleman from Jo Daviess would yield to what appeared the almost unanimous request of

245

the house, and withdraw his request to be excused, particularly when it was manifest that every member desired him to retain his post upon the committee, and known that his great abilities were required upon the committee. The committee of which the gentleman was chairman was one of the most important character, and of the greatest interest to the State, and he repeated his hope that that gentleman would retain his position and withdraw his request.

Mr. ALLEN joined in the request that the gentleman from Jo Daviess would withdraw his motion to be excused. Although he was much surprised at the time the resolution was reported, while the chairman of the committee was absent, and also surprised that it was not postponed till his return; he was satisfied, however, that no disrespect was intended by the action of the members of the committee, or of the Convention. He believed that sufficient had been said by every member of the committee to satisfy that gentleman that no disrespect was intended, and to induce him to remain on the committee. It was the desire of the country that he should do so; the gentleman's talents, and the much thought which he had given to the subject of education, had led the people to expect much from him. His able report on this question, and in relation to the appointment of a superintendent of public instruction, had awakened much interest, and had directed public attention to him as one pre-eminently qualified to be at the head of a committee on that subject. He hoped the gentleman from Jo Daviess would withdraw his request to be excused.

Mr. LOUDON said, that he entertained the highest respect for the gentleman from Jo Daviess, and he earnestly hoped that the request to be excused would be withdrawn. If the committee, however, had thoughtlessly reported in the absence of the chairman, he knew that none of the committee intended the least disrespect, to mar his feelings or injure his honor. The gentleman from Jo Daviess had a standing high in the estimation of the Convention and of the country, and he hoped their unanimous desire would induce the gentleman to continue in his post, as chairman of the committee.

Mr. LOGAN repeated what he deemed the universal desire of the Convention, that the gentleman from Jo Daviess would continue

246

on the committee, and withdraw his request. He felt sure, from what had been said, that the gentleman from Jo Daviess must feel now that no disrespect was intended by the gentleman from Madison, or the other members of the committee, in what had taken place in relation to the report.

Mr. HARDING said, he was a member of the committee on Education, and was confident that the course of the committee had not been dictated by any feelings of disrespect towards the chairman. The committee had held two meetings; at the first, the chairman was present and presided. They met again last Tuesday, the chairman was not present, the members came with several propositions, none of which were offered or acted on because of the absence of the chairman. It was, however, agreed that a resolution should be offered, as it was understood that no question should be inquired into without first having the matter come from the Convention. He had voted for that resolution, although he was opposed to the principles contained in it. In all this, no one, so far as he knew, intended the least disrespect towards the chairman.

Mr. ARCHER hoped that the gentleman from Jo Daviess would, after the explanations that had been given, and the disclaimers of all disrespect, withdraw his application to be excused from serving on the committee. The cause of education was one in which the people of the whole State felt the greatest interest, and one on which they looked to this Convention to bestow great deliberation; and as the talent and abilities of the gentleman from Jo Daviess had been, heretofore, somewhat directed to this subject, the people of the State looked to him for much of the care and benefit to be secured by this favorite question. He hoped, sincerely, that the request would be withdrawn.

Mr. SHUMWAY said, he was a member of the committee, but was not present at the meeting when this resolution was directed to be reported.

Mr. KNOWLTON said, that it was, perhaps, proper in him, as he had taken part in this matter when the committee reported the resolution, to say that his course and his remarks were not, in the slightest degree, intended to be disrespectful to the distinguished chairman of the committee — the gentleman from Jo

247

Daviess. Nor did he think that any was intended or shown by the action or language used on that occasion by the gentleman from Madison. He hoped the request would be withdrawn.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, that it was a matter of extreme regret to him that so much of the time of the Convention had been occupied by this subject. He did not expect this when the request was made. It was true that he was absent when the committee met, he had gone to Jacksonville. He had not gone there to attend to business of his own alone; not for his own amusement, but to get certain documents, which could not be had here, in reference to the very subject before the committee. When he returned he heard of what had taken place, and from the reports of the proceedings published in the papers, and the effect which he knew they would have on his constituents, he felt that they were as much calculated to injure his character, as they were deeply poignant to his feelings. Without being advised to do so by any of his friends, and without consultation with them on the subject, he, of his own accord, determined to withdraw from the committee. Accordingly, he made the request, but now, from what had taken place, he concluded to withdraw that request.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Madison, approved of the highly honorable course of the gentleman from Jo Daviess, and feeling what was due to his own character, he asked to be excused from serving on the committee.

Mr. DEMENT said, that he hoped the same reasons that had induced the gentleman from Jo Daviess to withdraw his application to be excused from serving on the committee on Education, would also induce the gentleman from Madison to do the same. I know not, said he, who the other gentlemen are that compose that committee, but I do know that there are none in the State whom I would rather see on that committee than those two gentlemen. I know not what the gentleman from Madison may have thought required him to make this request, but I hope that he will continue to serve, so that the Convention and the State might have the united talents of the two gentlemen.

Mr. CONSTABLE said, that while he approved of the honorable course of the gentleman from Jo Daviess, he would hope the gentleman from Madison would not withdraw his application.

248

He was the friend of both parties, still he thought that, after what had fallen in the remarks of gentlemen, that his friend from Madison ought not to continue on the committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL agreed with the gentleman last up, and considered that the conduct of the committee had been unjustly alluded to, and he would not continue to serve; he, therefore, asked to be excused from that committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery was of opinion that the gentleman from Madison should not withdraw his application.

Mr. SCATES, not being much versed in matters of etiquette, could not see, from what had transpired, any necessity for the request of the gentleman from Madison. He was sure that no one had intimated that that gentleman had acted in any way the least unworthy of his distinguished reputation.

Mr. WHITNEY, after speaking in the highest terms of both gentlemen, and in approval of their conduct, said that, while he anxiously desired that the gentleman from Madison would withdraw his application, he would vote for excusing him if he persisted that his withdrawal was necessary.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac sincerely hoped that the gentleman from Madison would adopt the same course pursued by the gentleman from Jo Daviess and withdraw his application. Neither the gentleman from Jo Daviess nor any of his friends desired to injure the feelings or the honor of the gentleman from Madison, and he hoped he would continue on the committee.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison said I respect the course of the honorable gentleman from Jo Daviess, and I wish not to be understood as entertaining the least feeling of disapprobation of the course of the gentleman or any of his friends on this floor. But I hope they, and the Convention, will respect my feelings, for I cannot act on that committee and rest under the imputation that must, from this discussion, be placed upon my actions.

Mr. LOGAN explained that when he had requested the gentleman from Jo Daviess to withdraw his application, that he in no wise admitted that the conduct of the gentleman from Madison, or the committee, had been wrong. He appealed to the gentleman from Madison to withdraw his application. He (Mr. L.) could not be shoved off any committee by what anybody said.

249

Mr. KNOWLTON was extremely gratified when the gentleman from Jo Daviess had withdrawn his request to be excused, because he was satisfied that no disrespect to him had been intended. He would not, however, desire the gentleman from Madison to withdraw his application.

Mr. HAYES said, that he was one of those friends of the gentleman from Jo Daviess who had requested that gentleman to withdraw his request, and he did not wish to be understood as having in any way thrown any imputation upon the honorable gentleman from Madison. He offered the following resolution, and asked its unanimous adoption.

Resolved, That it is the unanimous desire of this Convention that the Hon. Cyrus Edwards shall retain his position as a member of the committee on Education.

Messrs. PINCKNEY, ARCHER and BROCKMAN hoped the application made by the gentleman from Madison would be withdrawn.

Mr. CONSTABLE repeated his opinion that the gentleman from Madison should not withdraw his request.

Mr. DEMENT made some remarks in reply to Mr. C.

Mr. CONSTABLE made a rejoinder, which drew forth a surrejoinder from Mr. D.

On motion, the Convention adjourned till 4 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess appealed to the gentleman from Madison to remain on the committee. He and his friends were fully satisfied of the purity of the motives of the gentleman from Madison in what had taken place.

Mr. EDWARDS, of Madison said, he had no feeling of resentment towards anyone in that hall. He had acted only in obedience to a sense of duty towards the committee. The cause of his request was not here, for he felt that no one then would suspect his motives or attribute to him anything dishonorable, but when the published proceedings of this day are sent forth with such comments as might be made, the imputation that he had endeavored to supplant the honorable gentleman as the head of that committee, would be placed upon him. This is why he desired to be

250

excused from the committee. He would leave the matter with the Convention.

The resolution offered by Mr. HAYES being withdrawn at the request of Mr E., the request of that gentleman to be excused was unanimously refused.

Mr. CHURCHILL'S application was also refused.

Mr. Z. CASEY, from the committee on Revenue, to which had been referred the resolution directing them to inquire &c., of fixing a maximum rate of taxation, reported the same back and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. Agreed to.

Mr. SHARPE offered the following resolution; which was adopted:

Resolved, That the 11th section of the 2d article of the present constitution be referred to the committee on the Organization of Departments and Officers connected with the Executive Department.

Messrs. MARSHALL of Mason, VERNOR, SCATES, THORNTON, DAVIS of Massac, KINNEY of St. Clair, CROSS of Winnebago and POWERS offered resolutions of inquiry which were referred to appropriate committees. No copies of the same having been furnished, we are unable to give them.

Mr. SERVANT offered the following resolution; which was adopted:

Resolved, That the committee on the Judiciary be instructed to inquire into the expediency of exempting persons having conscientious scruples, from serving on juries, upon such terms as shall be deemed reasonable and just.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess offered the following; which was adopted:

Resolved, That the Executive committee be requested to inquire into the expediency of inserting in the constitution a clause providing for the election of sheriffs for — term of years, and making them ineligible for more than one year consecutively.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

251

XVIII. Monday, June 28, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. GREEN, of Tazewell.

Mr. CANADY offered a resolution, that the committee on Incorporations report a clause, to be incorporated into the constitution, granting banking privileges upon certain conditions.

Mr. MARKLEY offered a substitute, that said committee should report a clause prohibiting banks.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to lay the subject on the table. Lost — yeas 62, nays 49. [sic]

Mr. SINGLETON offered a resolution of inquiry in relation to officers for life. Carried.

BANKS

Mr. SCATES moved that the Convention go into committee of the whole, and take up the subjects made the special order of the day for Friday last; which motion was carried, and the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon, in the Chair.

The propositions submitted by Messrs. CHURCHILL, MCCALLEN and GREGG, were taken up by the committee.

Mr. SCATES offered the following:

Whereas, the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes," and "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures" has been granted exclusively to the United States, and the power "to coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" has been prohibited to the States; therefore,

Resolved, That the States ought not to attempt to do indirectly what they have no power to do directly.

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to inquire into the expediency of submitting, for the consideration of the people at the polls, whether they wish or desire to place a

252

total prohibition upon the Legislature to attempt to create, extend or authorize any banking powers or privileges in this State, or any exclusive powers or privileges not common to other citizens.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, that he did not rise to detain the Convention by any lengthy remarks, but he desired to express his views upon this question. — He was one of those who were opposed to banks of any kind or under any system; and he came from a region in this State where the people were all opposed to banks. He, himself, had always been opposed to banks, either local or State banks. He looked upon the present as one of the most important questions that was to be decided by this Convention, indeed, it was more important than any other, for it would have a great weight upon the interests of the people, their prosperity and trade. It would, also, affect, more than any other single question, the fate of the Constitution which this Convention would adopt. The Convention had a different task to perform than had the Convention which framed the constitution of the United States. The delegates to that Convention came from different States, and endeavored to retain all the power to the States which was possible, and they gave Congress the power to pass no laws the power to pass which was not expressly stated in the constitution. Our duty is different. Our Legislature may pass any law which is not forbidden by the constitution, or which does not come in conflict with the constitution of the United States. This great power, thus vested in the Legislature, pointed out the necessity of placing some restrictions in the constitution upon their committing any acts affecting the happiness, wealth and prosperity of the people. He remembered the time when there was but one bank in the State, and he remembered, also when there was but one newspaper — published at Edwardsville. He, also, well remembered how this paper would publish lists of the banks whose notes would be received at the land office, and that when men in Kentucky and other States would bring those bank notes here to invest in land, they would find that the list published the week before had been stricken out and new banks inserted. In 1819 the Edwardsville bank closed. The Legislature then tried their hand again, and created the bank at Vandalia, whose notes bore 2 per cent. interest. These went for some time, and after

253

awhile they became so depreciated that they passed two for one, and then three for one. The Legislature finally passed a law to cut the notes in half so that each end of a dollar bill should be taken for half a dollar, and the halves of a $3 bill for $1.50. This state of things continued a long while, and the notes became so depreciated that they sold for a trifle; speculators made fortunes by buying them up. The treasury finally redeemed them. — From 1824 to 1835 we had no banks, and I ask any man if, during that time, we were not prosperous and out of debt? Drovers from Pennsylvania and elsewhere came here and bought up the stock of our people, and paid them in cash for it, and all things went on well. We were prospering slowly but surely. There were no suits going on, except litigated cases; no suits before justices of the peace, except when parties disputed, or where men were unable to pay the debt.

In 1834 or '35 the Legislature chartered a State bank, and revived the Shawneetown and Cairo banks, and these institutions scattered their branches all over the State; and then we commenced the internal improvement system, which would never had [sic] been the case had it not been for the inflated currency of these banks — then came the rise in the prices of everything — pork went up suddenly to 5 1/2, cows to $10, and labor from $10 per month to $20 — all the people made calculations upon the existing prices, and all embarked in speculation. Such always are the calculations made by people under such a sudden change of affairs, even experienced merchants commenced speculating. But, sir, the system of internal improvements was broken up. Then came the reaction. Everything went down faster than it had come up. Pork to 1 1/2, labor to $7.50, and the whole people became in debt. Not because they had not the property, but because they had no money, and their produce would not bring what they had calculated it would. The banks are all broken up, and we now feel the consequences of the evils they worked. We find ourselves in debt to the amount of thirteen or fourteen millions! They had, also a demoralizing effect upon the people. Many young men (indeed, all turned speculators,) threw off their jeans coats, became too proud to work upon their fathers' farms, and might be seen dressed in the finest style, looking like physicians or the greatest

254

aristocrats. All upon credit! We come here to reform our State government; we are about to adopt measures to relieve the State of her debt — farmers are realizing fair prices for their products, the State, so far as individuals are concerned, is out of debt — though every thing heretofore has been tending to our ruin — and we are fast going out of difficulties into which that system had led us. If these things really are, if farmers are receiving the best prices, &c., where the necessity of banks? I hope the gentlemen will point us to the necessity for banks. They ought to do so, for they propose a system filled with horrors, and they should show the necessity for its adoption. It is too late in the day for gentlemen to say that banks are necessary to raise the value of our property. The demand always regulates the value of an article.

What is the staple of Illinois? Pork, beef and flour. Are banks necessary for the sale and purchase of these? Are we not an agricultural State, and are banks necessary for us? No, sir. These products find a market elsewhere and not in this State. Banks cannot raise their price, people must come here from abroad to purchase those articles, and the price will always be regulated by the demand. Gentlemen say they are opposed to banks, yet will not vote for a prohibitory clause; and I must reply to what was said by the gentleman from Christian the other day when the vote was taken on this subject. He said, that he was opposed to banks, that they were a curse and an evil, that they were horrible to his feelings, but that he would vote against a prohibitory clause because it would endanger the adoption of the constitution. Does that gentleman think that the people are in favor of banks? Does he think that the majority of his party are in favor of them? I represent two counties — Bond and Montgomery — both counties, without distinction of party, are opposed to banks in any form. Gentlemen should remember that no petition for banks has been presented to the Convention, and no petition against a prohibitory clause. The whole difficulty was, that these fears had taken possession of the brains of these gentlemen — How do they act on other questions? It is asked, must we cut down the number of the Legislature? They answer "Oh, yes!" Must we reduce their pay? "By all means, yes." Must we reduce the pay of the judges, of the Governor, and regulate

255

the duties of all other officers? They unhesitatingly answer, "Oh, yes." But on this question of the banks, they cry out, "you should not bind up the hands of the people on that subject, but leave it for future time." They say, further, that though the people now may be opposed to banks, and we would vote against them, but perhaps the people may change their minds hereafter and want banks, and we should not close the matter by a prohibitory clause. Why, sir, the very same reason would allow all parts of the constitution to be left open to suit every change of opinion. The people of his county said that the Legislature already had too much power, and, among other reforms, desired it to be restricted. He understood that on the table was a proposition to adopt the New York banking law, which had been introduced because it was said that there was a majority against the prohibitory clause. Sir, if Illinois was composed of materials that would burn, I would rather see her destroyed by fire than such a system of plundering and robbing introduced in this our own prairie State. If a general banking system be spread over this State, we may look for ruin, blast, blight and mildew to come upon us. If we are to have banks, let us have no general laws throwing open the State and extending an invitation to shavers and brokers to come amongst us; if we do, we will have the scenes of Wisconsin over again, and we will have red dog, worse than red dog, banks amongst us. — He was not desirous to misrepresent or criminate gentlemen who, no doubt, represented the views of their constituents as well as he, but we must judge of the future by the past. We are ripe for speculation, and he asked gentlemen not to throw out to the people these inducements to forsake their business and employments, to enter into this scheme of speculation, which would bring upon them nothing but blast and blight.

Mr. GREGG said, that when he had introduced the proposition submitted by him and now on the table, he did so with reference to the peculiar state of circumstances existing at the time. From the vote taken a few days before, he thought it was the intention of the Convention that some system of banks should be adopted. I thought that if this was to be the result that we should close the door to a general and unrestricted system. I thought we had better leave the abstract question alone and judge things and act

256

on them as we find them; that we should take into consideration how our resources, condition and facilities stood and leave theories out of the question. The people of my county are divided on this question, but I believe that a majority of them are opposed to banks and banking, because they believe they are prejudicial and injurious to the whole country and people. He, after weighing all these matters, had come to the conclusion that if we were to have banks we should so restrict them by our constitutional provision that they would be as little of prejudice and injury as possible; and that the floodgates should not be left open and all the evils flowing from an unrestricted system of banking to come upon us with all its evils and calamitous consequences. If there be any inconsistency in what had been done he saw it not in his position nor in the proposition he had introduced, but in those who, failing in a prohibition, will leave this matter to the Legislature. Was not his course more in accordance with their duty as men not legislating for the present time, but for the whole State, and for all future time? He thought we should study the banks in their consequences, and in such a manner as will allow us to deliberate understandingly, and with the best views to the advancement of the prosperity of the people. We are now without banks; we have had an experience — and he might say an experience of ruin, misfortune and disaster — of them, and shall we bring that ruin and misfortune upon the people again? Do we need them? We are an agricultural State and not a commercial one. It was the intention of the framers of the constitution of the United States that there should be no currency but gold and silver. There had been issued during the revolution over 300 millions of paper money and it had been the currency during that time and much depreciated. Its evils were so apparent that they introduced into the constitution a regulation that the government should emit no bills of exchange. But means were soon found to evade this, and the country has been since flooded with this kind of a currency. How is it, he would ask, that our prosperity is periodical, and "good times" occasional? It was owing to the creation of these monopolies, who [sic] raised and depressed the trade and commerce, and the means of the people, by their schemes of speculation. We ought to be always prosperous, we have the means

257

and resources within us, to have that prosperity continued, and it must be owing to these monopolies created by our Legislature, which conferred upon them privileges and rights which were not enjoyed by the people in common. He would prefer that all privileges and rights should be distributed that, like the dews of heaven, all might share alike. The benefits are not equally distributed to all classes alike, but special privileges are granted to special persons to eat out the substance of the people. To these chartered monopolies we may trace all our misfortunes. Mr. G. then refer[r]ed to the banking operations in England, where he said there had been from 1793 to 1826, 381 failures in a brief period of 34 years, after which he proceeded to review the history of the banks, their failures, suspensions, and the losses caused by them to the people and Government of the United States. He said that from the time of the war to 1819 — the paper currency was in a most wretched condition, that in 1819, there came a general suspension; in 1825 the panic was universal. In 1837, the paper currency system had become inflated to its utmost capacity and the bubble burst, and ruin was universal; every man's fortune was affected by it. Let us carry out an unrestricted system of banking, and panic and ruin will come upon us in all its unmitigated horrors and evil consequences.

In 1839 banks again suspended, and similar consequences ensued — and thus from 1817 to '39 there had been no less than eight general suspensions of this inflated paper currency. Have the people suffered nothing from a paper currency? Mr. G. read from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, made in 1841, by which it appeared, that the loss sustained by the federal government up to February, 1841, by the employment of banks and paper money was $15,492,000! That since 1789 there had been three hundred and ninety-six bank failures in the United States, with the following capital: Capital of twenty banks failed before 1811, $3,000,000; between 1811 and '30, one hundred and ninety-five banks with a capital of $36,787, 309; since 1830 upwards of 181 (including the Bank of the United States) with an estimated capital of $95,000,000. Making an aggregate amount of capital of these banks of $134,787,309. He also read the following as losses sustained by the people since 1789:

258

By bank failures on capital, circulation, deposites, and bank balances, $108,855,721; by suspension of specie payments and depreciation of notes, $95,000,000; by destruction, war and accidents, $7,127,332; by counterfeit notes beyond losses by coin, $4,444,444; by fluctuation in bank currency, &c., $150,000,000; making an aggregate of $365,451,497; to which add the capital of the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, $35,000,000, and the total loss will be $400,451,497. Are not these, he asked, matters of a startling character, and which are undoubtedly a history of the evils of an unmitigated nature, bringing destruction and ruin upon the people. And any system which contains within it the principles of such ruin, and which may produce all these alarming consequences, should be well inquired into, and he thought they should hesitate long in adopting it. There were at present upwards of nine hundred banks in the country. Their universal rule was to over-issue notes in a proportion of three dollars to one on their capital; and in this way they fabricate their own wealth, and who does not see that they thus have conferred upon them an inconceivable advantage, and that they can go into market with this increased capital and drive away all competition, and of necessity must monopolize all the business and trade of the country.

Another thing in the system of banks, was that the capital is hot usually paid in, a small proportion only is paid and the balance secured by the notes of the stockholders. For instance — the first United States Bank had a capital of $10,000,000, of which was paid in, one-half a million; the second Bank of the United States had a capital of $35,000,000, and only two million was paid in. Yet upon this small amount of capital actually paid into the bank, the discounts and dealings in exchange during one year and a little over, amounted to $43,000,000. And this, sir, is but a specimen of the transactions that are carried on under this system — styled banks and banking. In 1840 the total amount of bank capital in the United States was $360,000,000, and the total amount of specie collected in their vaults was $33,000,000. Their loans and discounts on notes amounted to $460,000,000. It was also their practice to make large loans to presidents and directors, without security, and in 1840, there was due by directors of the banks to the several banks the sum of $150,000,000, and one-third

259

of this was due on loans. By a report of a committee appointed to examine the affairs of the United States Bank it appeared that there was due that bank by one Thomas Kidwell, a broker in Philadelphia, over $11,000,000, which had been loaned out to him for the purpose of shaving. At the same time that that bank was loaning out this great sum to that man, loans were refused to good men of that city and upon responsible paper; and they were obliged to go to this broker and pay him large discounts, thus forcing men to pay them indirectly by this shaving, what they could not charge directly, and this too, upon well secured paper. He thought it would be conceded by all that any system of banking was highly dangerous. Is there, he asked, in the whole system of government a greater power conferred than that of creating a currency? And if this power is to be exerted it should be in the hands of the government and not placed in the control of irresponsible corporations, institutions or associations. It is a power not to be conferred upon any body of incorporated individuals, no matter now respectable they might be, or the standing they occupied in the world.

It is destructive upon business, it creates uncertainty in trade, and makes the business of the country a mere lottery. It is also destructive of the morals of the community. In 1824 the banking issues in the U. S. was [sic] $40,000,000; in 1837 they had increased to $140,000,000, and at this time was the great suspension. In 1843 they had decreased to $53,000,000, and in 1846, they had gone up to $105,000,000, nearly doubling in the last three years. I shall use these facts, when more properly in order, to show the great uncertainty which these enlarged bank issues create. It had been admitted by the head of the U. S. Bank, a man who certainly had great experience in banking, and with all its business, that the tendency of all banks was to create an over issue of paper. And thus it gave them a great advantage over the rest of the community, while the over issue was thrown out into the market. When this occurs, it produces over-trading, and every man embarks in business and speculation — prices increase — the laborer receives higher prices, and so with all other business. The currency is inflated, and business becomes inflated just as unnaturally as is everything else. Wherever this happens to be the case, then the importations increase and immense quantities of goods are brought into the

260

country. After a while these goods are to be paid for, and the currency of this country — these bank notes, which they can have so plentifully, will not answer to pay for them, and the specie which is hoarded up in the banks must be drawn out, and goes abroad to pay for these very goods. Then commences the ruin. The banks deprived of their little specie, are cramped in their business and forced immediately to curtail. Then follows the distress and ruin, and panic. This, sir, is the consequence of over trading, which is always followed by a reverse, and then is destroyed the fancied prosperity of men's speculations. Can it be attributed to anything else than the over issues by these chartered monopolies?

In 1837 the indebtedness to the banks of the Union was 525 millions, the specie in their vaults, and on which their issues were based, was 38,000,000. On this small sum of 38,000,000 was the great paper money bubble based, and which when exploded cast ruin, misfortune and destruction upon all classes of the community. When these banks are obliged to make these forced collections they generally so manage it as to become the purchasers of all the property, particularly of the real estate of their creditors, which gives them a power and influence which is highly dangerous to the people, and the State.

What necessity have we for them? Why should we desire to obtain a currency or encourage institutions which have within their system the elements of so much ruin and destruction?

It is said that there is not specie enough in the country, to buy our goods and enable us to carry on our trade. This is not the conclusion I have come to after an examination of the subject. Mr. G. here read an extract from some work, which treated of the subject, which stated that according to Mr. GALLATIN'S calculation, made in 1831, there was in the world $400,000,000 in specie, that of this sum there was over $277,000,000 in Europe and U. States, and that if divided there would be $16 [for] every man, woman, and child in the country.

He here read an extract from ‘Gouge on Banking’ to sustain this position. He said that he thought this sufficient to prove that banks were not needed for the purpose of creating a currency, and that there was enough of specie to transact all business.

The experience of other countries was not to be disregarded,

261

and he would refer the gentleman to France, at the time of the revolution. They had a paper currency, which had sprung up during that time, more trifling and depreciated than was our own during the revolution.

Assignats were issued all over the country in large and dangerous quantities, and had become worthless and depreciated. Napoleon, when he became first consul, with intuitive sagacity and profound knowledge of such things, the moment he had the power, broke up the whole system of paper money and introduced a new order of things. He established a metallic currency. He said no paper for a less amount than five hundred francs should be issued; and gold and silver flowed in in abundance, and to this day they have a metallic currency.

Such would be the case here were we not cursed with these banking institutions. Look at Cuba, she is not cursed with paper or bank issues, and has nothing but gold and silver. I may be met with the remark that these countries are not republican, that their forms of government and institutions are different from ours, Is this a proper answer? If the people of France live not under a system of government like ours, must we not follow them in anything? We must not look to them for examples of wisdom, moderation, science, or justice, because they live under a monarchy Nor must we look to Europe for such examples, nor refer to Cuba. No matter if the autocrat of northern Europe, or the sultan from his harem, gives us an example of wisdom, must we throw it away, reject it, put it behind our backs, because it comes not from the same kind of government! Sir, good examples and just principles belong to no nation or creed, or State, or form of government. I take leave, before I conclude, to refer briefly to the plan I have proposed, and which is now before the committee. It is divested so far as possible of the features of monopolies, and I have presented it in this shape so that, if these banks or some system is to exist, and its blighting effects are to be cast upon the people, its rough and rugged features shall be thrown away. It is not the New York system of banking, as has been said — it goes beyond that system. Another safe-guard, I think, is, that it leaves the matter with the people; the action of the Legislature is not final, and after they shall have acted upon it it must go to the

262

people, and there fiat must be passed upon it. Here we have a double safe-guard — the wisdom of the Legislature, and the action of the people, who may trample on foot any act of the Legislature. Again, if, after it shall be thus approved of by the people and the Legislature, it shall appear to be more productive of evil than was anticipated, it is placed in the power of any Legislature to repeal or abolish it.

If any system is to go from this Convention to throw its blighting influence on the people, their business and their resources, let it go without throwing open these safeguards upon its actions. I think it would be better for the Convention to adopt a system of banking and a prohibitory clause — an alternate proposition, and submit them to the people; let them be discussed in the primary assemblages of the people, and I have no fear of the result; no fear of the adoption of the prohibitory clause by a large majority. But if we are to have any system, let me have choice of one which is the least calculated to work injury.

Mr. LOUDON said, that he had listened with pleasure to [the] very good speech of the gentleman, and he, Mr. L., were he an anti-bank man, would now try and make an anti-bank speech, but as he was a bank man he would make a bank speech. Mr. L. spoke for some time, in reply to Mr. GREGG, and in support of a good banking system. His remarks are unavoidably crowded out.

Mr. SCATES said, he did not expect to throw much light on the subject, but the question, it was not to be denied, was one of all absorbing interest, and one on which the two political parties were divided. Much as gentlemen might regret the introduction of party questions in a Convention assembled to frame a constitution, they must not expect to see parties forget their party principles. This was a question on which there could be no compromise. Those opposed to banks would not consent to any form of a bank that would be acceptable to the friends of a bank, and these bank men would not vote for a prohibition.

If I attempt to give my views on the subject, gentlemen must not think me desirous to be too wise, when I say that in my opinion the people of Illinois have spoken solemnly, firmly and positively, that there shall be no banks in the State, and no compromise will be acceptable to them. I remember to have often read and heard

263

of such a thing as a judicious tariff, and that it was soon found out that a judicious tariff means nothing definite, for every man undertook to define and judge what sort of a tariff was a judicious one. It is something the same way with a "well regulated bank," here is the same difficulty — no two will agree what is a well regulated bank. Sir, there never was such a thing as a well regulated bank submitted to the people; nor can any man propose one. The gentleman from Cook, who says he is opposed to all banks, has submitted a plan of what he considers a well regulated bank. But are there no objections to it? I know one, sir, and an important one, which for fear I may forget it, I will repeat it at once. His plan will not prevent a suspension of specie payments; I ask him if it is not so?

Mr. GREGG said, that there was an express provision that the Legislature should pass no law permitting a suspension of specie payments.

Mr. SCATES. I understand it correctly. But does the law prevent the bank from suspending? and that currency becoming depreciated in the hands of the bill holders. There is no way to prevent the bank from suspending; no remedy for the loss to the bill holder. Will any gentleman propose that the loss to the bill holder shall be put into his pocket from the treasury of the State The winding up of a bank may be a punishment, but will it remedy the evil? The fact of suspension, is a fact that no written prohibition can avoid, and no parchment prohibition can pay the loss on paper depreciated, perhaps, 50 cents in the dollar. Nor can we say that the bank, if it fails and its paper becomes depreciated, shall pay the bill holder, unless we give the bank the means to do so with. The gentleman's position is an enigma to me, and I'll not undertake to unriddle it. He has portrayed in the most vivid colors that the banks are evils, and has said that the people will sustain a prohibitory clause, yet he has come to the conclusion that we must have banks. This is truly an enigma to me. One objection to a prohibitory clause is, that it forever binds the people who may hereafter desire a bank. If we were to recognize the principle that we must act, in framing this constitution, with due regard to the changes of the popular mind, we had better go home at once, for that would defeat the ends of all constitution. —

264

The bill of rights says, that no man shall be dis[s]eized of his freehold; no man shall be punished without a trial by his peers; no ex post facto law shall be passed; the people's mind may change on either or all of these principles, and why should we place them in our supreme law of the State? Who will advocate this? But gentlemen desire this loose action on the bank question, which will be as great a tyranny as any other. If I have any idea of the opinion of the people of Illinois upon this subject, if I have not definite information of their views, then say I have no information at all. They are opposed to banks. Sir, for the last several years the whole democratic press of the State — with perhaps one exception — spoke out openly their opposition to banks, and the politicians throughout the State have opposed the banks, and I have thought that the people have sustained them in their position. But I come here, and what do I find? The democratic party divided upon this subject, here with instructions to vote against a prohibitory clause, and the party are in a glorious minority. — We have been told that the democratic party have the majority in this State, in the Legislature and in the Convention, that they are responsible for everything that has been done and which this Convention shall do, because they have the strength and the numbers to rule. I admit that the democratic party had the majority and the power, but not at present and I cannot illustrate its position better than by relating an anecdote. It is said that there was one John Thompson who had been up to the market and had started on his way home. Unfortunately, however, John fell asleep, and the oxen pulled the cart into a mud hole; while it was there two yoke of the oxen broke from their cart, strayed away and are now looking with anxious eyes into the rich pasture of banks and banking privileges to which they and their friends are about to be admitted. John Thompson was unable to get his cart out because of the loss of his team, and gentlemen must not throw the responsibility on the democratic party. Our team has been stolen, and they must not expect us to pull the government cart out of the mud until we get back our team; and others after starting on this metallic road, their feet have become cut and a little tender and they too, have gone off and refuse to pull.

The position of certain gentlemen reminded him also of another

265

anecdote: Two gentlemen went out hunting, after some time one of them fired at a deer, his friend hearing the rifle shot, came up and asked him what he had shot at, he replied, "At a deer, there it is." "Why," said the friend, "that is a calf; have you shot your neighbor's calf?" "No," answered he. "I shot so that if it was a deer I would kill it, and if a calf I would miss it." So it was with those who were against a bank — if it was a bank, but for a calf &c. Let gentlemen aim so as to shoot but not to kill their neighbor's calf. And these gentlemen who were so anxious to preserve their neighbor's calf, to them he could wish no greater punishment than did Aaron and the other idolaters receive when they built their golden calf, from the hands of the Almighty.

Mr. S. then said, the question was not whether the banks will suspend, it should be, can they? Yes, sir, they can, and may suspend, no constitutional provision can avoid it; the power is in banks to cause losses of millions to the community, and there is no way to prevent it but one — that is, not to allow them to be incorporated. Another way in which these banks caused losses to the community was, that all bank paper, at any distance from the banks, was at a discount of 5 per cent., and the loss to the people upon the amount of the total issues of the bank was immense. A note is at 5 per cent. discount, it is passed at that depreciated value, one hundred times a year. Say the discount is at two per cent., the loss is, therefore, 200 per cent. on the face of the note, and all this loss is paid for the use of a paper currency. Mr. S. illustrated this view by several examples, and then examined many facts in relation to the management, frauds and evils resulting from banks in general, and the bank of the United States in particular. In one single year, he said, the defalcation by presidents and directors of these banks amounted to forty-two millions of dollars and over; and if gentlemen were prepared to go for the adoption of such a system, which could produce such results, he doubted their statesmanship. Half that loss would pay the whole expenses of the Mexican war, or support a war against a more powerful enemy; yet it was all borne without complaint, the loss to the government up to the year 1842, was $131,000,000, a sum equal to the expenses of the last war with Great Britain.

Mr. SCATES, after alluding at great length to the fact of the

266

losses by banks and banking speculations in the United States, which he read and exhibited by statistical references, differing but little from those mentioned by Mr. GREGG, and applying the alarming consequences of them to the state of the people and the finances of Illinois, he most earnestly and forcibly deprecated the adoption of any system of the kind in the State, or the granting to the Legislature any power to create the same.

He said, that he hoped, in case the Convention, watched by bank harpies and beset by sharks, shall spawn forth upon the public a shoal of banks, that it would be rejected by the people and the system be an abortion. If they were to have banks with chartered privileges, why not allow every man to be a bank, and grant him permission to issue $3 to every one of his capital? This would be nothing more than equal rights. But then, again, poor men have not the means to enter into this plan, which confers upon those who can engage in it, the power to make their less fortunate neighbors hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Mr. S. then entered into an able argument to establish that by the constitution of the United States the States had no power to create banks, which, he said, indirectly governed, created, and ruled the currency — regulated, by their issues and over issues, the value of money — governed and controlled the commerce among the States of the Union, raising the value of our property by the extent of their issues, and depreciating it again by the contraction and lessening of them. He thought it dangerous to create these institutions, possessed of these great and powerful means of power over the interests of the people.

He thought that they had just as much right to issue imitation half dollars and eagles in base metal as to issue paper imitations of the current coin of the country.

At 12, M., without concluding, he gave way to a motion to adjourn, till to-morrow, at 9, A. M.

267

XIX. Tuesday, June 29, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. DRESSER.

Mr. HAYES, from the committee on Law Reform, reported back sundry resolutions, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. Agreed to.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved to take up certain reports made by the committee on the Revenue and the committee on the Legislative Department, and refer the same to the committee of the whole. Carried.

Mr. ARCHER moved to refer the report of the committee on the Organization of Departments to the committee of the whole. Carried.

Mr. Z. CASEY then moved that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole to take up the subject of banks. Carried.

BANKS

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon in the Chair.

Mr. SCATES resumed his speech, commenced yesterday, by a recapitulation of the arguments presented by him. He said that the power of the States to create banks, with powers to emit bills of exchange, &c. was one that was sanctioned by general practice. Yet there were many questions arising out of constitutional provisions that had been settled by practice, but upon which the public mind was not settled. The power of the general government to charter a United States bank, though two had been created, and the supreme court had decided in favor of the power, was still a question upon which the public mind was not settled; and the same was the case in regard to the issues of State banks. He then examined the constitution of the United States, and argued against the power of the States to issue such notes, or the power to incorporate any institution to do the same.

He said that we had the power to limit the circulation of

268

bank notes from other States in this State. It was an evil to have our own issues in circulation, it was certainly no less an evil to have the notes of banks, over which we had no control, circulating amongst us. We might not be able to compel a bank in another State to stop her issues; but should we, to stop their circulation, issue our own notes? This was like giving a man, suffering from the effects of poison, a larger dose of the same kind. He read some tables which showed that the people paid yearly for the use of bank paper, in the shape of interest, $28,000,000 more than the annual expenses of the government. There was also a depreciation on the amount of their issue of 5 per cent., which, together with other losses by counterfeiting and wearing of notes, made an aggregate annual tax to the people of over $50,000,000; more than double the amount required for the support of this vast government. The loss to the people, since the formation of the government, by taxes for the use of bank paper, amounted to $1,197,000,000.

His recollection of the politics of Illinois for many years had been, that the democratic party were opposed to all banks. Every democratic meeting that had been held sent forth a condemnation of them. There had been a meeting held in this hall some three years ago, and then this question came up. No man was for banks. It was made a sine qua non in each candidate, to be opposed to all banks. The democratic party now required from their representatives a condemnation of them. The people were not, however, truly represented here; if they were, there would go forth a universal condemnation of them, as he was sure the voice of the people was for a prohibition. He was in favor of no experiments to elicit the voice of the people, by proposing any alternate proposition. The sentiments of the people were known, and the Convention should carry them out.

Mr. HARVEY said, that he, perhaps, should define his position. He looked upon this question as one of deep and lasting importance, and one which bears more upon the daily transactions of the people than any other which the Convention would be called to act upon. He thought that when the Convention would meet, the members would come there with their minds made up to act without political feeling, and with a desire to accomplish a

269

constitutional work for the people. But he had been sadly mistaken. The gentleman said it must be a political question; that parties must be divided, and that we must congeal into the constitution the ultra spirit of party. The gentleman said that one John Thompson was like the democratic party, and that John had once got drunk and had been run into a mud hole; that while there a part of his team had got away and had gone off in search of green pastures. He would like to know why John Thompson got drunk, or if, when asleep, he dreamed of this metallic currency? And was it not wiser for the cattle, when John was in this condition, to get out of the mud hole, and go off to the green pasture? He would tell the gentleman, that if he wanted these cattle back to pull this democratic cart out of the mud he must not get drunk. He claimed to be a member of the democratic party, but he came there a free one, to act for himself and not to bow his neck as a slave to any leader. He was not one of John Thompson's cattle. He was a representative of the people of Knox county in this Convention to form a constitution. And, sir, what have we met here for? Not to take care of the interests of one little political party, but of one million of people. As a member of the committee on Incorporations he was anxious to hear this question discussed, and for one he was opposed to a prohibitory clause. And the party who advocated this, were they united? No, sir.

Mr. H. said, that one portion of this prohibitory party said that banks were an evil, and that all things of an evil character should be prohibited. By inserting in the constitution a prohibition, and then adding a clause that that prohibition should be forever unalterable, how, he would ask, would any man vote for such a provision — John Thompson could not do it — if he did he would render himself immortal. Another of the party said, that he was for an exclusively metallic currency. Does he intend to exclude from circulation Auditor's warrants and Treasury notes, which looked to him very much like paper money? He would not say what he wanted — but he desired to know what kind of a prohibition that party wanted? He did not believe the democratic party was in the hands of fifty or forty men in that Convention, but were scattered all over the Union, and in no State had a

270

prohibitory clause been inserted in the constitution against banks. He believed that the people of any State, by a majority of the votes, might have what kind of government they pleased, and that they alone had the right to say whether they would have banks or not. He was for leaving the question of banks open to the people's opinion, and he was met by a question, why not leave the whole question open. He replied by saying, that all things wrong in themselves should be prohibited, but a mere political question should be left open to the people. Public opinion was stronger than any constitution: a prohibition was no more than a rope of sand against it, and who could say that in five years the people's opinion would not be changed. Our duty was not to inquire what kind of a bank we should have, but whether we should have a bank at all or not. We have no banks to decapitate, but gentlemen seem disposed to decapitate a possibility of a bank. He would prefer the Legislature should not have the power to create, but was willing that when they thought a bank necessary that they should pass a law and submit it to the people, and if a majority of them approved of it, it might go into force. Individually he was opposed to all systems of banking. They all seemed in favor of abridging the powers of the Legislature, and he was in favor of it; but was any man in favor of abridging the powers of the people?

Mr. ARCHER desired to define his position on this question, and he hoped that when he had concluded, the Convention would be more happy in arriving at what his position was, than he had been in arriving at the position of the gentleman from Knox. He was not one of those who felt disposed to follow in everything that was laid down by those who set themselves up as umpires of what was true democracy; he was a member of the democratic party of the whole Union, and claimed to think and act for himself in all things; and bowed to no leader on this floor or any where else. He knew no one who aspired 'o that leadership, nor could he think or believe that any man, either whig or democrat, had come into that deliberative body with a desire to prescribe the course which they should follow. If any one did aspire, however, to lead the party, he would follow him only so far as his principles and opinions agreed with his, and no further. He was, individually, opposed

271

to all banks, of any shape, kind, manner or description; while he entertained these opinions, he had no desire to hold those opinions out as a beacon light to others, nor to give a guide to his seniors in their actions here. His experience had been that the system of banking was but the granting of privileges to a few to commit piracy on the masses. In using this language he intended to cast no imputation upon others, but he hoped they would consider him as sincere in what he said.

He thought States were like individuals in many cases. Let us look back for a period of ten years in the history of this then young and thriving State, at that time a Legislature, driven to madness by the evidences of prosperity to be seen all around them, created an extensive and wild scheme of internal improvements, and the result was that the scheme failed and the hope of the young State was blasted and blighted. It was only after the destruction had come upon them that the people became alarmed — then that the State credit sunk abroad — and the unholy doctrine of repudiation received countenance in the State, and I regret to say that even, in this State, though for a short time only, did this doctrine receive encouragement. We have in part recovered the effects of that time, and have somewhat remedied the evil, and from this Convention, is expected something to remedy still further the evil consequences of that day. While I give my hearty approval of some of the remarks of the gentleman from Cook, I regret he did not plant himself entirely on the ground of prohibition. He had displayed by statistics the innumerable evils of these banks. I am in favor of a prohibitory clause, but I would prefer that it should be submitted to the people seperately [sic] from the constitution in order that the latter may not be affected by the vote upon the proposition. Let those in favor of banks bring forward their plan, and those who desire the prohibition, let them go forth to the people and fight side by side, and by the result of that fight will I be satisfied. He was opposed to all banks and in favor of the utmost restrictions. How much time and money have been wasted in Illinois by legislating for suspension laws; and we cannot too strongly guard against failure, for I think failure is a consequence of incorporation. When these failures come, who is it that hold the notes — the poor and laboring

272

classes of the community, and on them falls the loss. Who are they that watch the value of these notes from par to depreciation, and to worthlessness — the rich and the monied man. Do you find these notes in the hands of the brokers when at full value? No, but you may find them in their hands when depreciated, bought up at half price from the poor and laboring classes. Where do you find the losses? In the cabins of the poor, and the profits in the gilded palaces of the rich. Banks never pay money, never issue money — it is always "the president &c. promise to pay" &c. And when they make loans it is of their own indebtedness. Thus when a man borrows $500, they receive from him interest on what they owe; and if any person else than a corporation owes $500, he pays interest on what he owes. The whole order of things is reversed in favor of these chartered monopolies, and for this reason, I am opposed to them.

Mr. A. here read a plan which he would like to see adopted. He said, that from a sense of right and of principle, sanctioned by experience, he could not yield to any opinion that a well regulated bank can exist in any community. He believed that if a general banking system were adopted, that evils in the most incomprehensible numbers would follow, and throw ruin and misfortune again on the State.

The motion to strike out all the resolutions was put and carried; and then the motion recurred upon inserting the proposition of Mr. SCATES.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin said that it was a matter of regret that there was not before the committee some definite proposition which would be more comprehensive; also, it was to be regretted that feeling had been shown in relation to a leadership. There may be men who might aspire to leadership in this Convention, but if there were he had not seen any of them. He had come there to follow no leader, but an independent representative of an independent constituency; and was willing to take all the responsibility of his own acts.

I agree that the questions growing out of this subject are the greatest that will come before the Convention. The evils of banks have been shown by the gentlemen from Montgomery, Cook, Jefferson and Pike. The system of banks heretofore existing in

273

this State is objectionable because the principles contained in it were at war with the just and equal rights of the whole people. The theory of all true government is, that the whole people should enjoy equal rights — political rights. The system of banks heretofore, independent of all their other great evils, is objectionable, because it confers upon them rights and privileges, not possessed by the people in common. We have seen bankrupt corporations and rich corporatees. How is this, and how is it with others? When the bank fails, the members of the corporation are not affected; but when private individuals meet with misfortune, their doors are visited by the officers of the law. While ruin and destruction are scattered all over the country by the operations of the bank its officers are revelling in the wealth gained by the banks. I object to banks because they enjoy rights, privileges and immunities not secured or allowed to others engaged in business. When an opportunity for speculation occurs, these banks are given the means of risking what is not their own, and if the speculation fails they lose nothing. The masses are opposed to these corporations, and are gradually wresting power from these chartered monopolies, and step by step will reduce them to a level with other business men. He objected to the New York system, because that conferred the same unequal privileges upon a few which were denied to the many. In the language of the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Jefferson, the power to coin and make money has been secured to the United States, and why? Because the power to create a currency affects the people, enters into all their business transactions — a power greater than even the right of government. Give me the purse strings of a nation, and I don't care who has the power of government; I then would be the master not only of the people, but of their government. In view, therefore, of the importance of this power — the sole power to regulate the currency was reserved to the general government. In time, however, this salutary provision was got around, and the power of regulating the currency was conferred upon individuals in the shape of charters, not responsible to the people. Was it the intention of the framers of the constitution of the United States to give to irresponsible men or soulless corporations the power to cause woe and sorrow, or smiles and joy to the whole people? At one period

274

of our history the banks had a circulation of $100,000,000, and the transactions of the country were based upon that amount of false capital; in one year this amount of money in the country, by the aid of the engraver, printer and bank officer, can be increased three-fold, and the business of the country is deranged. — Is not the intention of the constitution to fix the value upon the currency defeated? Those reasons, if no other, would induce him to vote against any plan of banks. I belong to this party — the democratic — which, it appears, has occupied so much time in this discussion. It has been said that there are those here who aspire to lead us. I would, sir, select as my leader, if we are to have any, from that other party which had shown so much judgment and discretion as to keep silent, and leave this war entirely in the hands of the "harmonious" democracy, and not from among those who claim to be democrats, and get up here and carry on a fight for the amusement of their opponents. — The term "harmonious democracy" may be and is often used as a sneer, but upon the great principle of human liberty they are harmonious; and I would say to those who anticipate the game of the Kilkenny cats by the democrats, that they need not lay the "flattering unction to their soul," for that party will remember their responsibility to their constituents. And if there is to be a bank, and if they cannot strangle the monster in his cradle, they will unite and chain him so that he can do no harm. If that party desired to know upon what the democrats will unite, I tell them to select what is just and right, and they will there find the democratic party. This much, sir, have I said on my own responsibility.

Mr. GEDDES replied, briefly, to the remarks of the gentlemen who had opposed banks and attributed to them such evils. He entered into the question and argued differently.

Mr. BOSBYSHELL said, that long previous to the adoption of the State constitution, the currency of the confederated States had been confided to the general government, which, also, was intrusted with the power of regulating commerce, foreign and domestic, coin money and fix the value thereof. The States by that constitution surrendered the power to coin money, emit bills of credit, or to change the legal tender in payment of debts. Some from the evils of paper money which had been necessary during

275

the revolution, and the funding of which had caused so much discontent between the speculating and substantial citizens of the nation, any other standard of value than precious metals was deprecated by all the patriotic of the time, who endeavored to guard it by adequate provisions. There can be no other substitute, all attempts to substitute are delusive and fraudulent, and snares for the public prosperity. The effort to coin money out of paper was abused. Nothing can make a promise to pay on paper, like the dollar itself. Mr. B. (we are sorry we cannot give his remarks more full [sic] took the following positions:

That great commercial operations are accommodated by paper money issues, as did the credit system, but unless convertible into gold was worthless. Its use was like the substitution of ardent spirits for food — it intoxicates and ruins. That the reason given for the use of paper money — the scarcity of coin — should be the cause of an exclusive metallic currency, because the latter was more valuable as it become [sic] scarce. He alluded to the inconveniences of paper money in trade. The shocking vicissitudes of unconvertible paper money had cost this country more than its wars; they were the greatest difficulty in the revolution, and now more oppressive than all the public burthens. That the issuing of paper money by authority of acts of the legislatures of the several States was an usurpation of power unforeseen by the framers of the constitution. The first Secretary of the Treasury, when he introduced the conveniences of a national bank, never contemplated that paper should supersede gold and silver as currency. He traced the history of State banks, and admitted that the supreme court had decided that when they were not made a legal tender they were not unconstitutional; but that this great power to control, value and regulate price, unforeseen by the framers of the federal constitution, has grown up one of our most important institutions and demanded the serious attention of a body convened to re-organize a government. This power to create a currency was so important that no government ever parted with its sole exercise. It controlled everything. It was the life blood of the body politic. It was fortunate that every laborer was familiar with the little value of these bank notes; which the regular recurrence of periodical convulsions so clearly

276

demonstrated. If public sentiment advanced longer, as it has for some time past, the deeply rooted evils of banking will soon be alleviated, if not entirely removed. The farmers, mechanics and others who lived by industry, and without trusting to paper facilities, are now free from trouble, and have plenty of hard money. Interest is moderate. They knew not the distress which was felt where banks, credit and speculation predominated; and which would be the case where the power was given to a few to exercise one of the privileges of sovereignty. Fifty years ago the Bank of England disclosed the terrible secret that banks might dispense with hard money. Possessed of that secret our banks have followed it up by pushing it on to a despotic supremacy. Preposterous luxury, insolvency and crime are the certain followers of the bank mania. Bad currency, speculation and monopoly can only account for the sudden vicissitudes, the most devouring usury, controversey [sic] and litigation, panic, clamour, convulsion, and at last the unlawful refusal of the banks to pay their own notes, have been the rapid events of a few years back. He denied the Justice, right, propriety or honesty of conferring special privileges upon any body of men. The right and original office of a bank was to keep money, not to lend it; the principal profits of banks proceed from what courts of justice punish as frauds, viz: the using of trust funds. The Bank of Holland was crushed for this.

We find that our space will not allow us to go further even with our condensed report of Mr. B.'s able and logical speech.

Mr. SINGLETON offered an amendment to the proposition of Mr. SCATES.

Mr. PETERS offered an amendment to the amendment.

And then the committee rose, reported progress, and had leave to sit again. And the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. Z. CASEY offered a resolution, that from to-morrow the Convention would daily resolve into committee of the whole, and take up the reports of the committees and dispose of the same. Adopted.

277

The Convention then went into committee of the whole, and took up the subject of

BANKS

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison presented a long proposition to the committee, which he said had been drawn up with a view to meet the opinions of all those who were opposed to a prohibitory clause. He said, that he had intended to present his views in extenso, but it was evident, from the number of propositions that had been introduced, that the members of the Convention had come to some conclusion, and that all had made up their minds; debate and argument were, therefore, unnecessary. He explained his propositions to be as follows, 1st. That there shall never a State bank — he was opposed to State banks — State college, State printer, State anything. 2d. That there should be no special charters. This, he thought, was in accordance with the general sentiments of the people. 3d. It leaves it with the Legislature to establish a system of banking with certain restrictions. He laid it down that, looking at the fast increasing population of the State, our growing interests, &c., we must have a paper currency, and cannot get along with an exclusive metallic currency. Another principle of his plan, was that there shall not be more than one bank placed in each judicial district of the State.

Mr. KITCHELL said, he had drawn up certain resolutions containing a set of restrictions, which he could support consistently with his view of his duty to his constituents.

It was nearly the same as had been presented by the member from Madison, and others. Though out of order to present it, it was not out of order to allude to it in his remarks. He supposed he was one of those whose position was said to be an enigma, and not consistent with democracy. He thought he knew the opinions of the people he represented, and he felt it his duty to support that opinion, unless it was wholly inconsistent with honesty and propriety. This question was not regarded in his county as settled; not one upon which public sentiment was regarded as ripe and mature. We have and use a paper currency; not so much specie as in other places, but the bank paper happened to be good and the people of that part of the country think and believe that

278

a paper currency, when at a par, is a safe and proper medium of circulation. They cannot recognize any argument that it is immoral or improper to use it. They will refer you to those States where banks have existed from the time of the formation of their government, and ask why cannot Illinois have a good bank as well as others. One of the first political subjects to which he had turned his attention was the state of the people of Illinois, in regard to the consequences of the inflation of the currency and the ruin, havoc and disgrace which followed the suspension; and I thought that I would take the ground occupied by other gentlemen, in open opposition to all banks, but I have considered better of it. What are our county organizations but exclusive privilege; for certain purposes. Gentlemen who take the broad ground against all privileged corporations go too far. Our county organization is but a part of the system. You cannot vote out of your own precinct. Every college is a corporation. The arguments of gentlemen have been directed against the abuses of banking. As well might they take ground against steamboats, that they should not be permitted to navigate your rivers because they contain such engines of destruction. As well prohibit physicians practising because quacks have dealt out death and destruction in the land. You may as well say there shall be no religion because, at some time or another, it has been united to State, and has oppressed the people. He thought this a fair statement of the arguments, and that it was not extravagant to compare their arguments against the abuses of banking with the steamboat dangers. He was opposed to the system of banking heretofore carried on in this State, but thought that we might adopt some system; it was impossible to exclude bank notes from circulation in this State. There are now laws upon the statute book of this State, which are as a dead letter. They cannot be enforced, and it would have been better that they had not been enacted than not in force. When it can be shown that it is a curse upon the State that we ever had bank notes, or that we can exclude them from circulation, then I will abandon the position I have taken, and go for their exclusion. It had been said that bank notes were an unfair representation of the amount of money in the country, that it was immoral and impolitic to use it as a currency. The

279

argument is that it is a paper currency, that the corporations are enjoying the privilege of issuing seven or eight dollars in notes to one in capital — in specie. These things are an abuse of the privilege and are privileges which should not be granted. Heretofore it has been so provided that in case of a failure nothing but the corporate property could be touched, though it might be that the officers, directors, and stockholders were immensely rich, nothing of their private wealth was liable. But we came here to adopt a different order of things; we came here to lay down an organic law for the land, and questions of a doubtful character, of expediency and policy, and one which has been decided differently in every other State of the Union, should not be put in the constitution of the State and become the unalterable law of the land. He was not in favor of any particular system of banks, there might be banks required by the people. And suppose the people of Chicago, or of Quincy, or of Springfield desire a bank of deposite, of which no one could complain, the prohibitory clause would prevent it. He was opposed to any prohibitory clause in the constitution. Mr. K. here read his plan, which was a mere statement of restrictions to be placed upon banks, and applicable to any and every system. He said he was not, as he had said before, in favor of any particular system, but he was satisfied that the people of his part of the country were opposed to any unqualified prohibitory clause being inserted in that constitution, and he felt himself bound to carry out their views and sentiments. While I am not in favor of any particular system of banking, I know that it is impossible to exclude from circulation in this State the bank notes of New York, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and other States, so long as they are at par, and answer all purposes of business, and that all our efforts to do so will be in vain. He thanked the Convention for their attention and hoped he had defined his position sufficiently explicitly.

Mr. BROCKMAN addressed the Convention for a considerable time in favor of a prohibitory clause and against banks of every description. A full report of his speech has been taken and will be given in another form.

Mr. DEMENT said, that as the day was nearly spent he would not take up much of the time of the Convention, but would

280

merely define his position in as few remarks as possible, and throw out a few of the suggestions which had occurred to his mind on the question now before them. He was aware that it was the belief of many there, that the question of banks was the all absorbing question of the day, not only in the Convention, but amongst the people, in all sections of the State of Illinois. This would be the impression forced upon the mind of anyone who had heard the discussion on that floor, yet such was not the case among the people. This question of a bank was not considered by the people of his county before he came there — banks were considered by them to be an obsolete idea. It was said there by the whigs that the former State banks, which had brought upon them so much ruin and misfortune, had been created by the democrats, and they, the whigs, threw them off as no part of their policy; the democrats threw them off, and the whole people, without distinction of party, admitted them to be an obsolete idea. All were opposed to them where he came from, and the question was not alluded to in the canvass except, perhaps, to as a candidate if he was opposed to them, which he answered in the affirmative, and this was all that was said. But if a person were to hear the discussion here, he would think that the people were alive on this subject. It was but a few years ago that this question of banks was a party question, the democrats were opposed to all banks and the whig party was in favor of them, but as has been shown by the gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. BROCKMAN) the whigs have receded in this as in many other things, so much so that there is no whig in our part of the State who will pretend to favor them. And now it is said that it is no political question; but becomes with us one of mere expediency — except in regard to a bank with special privileges. The evils of banking he considered consist more in the embodiment, in one corporation of a few men, of peculiar and special privileges, and the cutting off all competition, in the way of trade and business, by men who are not possessed of chose rights and privileges which give their chartered opponents so great an advantage. The evil, therefore, is in the sespecial privileges which they have enjoyed, and the want of proper and necessary restrictions upon them. On this question of expediency, he would say that he was opposed to the creation of

281

any bank with power to issue any bill of credit, promissory note, anything else intended as a currency; and he was opposed to any corporation issuing three or four dollars in paper to each one of their capital. He thought that Illinois did not need any banks to enrich her people or to raise the value of her property. He considered that the country was only enriched as we improve our resources by the increase of our products, or as we raise means of subsistence by labor. Nor did he think there was at present any surplus capital in Illinois to be vested in banks, and that if any banks were now to be created it would be embraced by men more anxious to borrow than by those who desire to invest their surplus capital. There is no excitement anywhere on this question of banks except in this Convention, and, so far as my information extends, it did not enter into the canvass. This was the case in the northern part of the State. A few years ago the people of the State were depressed and in debt, and all kinds of property was of little value. Now our property has become enhanced, and we are now in a state of comparative prosperity; these good results had been produced without banks. Every farmer, mechanic and artisan, and all others whose avocations tended to contribute to the wealth of the country, have together produced this prosperity. But there were those in the community who had been laying on their oars watching for their opportunity, now come forth, and taking advantage of that ambition, which prosperity always creates in the bosom of men, are desirous to have banks, and a fictitious currency wherewith to run into wild and extravagant schemes of speculation, and in due course of time will possess themselves of all the property of the country, and in due course of time their bubble will burst, and in the scramble will take care to enrich themselves on the loss and substance of others. The people of Illinois do not want these banks. It is true they exist in New York and other States, but he believed that if the people or that State were like us, once rid of them, they would never have them again; but such is the influence on the trade and business of the community, and the power they are enabled to exercise over the people themselves, by means of their privileges, that once fastened upon a community it is impossible to get rid of them. Illinois is now without them, and I believe that gold and silver,

282

like water, will always find its level, but paper money will always drive gold and silver from the market. One part of the State has now an exclusive metallic currency of gold and silver; this is in the northern part of the State, in the mining region. There was at one time nothing but paper circulated there, and so great was the confidence of the people that a note was never examined but taken without hesitation. After a while the banks burst, and these people felt the loss more severely than others who had less of that kind of currency. They then declared and resolved for the future to have nothing but gold and silver.

There English sovereigns constituted nearly the whole currency because they were worth more there than anywhere else; they passed current in that region for $4.90, while at the east the[y] were taken for only $4.83, and at St. Louis for $4.85; the difference, therefore, between the $4.90 and $4.83 paid well for the exchange between that quarter and the eastern cities. The difference in the value was far greater than the cost of transportation. Gold and silver must find its level, and though in other States they may have banks and paper money. State lines are no barriers to the exportation of the precious metals, which will naturally flow where it is worth most. Our produce will go eastward, and their gold must flow back to us, and one will be the exchange for the other. Suppose we send three millions of dollars worth of our produce — beef, corn, flour, pork, lead — to the east, it is not necessary that that amount in specie shall be returned at once, because as our producers have the coin, which is paid by them to the merchants, and those merchants trade for their goods at the east. What is more easy and simple for the manufacturers or purchasers of our produce there to pay for it in drafts upon our own merchants, and thus the money is again paid out to the farmer and the miner in metallic currency; and all this can be done without banks. Where is the necessity for them in our State?

I oppose the proposition of the gentleman from Madison, even if we are to have banks. One objection is, that it does not provide that the directors and stockholders of the banks shall be personally liable for the debts of the institution. Here is no remedy against men setting apart a certain amount of their money to bank upon, and when that is lost, with thousands belonging to others, sitting

283

down with a private fortune exempt from all liability, and which may have been the accumulated result of accommodation in the shape of loans to him by the bank. I also object to it because it does not provide that any bill which may pass the Legislature, creating a bank, shall be submitted to the people. In conclusion, I will say to those fifty-eight who voted for the prohibitory clause that we want but twenty-three more to make a majority; and I say that, in case of a failure to carry that, I believe there are those here who are opposed to banks yet opposed to a prohibitory clause, and who come nearer us than others, and with whom the fifty-eight may vote; that there is a probability that they may unite with us on some plan which will, in effect, accomplish the ends of a prohibitory clause. If I can't get a total prohibition, I hope to see something adopted that will approach it as near as possible. I had no expectation that what I have said will have any effect upon members here. I anticipate no such results from my speaking, but I have thrown out these suggestions to those in the Convention who approach nearer the doctrine of the fifty-eight in principle, and who, I believe, may unite with us upon something.

Mr. GREEN of Tazewell addressed the Convention in deprecation of the introduction of party topics, and in defence of the whig party.

The Convention then adjourned till to-morrow at 9 A. M.

284

XX. Wednesday, June 30, 1847.

Mr. BUNSEN offered a resolution of inquiry. Referred to the committee on Education.

Mr. SIMPSON, from the committee on Counties, made a report; which, after some explanations, was withdrawn.

Mr. WILLIAMS presented a resolution of inquiry. Referred to the committee on Counties.

Mr. SINGLETON offered an amendment; and after a short debate, the amendment was laid on the table and the resolution adopted.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved that the committee of the whole be discharged from the further consideration of the bank question — and a reference of the whole subject to the committee on Incorporations; as it was evident that after that committee shall report the whole subject will be again discussed. Carried.

Messrs. KITCHELL and ARCHER presented propositions in relation to banks; which were referred to the committee on Incorporations.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved the Convention go into committee of the whole and take up reports of committees as per order adopted yesterday. Carried.

The Convention then went into committee of the whole, Mr. WOODSON in the chair.

Mr. CASEY said, that he wished to suggest that the chairman of the committee on the Legislative Department and the chairman of the committee on the Executive Department were both absent from the city; but they had requested that the reports may not be postponed on account of their absence. He moved the report of the committee on the Legislative Department be taken up. Carried.

The committee then proceeded to consider the report of the proposed articles of the constitution contained in that report: The first section was read —

"That the General Assembly of this State shall consist of a

285

Senate and House of Representatives; both to be elected by the people."

Mr. CALDWELL moved to strike out the words "Senate and" and "both;" which motion was lost.

Second section. "That the members of the General Assembly shall be elected once in every two years, &c."

Mr. SHUMWAY moved to strike out "two" and insert "three."

Mr. ROUNTREE moved to insert "four."

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery advocated the adoption of the last number. He said the opinion of the people of the counties he represented — Bond and Montgomery — had been fully expressed upon this subject. They were satisfied that we had been cursed by too much legislation. He thought that one session every four years, with power to the Governor to call them together when any emergency arose, was sufficient for all the legislation the people required. The people there, and even the members of the Legislature, would be able to know what laws were passed by one Legislature before the next met; which is not the case at the present.

Mr. DALE begged leave to differ from his friend of Montgomery, as to the views of the people of Bond county. True, as the gentleman said, the people of his county do complain of there being too much legislation and wish a remedy against over-legislation. But not the remedy of electing members for four years, as proposed by the gentleman.

They complain of over-legislation and the expenses attending it. The remedy for this, and it is the one which they wish, is fully furnished in the report of this committee. This report limits the time of holding sessions, so that, instead of ninety days, as heretofore, the Legislature will be able, in future, to remain in session but little over forty-two days, and too, at a pay so small as to remedy all the objections that the people of his county have against over-legislation and its heavy expenses.

This reduced pay and the short time allowed for legislation will induce the Legislature to enter immediately upon the business of legislation, and to legislate only on matters called for and necessary to be legislated on. And this is the reform which the people of his county desired.

286

Mr. GEDDES was in favor of the four years. — He thought that we had had too much legislation, and that it would have been much better for Illinois if there had been no Legislature for the last twelve years.

Mr. HAYES said, that it might be assumed, from the remarks of gentlemen, that Legislatures had become nuisances, which, though not the term used, was no stronger than some that were uttered by gentlemen. He admitted that there had been bad legislation, but was there not bad legislation in every State? If they so much feared bad legislation, would it not be as well to abolish the Legislature altogether? The gentleman had said that it would have been better had there been no Legislature for the last twelve years. Perhaps we might have avoided some of the evils of bad legislation, but would it not have been depriving the people of their share in the government? If he had understood anything of the nature of government, the whole conservative power of the people was in the Legislature — there they were heard, there they spoke in the administration of the government. They had a latent power in themselves to overturn the government, and establish law and order where law and order did not exist before. But the only legal power the people had was vested in the Legislature. Much had been said about bad legislation, and that it had been conducted by men who acted not to promote the purposes of the people, but rather to advance their own. Here we have a large State with a large annual revenue coming into the hands of your Auditor and Treasurer, and unless we have a Legislature, the Governor will have millions under his control; and there is no power to direct the disposition of it.

He denied the benefits of a long interval between the sessions of the Legislature. It was not to be expected that our public servants will always be pure. That was a presumption in favor of human character. But if they had had bad legislators, we may have a corrupt executive, and the government exercised with tyranny. Many people in th[e] State thought two years too long. He thought the Convention, in carrying out reform, might go too far, and might defeat their action by attempting to do too much.

Mr. KNAPP of Scott inquired whether the long interval of

287

four years might not affect the election of United States Senators.

Mr. SHUMWAY said, the difficulty of the accumulation of the revenue was easily answered by saying, the Legislature can well distribute at its session the revenue for four years as it could do for two.

Mr. LOGAN endorsed the views of the gentleman from White (Mr. HAYES.) Though no democrat, he would oppose, as our government was mixed, the executive, judiciary, and legislative or democratic departments, the abridging of the democratic part. The Auditor of Public Accounts and the Treasurer, who had large sums coming into their hands, are not responsible to any but the Legislature. Again, in case the Governor becomes corrupt, what good was the power he possessed to call the Legislature together? He would not call them to revise his acts, and we would have but one session of the Legislature during the term of the Governor. He opposed it further, because it was putting it out of the power of the people to be heard more than once in four years, while the other parts of the government went on administering it.

Mr. BOND was in favor of striking out, and inserting four years. He differed from the gentlemen from Sangamon and White, because when this Convention had done with clipping the powers of our executive, his duty will be but little more than to see the laws executed. The Governor, even at the present, has no power to draw money from the treasury, except when authorized by the Legislature. The only difficulty was the election of United States Senators, and he supposed they would have to elect them four years before.

Mr. LOGAN. They may die or resign.

Mr. BOND. They but seldom die and never resign.

Mr. MINSHALL advocated a shorter term of interval, because he thought the representative should be responsible to the people at short periods. If we adopt the term of four years, each man elected a Senator would hold the office for eight years.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin and Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery continued the debate, the former in opposition to, and the latter in favor of, the amendment.

On motion the committee rose and asked leave to sit again; which was granted.

288

Mr. SCATES presented an invitation from the Sabbath Day Convention, to the Convention to attend its sittings.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention an invitation from the citizens of Springfield to attend the barbacue to be give to the volunteers returned from Mexico, on Saturday, July 3d.

On motion, both invitations were extended.

On motion, Messrs. ECCLES, EDMONSON, CONSTABLE and ARCHER were excused for ten days.

Mr. EDMONSON was excused from longer serving on the committee on Incorporations.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 9 A. M.

289

XXI. Thursday, July 1, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. BARGER.

Mr. HOES presented a petition from a number of citizens of Livingston county in favor of a superintendant [sic] of common schools. Referred to the committee on Education.

Mr. MANLY moved to take up certain petitions, presented by him some weeks ago, and refer them to the committee on Law Reform. Carried.

Mr. WHITESIDE, from the committee on Military Affairs, to which had been referred the 5th article of the constitution, reported the same back, with a recommendation that it be adopted without amendment. The report and the article were referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr. THOMAS, from the committee on the Revenue, reported back a resolution recommending the appropriation of the taxes of the 16th section in each township to school purposes, and asked to be discharged from its further consideration. Report concurred in.

Mr. HAYES, from the committee on Law Reform, reported back a resolution in relation to excusing certain persons having conscientious scruples, from serving on juries, &c., and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. Concurred in.

Mr. KITCHELL asked leave of absence for seven days for Dr. TUTT. Granted.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess gave notice that on next Monday week he would introduce the following propositions:

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to report the following propositions, to be submitted to the people separately, viz:

First. There shall be no bank or banks, nor any branch of any bank or banks, of any description whatever established in this State, for the term of ten years. If a majority of all the votes cast by the qualified electors of this State, shall be in favor of such

290

clause being inserted in the constitution, it shall then be made the duty of the Legislature, at the expiration of said term of ten years, to submit the same question to the people, to be voted on in the same manner; and it shall be the further duty of the Legislature to submit the same question every ten years thereafter unless said proposition shall be rejected, then and in that case said clause shall be stricken from the constitution.

Second. If a majority of the qualified electors of the State shall decide against the foregoing proposition being made a part of the constitution, then it shall be made the duty of the Legislature, if at any time it shall be deemed necessary, to create by law any bank or banks, or to establish within the limits of this State any branches of any bank or banks of any other States, to submit any and every such law, so creating or establishing any such banks or branches, to the people for their approval, at least one year previous to the time fixed for voting on the same; and in case said law shall receive a majority of all the votes given at said election, then it shall be in full force and operation, otherwise to be of no force or effect whatever.

Mr. KNOWLTON offered a resolution directing an inquiry by the committee on Education. Carried.

Mr. HAWLEY offered a resolution, that a special committee; be appointed to report some provision for the amelioration of lunatic, deaf, dumb and blind persons.

Mr. HARDING moved to add the word "black;" which amendment was laid on the table.

Mr. SCATES moved to add "insane."

Mr. HARDING suggested that, as the Convention were determined to do nothing for the negroes, he thought it had better insert the word "white" before lunatics, &c., for if left as it now was it would be applicable to all colors.

Mr. SCATES replied that, in cases of humanity he knew no difference in color.

Mr. ADAMS moved to lay the whole subject on the table. Carried.

Mr. WEAD offered a resolution, that the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects be directed to inquire into the expediency

291

of providing for fixing the seat of government of the State at Peoria. Laid on the table.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery offered a resolution that the committee on Incorporations be instructed to report a clause prohibiting a State Bank. Carried.

Mr. HOGUE moved to go into committee of the whole. Decided in the affirmative.

And the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. WOODSON in the chair, and took up the report of the committee on the Legislative Department.

The question pending was on striking out "two" and inserting "four" in the second line, and the vote being taken the committee refused to strike out.

Mr. ARMSTRONG moved to amend the same section by striking out the words "first Monday in October" (the day provided for the election of members of the Legislature) and insert "first Monday in November."

Mr. HENDERSON moved to insert the "Tuesday after the first Monday in November."

The vote being taken, the word October was stricken out.

Mr. WHITESIDE moved to fill with "first Monday in August."

Mr. SINGLETON moved to fill the blank with "3d Monday in August."

A conversational debate ensued, in which Messrs. WHITNEY, DAVIS of Montgomery, CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess, HENDERSON, KNOX, HARVEY, CHURCHILL, SCATES, GEDDES, LOGAN, PETERS, ANDERSON, WHITESIDE, KNOWLTON and ATHERTON participated. And the question being taken on inserting the "first Monday in November," it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 86, nays not counted.

Mr. ROUNTREE moved to add "and continue for ten days" after the word eight in 2d line, and at the end of the section, to provide that the elections shall continue for two days."

He said that if all our elections, for General Assembly, Presidential elections, and county officers, are to be held on one day, and by the viva voce system, it would be impossible to get through in one day. If we, however, adopt the ballot system, his

292

proposition would be unnecessary. The question was taken on the amendment and decided in the negative.

Mr. SHARPE moved to strike out "eight" and insert "nine" in ad line — that the first elections shall be in 1849. Lost.

Mr. ROBBINS moved to insert in 4th line — "and for such length of time," so as to have the elections continue for a time to be fixed by law. Lost.

QUALIFICATIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES

The next section was then read and

Mr. MARSHALL moved to strike out "inhabitant of this State, as unnecessary. Lost.

Mr. CAMPBELL moved to strike out "five" after "twenty" in first line, and insert "one" (in the age of the Representatives,) which motion was lost.

Mr. SINGLETON moved to insert after the word resided — "five years in the State and" so that no person should be a member unless a resident of the State five years and of the county one year. Lost.

QUALIFICATIONS OF SENATORS

Mr. DAWSON moved to strike out "thirty" before "years" in the first line (the proposed longest age for Senators,) and insert "forty."

Mr. WHITNEY opposed any such amendment; and the question was taken on the motion and it was lost.

Mr. SHUMWAY moved to insert "and an inhabitant of this State," after the words "shall be a citizen of the United States." Carried.

Mr. SINGLETON moved to insert after the words "shall have resided" the words "five years in this State." Carried — yeas 70, nays 56.

Mr. HAY moved to amend so as the age should be 36 years instead of 30. Yeas 52, nays not counted. Lost.

SEC. 5. ALLOTMENTS OF SENATORS

This section was passed without any amendment.

293

SEC. 6. NUMBER OF SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES

The section reads — "The Senate shall consist of twenty-five members, and the House of Representatives shall consist of seventy-five members, never to be increased or diminished, to be apportioned among the several counties as herein provided for; and until there shall be a new apportionment of Senators and Representatives, the State shall be divided into senatorial and representative districts, and the Senators and Representatives shall be apportioned as follows:"

Mr. HARVEY moved to insert after the word "diminished," "until the Legislature shall deem it necessary." Lost.

Mr. HOGUE moved to strike out "five" after "seventy." Yeas 40. Lost.

Mr. HOGUE moved to strike out "five" after "twenty." Lost.

Mr. HARDING moved to strike out "seventy-five members, never to be increased nor diminished" and insert "one member from each county in the State at the time of the election."

[Mr. HARDING said, that the committee having decided that the legislature should consist of two branches, and that it should convene once in two years, it was necessary in fixing the number of which that legislature should be comprised, to have some reference to the decision of the committee in regard to those points to which he had alluded. — Had the committee determined to strike out from the first section "the Senate," as proposed by the gentleman from Gallatin, then it was probable, that the committee would also be prepared to strike out the number seventy-five, and insert a much larger number; but it was determined by a vote of the committee, without debate, that there should be a Senate as well as a House of Representatives in the legislative department of the government, and although he had voted against the proposition of the gentleman to strike out the Senate, from the alarm which he felt at this attempt at innovation upon the mode of organization adopted in other governments, more than from contusions founded upon considerations of necessity and principle; yet why, he would ask, should we retain the form of a republican

294

government, unless we might have the substance and excellence which ought to appertain to such a government? Why incur the many inconveniences, and the expenses necessarily incident to such a form of government, unless the benefits which ought to be derived therefrom could be secured. If the members of the two branches of the legislature were to possess like qualifications, to be vested with like powers on all subjects of legislation, to be elected upon precisely the same basis of population, by the same electors in the same manner, and for the same term, why should they be divided into two branches? It was not enough to be told that one branch was intended to be a check upon the other, unless by their different characters and constituency this desirable result was to be secured.

Despotism, continued Mr. HARDING, acts upon and oppresses mankind in different forms; sometimes in a military garb, but more frequently in an executive power, and I think that reason and experience demonstrate that it may, and that it has often assumed a legislative shape. An unchecked and unrestrained legislature, concurring as they generally do in our times, with the executive, because of like constituency, and like party character, must prove dangerous to liberty, and for want of being properly balanced, render the government unstable. I admit, Sir, that by the division of the legislative department into two branches, those branches may have a tendency to check the action of each other; but, Sir, that tendency is as chaff before the wind, when they are all elected upon the same basis of representation, and two of them according to the same apportionment. All are the offspring of the throes and labors of party strife and passion. This legislature to be clothed with all the sovereign powers of the State, governed only by the restrictions of this constitution. What interest, sir, important though it may be, unless it can wield many votes, is safe in a government of this character? Private right and corporate right may be safe so long as shielded by an enlightened and dependent judiciary. But, sir, how long can we hope that the judiciary under the proposed mode of its creation, shall withstand the sway of unscrupulous and eager party. The constitution itself, Sir, before the united flood of these streams may be overwhelmed. May not some of the able statesmen of this convention

295

bring forward and insert in this place, or in some other portion of this article, a provision which will in practice, to a greater extent than this section proposes, give a House and a Senate dissimilar in character? I do not desire to make any such distinctions as we find in the British Parliament; but, sir, I do believe that we ought at least to imitate the mode of apportionment which prevails in regard to the two branches of Congress. The conservative principle is not always in the possession of the few, either among the people or in legislatures. The most radical, unsteady, unscrupulous and violent are often in the minority; and, Sir, when they come to possess a majority, then if unchecked by a proper organization of the departments of government, the rights, the property and the persons of those who are obnoxious to them must yield to the irresistible force of the torrent.

When this subject was before the Convention in the form of resolutions of instruction to the committee on the Legislative Department, I opposed this number by my vote. I proposed that the number "of members in the house should correspond with the number of counties; and that each county should elect a representative, and that they should be paid out of the treasury of their respective counties. This, sir, although it would save more money to the State treasury than any other plan, was voted down; it was defeated through the superior address and ability of the gentleman from White.

But, sir, there is another consideration, and I much regret my inability to do more than refer to it. Could I enforce it with the arguments with which it is fraught, then, sir, I should hope to see this mode adopted; and there is no doubt that it would aid much in preserving the faith and stability of the government of this State, and it is this: — The tillers of the soil, under such an apportionment, would control in a great degree one branch of the legislature. The men who bear the burthen of taxation, upon whose broad acres rest the debts and expenses of the State, must feel the necessity, if they would be relieved of this incubus of debt, of checking extravagant legislation, of adopting a system of strict economy in regard to all the expenses of the government. A representation by counties in one branch of the legislature, would be by no means so unequal, in respect to this interest, as gentlemen

296

may at first suppose. It would tend to produce stability because, sir, a large portion of these counties, although small in population compared with those in which are situated places of depot and entrepot, where the bands of the loom and the spindle congregate, are settled by the farmer and mechanic, whose steady habits and principles would not be so readily overwhelmed by the unsettled, speculative and often unprincipled population along the public works and in your large cities. Is it too much to ask, sir, that this vital, and in Illinois, most important interest should in this slight degree be favored? Sir, had this unassuming, unobtrusive, virtuous and patriotic portion of the population — this bone and sinew of the State — been more frequently consulted, had it been allowed to exert greater influence, and the busy-bodies of towns and cities less, well would it be now and hereafter for this State.

Gentlemen have often on this floor declared what were the complaints and wishes of the people. Sir, have not all the members of this Convention repeatedly heard the voice of the people, justly lamenting that the country was too much influenced by party, and do we not know that unchecked, unrestrained, faulty action has hurried the country into numerous acts of legislation which are deeply to be regretted? The representation in one branch, by counties, will check the headlong course of party. For, sir, although there may be a party governor, and a party majority in the Senate, yet it requires a majority of counties to give free scope to party bias on the part of the other two branches. Would you have the representative faithful to his trust? Then pay him out of the treasury of the county which he represents. Does he linger too long at the capitol? The accounts at the county treasury will show his delinquency, and thus another tie is established between the member and his constituency. Another advantage which will arise from allowing each county to elect a member is, that it will save much clamor and much expense in making apportionments hereafter. Make this the basis of representation, and we shall hear no more complaints of apportionments being made with reference to party interests and party objects. This will give us a stable government.]

297

After some words in favor of the amendment by Messrs. HARDING and McCALLEN, and by Messrs. SCATES and DAVIS in position; the committee rose, reported, had leave to sit again, and the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. Z. CASEY moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole. Carried.

The question pending when the committee rose was on the amendment of the member from Warren; and being taken, was decided in the negative.

Mr. HARVEY moved to insert "by the Legislature" before the words "the State shall be" &c. Lost.

Mr. CHURCH moved to insert after "diminished," the words "until after the year 1860."

Mr. KINNEY of Bureau offered as a substitute for the amendment "until after the year 1860, or till the payment of the interest on the State debt shall be secured, and the Senate shall never exceed 33 members nor the House 100 members."

Messrs. KINNEY and MASON supported, briefly, the substitute, which on a division was lost.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin offered as a substitute "until the population of the State shall amount to one million of souls, and the House shall never exceed one hundred members." Yeas 76, nays 54.

Mr. SERVANT moved to amend the substitute as adopted, by striking out "one million" and inserting "two millions." Yeas 63, nays 58.

Mr. THOMAS moved to add to the substitute "such increase shall not exceed five members at any one apportionment."

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough moved to lay the amendments on the table.

Mr. THOMAS raised a point of order, whether the committee had technically any table, and whether such a motion was in order. The chairman, after a consultation with the President, decided the motion in order; whereupon ensued a debate between Messrs. LOGAN, THOMAS, EDWARDS of S., CLOUD, CASEY and others, after

298

which the chair withdrew his decision and ruled the motion out of order.

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough said, that if they had no table to lay such amendments on, he hoped the Convention would buy one at once.

The amendment was then lost. Yeas 58, nays 59.

Mr. LAUGHLIN moved to amend the substitute by making it read "until the year 1860 when the Legislature may increase the House to one hundred members." Lost. Yeas 49, nays 66.

Mr. DEITZ submitted the following as a substitute for the substitute: — "until 1860, when the Legislature may increase five members and the same number every five years thereafter, till the House shall reach one hundred in number."

Mr. SINGLETON moved the committee rise. Lost.

The question, after a brief debate, was taken on the last proposed substitute, and it was carried. Yeas 71, nays 57.

The amendment as amended was then adopted. Yeas 66, nays 57.

Mr. WHITNEY moved the committee rise. Carried. The chairman reported and it had leave to sit again.

Mr. SHARPE asked leave of absence, for six days, for Dr. CHOATE, of Hancock county. Granted.

Mr. SINGLETON asked leave of absence for Mr. MARSHALL of Mason for five days. Granted.

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough offered a resolution that no member shall receive pay for time not given to the Convention, except when absent on account of sickness.

Mr. THOMAS moved to lay it on the table. The yeas and nays were demanded and ordered, and then the motion to lay on the table was withdrawn.

Mr. SCATES renewed it, and the question being taken, on laying the resolution on the table by yeas and nays resulted — yeas 49, nays 91.

The use of the Hall was given to Mrs. BROWNE and daughters for a concert to be given on Saturday night to the returned volunteers. And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 9 a. m.

299

XXII. Friday, July 2, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BAILEY.

Mr. SCATES moved that leave of absence be granted to Mr. CANADY, for six days. Granted.

Mr. KNOWLTON asked leave of absence of four days for Mr. LANDER. Granted.

The resolution pending at the adjournment yesterday, was on the resolution, as amended, of Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess, and

Mr. GEDDES offered a substitute for the resolution, and the vote being taken thereon, resulted — yeas 67, nays 20; no quorum.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved a call of the House. Ordered.

The call was then made and 130 members answered to their names. On motion, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with,

And the substitute was laid on the table.

Mr. BUTLER offered the following as a substitute for the resolution:

That each member of this Convention give in the number of days of his attendance upon honor, including the number of days he has been absent on leave, and on account of sickness, and those he has actually attended in this Convention, and the same be certified to by the President.

Mr. WHITNEY moved to lay the whole subject on the table; on which motion the yeas and nays were ordered and resulted — yeas 59, nays 70.

Mr. CAMPBELL then accepted the substitute.

Mr. SINGLETON offered an amendment — "that each member give in the number of days for which he is entitled to pay and the President certify to the same.

Mr. KNOWLTON offered as an amendment, that when any member shall be absent at prayers, he shall be docked in his per diem 25 cents; at the reading of the journal, 10 cents; at the time of making a speech by any member, two dollars; at the offering of

300

any resolution, thirty-seven and a half cents; and at the calling the yeas and nays, five dollars.

On motion, the previous question was ordered, and the vote being taken on the last amendment by yeas and nays, resulted — yeas 19. Lost.

Mr. WORCESTER moved that the Convention adjourn till Tuesday morning. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the motion was withdrawn.

A motion was made that the Convention adjourn till Monday next; and the yeas and nays being ordered and taken, resulted — yeas 8, nays 122. The question was taken on the amendment of Mr. SINGLETON, and decided in the negative.

And the question being taken on the resolution as amended, by yeas and nays, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. BUTLER offered the following preamble and resolution:

Whereas, incorporations, clothed with exclusive powers and privileges, are contrary to the spirit and fundamental principles of our republican institutions; oppressive to the best interests of the people at large; and tend to unequal, unjust and oppressive monopolies; making the rich richer, and the poor poorer; and whereas, by such monopolies and exclusive privileges, the capitalist is enabled to control the particular branch of business in which he may engage, and conduct the same to the exclusion of the truly worthy and deserving; making wealth predominate over merit, virtue and integrity; and whereas, the chartering by law and protecting incorporations in the exercise of such exclusive, unequal and unjust power and privileges, tends to the concentration of capital and the business of the country in the hands of the few, and to the establishment of an aristocracy of wealth, and to the subjection of the, many to mere dependents and servile operators; therefore,

Resolved, That the committee on Incorporations be instructed to enquire &c. of prohibiting the Legislature from hereafter creating any companies, associations or corporations — by special act, with exclusive powers and privileges, except for municipal purposes, and except in such cases where the objects of such association, company or corporation cannot be accomplished under the provisions of a general law which may apply equally to all persons.

Mr. LOGAN said, he had no objection to the resolution, as it

301

was one directing a mere enquiry; but the preamble contained certain principles which he did not think the Convention would adopt. He asked a division of the question. And the vote was taken on the adoption of the resolution, and it was adopted.

Mr. McCALLEN then moved that the preamble be laid on the table. The yeas and nays were demanded, and were ordered, and resulted yeas 64, nays 67.

Mr. LOGAN said, it was evident John Thompson had been hunting up his stray cattle and had been successful; and as this question would lead to debate he moved its postponement till Monday week, when the resolutions of the gentleman from Jo Daviess would come before the Convention. Carried.

Mr. SHUMWAY moved a resolution instructing the committee on Incorporations to report a clause prohibiting the establishment of a United States bank or any branch thereof in the State.

Mr. SINGLETON offered as a substitute for the resolution that no member of the Convention be allowed for his own use, any of the paper or ink furnished by the State; and that no member be allowed pay for fractions of day's attendance.

Mr. VANCE moved to adjourn till 3 p. m.

Mr. ATHERTON moved to adjourn till Monday week.

Mr. BROWN moved to adjourn till Tuesday next.

The motion to adjourn till Monday week was lost.

The motion to adjourn till Tuesday next was decided by yeas and nays as follows: Yeas 4, nays 128.

Mr. BROWN moved to adjourn till Monday, and the vote was taken by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas 7, nays 121.

The motion to adjourn till 3 p. m., was lost.

Mr. GREEN of Tazewell made a few remarks on the state of things in the Convention, and

Mr. SINGLETON withdrew his substitute.

Mr. DEITZ moved to add to the resolution, "without first obtaining leave of the Legislature."

Mr. SHUMWAY moved to lay the amendment on the table. Carried. The resolution was then postponed till Monday week next.

Mr. SINGLETON then offered his resolution, (same one as before withdrawn.)

302

Mr. LOGAN moved to lay it on the table. The yeas and nays were demanded, ordered and taken, and resulted — yeas 76, nays 50.

Mr. HILL offered a resolution that the Convention shall meet daily hereafter (Sundays excepted) at 8 a. m., and 2 p. m.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess offered as an amendment that, in computing the pay of members for attendance, Sundays be not included. A motion to lay the amendment on the table was made, and the yeas and nays demanded and ordered.

Mr. GEDDES moved the Convention adjourn till 3 p. m.

The yeas and nays on the motion were taken, and resulted — yeas 56, nays 69.

Mr. HATES moved to adjourn till 2 p. m. Lost.

The yeas and nays were then taken on laying the amendment on the table, and resulted — yeas 62, nays 46.

Mr. SERVANT offered a resolution that when this Convention adjourn, it adjourn till Monday next.

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough moved to lay the resolution on the table, till 3 p. m. Yeas 80. Carried.

Mr. LAUGHLIN moved the Convention adjourn till 3 p. m. Carried.

AFTERNOON

Mr. GEDDES moved to take up the resolution to adjourn till Monday. Carried. Yeas 77, nays none. And it was adopted.

Mr. THOMAS moved the Convention adjourn. Lost.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved the use of the Hall be granted to Mrs. Browne and daughters on Saturday night for a concert to be given to the returned volunteers. Carried.

Mr. BROWN moved the Convention adjourn. Lost.

Mr. LOGAN moved the Convention resolve into committee of the whole. Carried, and Mr. Z. CASEY was called to the chair.

The committee took up the report of the Legislative Committee, at the 6th section which was under consideration when the committee rose on yesterday.

Mr. HARDING moved to amend said section by inserting after the word "districts" where it first occurs, the following: "no county shall vote for more than one member of the House of

303

Representatives.["] Decided in the negative. Yeas 24, nays not counted.

Mr. HARDING moved to insert after "apportioned," where it first occurs, "so that no election district shall be enlarged unless the fraction over the ratio of population, exceed one-third the ratio, and then not unless with contiguous territory." Yeas 55, nays 61.

Mr. LOGAN offered the same amendment except instead of "one-third," it read "one-fourth."

Mr. ROBBINS moved to add to the amendment "so that each county having not less than three-fourths of the ratio shall be entitled to one representative." Which amendment to the amendment was lost.

Mr. LOGAN then withdrew his amendment.

Mr. HAYES moved to strike out the words "as hereafter provided for" and insert "in all future apportionments when more than one county shall be thrown into a representative district, all the representatives to which said counties may be entitled shall be elected by the, whole district." Which was adopted.

Mr. SCATES moved to strike out "twenty-five and seventy-five" and insert "thirty-five and sixty-five." Lost.

SEC. 7. TIME OF MEETING OF THE LEGISLATURE

Mr. THOMAS moved to strike out January, 1849 (the time of the meeting of the first Legislature under the constitution) and insert December, 1848. Lost.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved to add that the Legislature "shall not continue in session for a longer period than sixty days."

Mr. BROCKMAN moved to add to the amendment, "and the Governor shall have the power to prolong the session, if in his opinion the public interests demand the same." The two amendments were decided in the negative.

SEC. 8. OFFICERS OF THE TWO HOUSES AND QUORUM

Mr. WEAD moved to strike out "two-thirds," with a view to insert a larger number to constitute a quorum. Lost.

Sec. 9. Yeas and nays on any question, shall at the desire of any two members be entered on journal.

304

Mr. GRAHAM moved to strike out "two" and insert "one." Lost.

Sec. 10. Any two members may protest &c., and have their reasons entered on the journal.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to strike out "two" and insert "five." Lost.

Sec. 11. Each house may, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member &c.

Mr. LEMON moved to strike out "two-thirds" and insert "a majority." Lost.

Mr. VANCE moved to insert after "two-thirds" "of all the members elect." Carried.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin moved to add: "and the reasons for such expulsion shall be entered on the journal, with the names of members voting for the same." Yeas 65, nays 46. Carried.

Secs. 12, 13, 14 and 15, were passed without any amendment.

SEC. 16. PASSAGE OF BILLS

Mr. KENNER moved to add, "and no bill shall become a law without a concurrence of a majority of all the members elected from each house." Yeas 62, nays 28.

No quorum. The committee rose and the chairman reported to the Convention that the committee was without a quorum.

Mr. LOGAN moved that the committee have leave to sit again on Monday. Yeas 100, nays 10.

Mr. GEDDES moved the Convention adjourn. Carried, and the Convention adjourned till Monday next, at 10 o'clock a. m.

305

XXIII. Monday, July 5, 1847.

The Convention was called to order by Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon at the request and in the absence of the President.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. BERGEN.

Mr. BUTLER presented two petitions from citizens of Lake county, praying certain reforms in the Legislative Department; which were referred to the committee on that department.

And, also, a petition from the same source, praying the election of district attorneys, &c., by the people. Referred to committee on Organization of Departments.

Also, a petition, from the same source, praying the abolition of county commissioners' courts.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison, Mr. DUMMER, Mr. HILL, Mr. ANDERSON, and Mr. DAVIS of McLean, presented petitions, praying the appointment of a State school superintendent. Referred to committee on Education.

Mr. VERNOR presented petitions from citizens of Washington county in relation to naturalization of foreigners. Referred to committee on Bill of [Rights.]

Mr. SCATES moved that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole on the report of the committee on the Legislative Department.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole — Mr. Z. CASEY in the Chair. The question pending when the committee rose on Friday was on the amendment to the 16th section of the referred article, and being taken was decided in the affirmative.

SEC. 17. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, &c.

Mr. CHURCH moved to strike out the section. Lost.

SECTION 18. Every bill shall be read on three different days in each House, unless in case of urgency, when three-fourths of the House where such bill is so depending shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule; and every bill, having passed both Houses,

306

shall be signed by the speakers of their respective Houses; and no private or local law which may be passed by the Legislature shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title; and no general law shall be in force until published.

Mr. BALLINGALL moved to insert after the words "general law," the following: "shall contain any matter not pertinent to the title and first section [t]hereof." Lost.

Mr. HOLMES moved to strike out "published" and insert "sixty days after its passage." Lost.

Mr. PETERS moved to insert after "Houses," where it occurs last, "nor shall any bill become a law until the same shall have been printed for the use of the members." Lost.

Mr. KNOX moved to strike out the words "private and local;" which was carried.

Mr. WEAD moved to strike out "and no general law shall be in force until published." And he gave as a reason for this, that the fact of "publication of a law would, hereafter, lead to great uncertainty. The motion was afterwards withdrawn.

Mr. HAYES moved to reconsider the vote by which the words "private or local" had been stricken out. And the same was reconsidered, and the question being taken upon that motion to strike out, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. SINGLETON offered an amendment, which being modified at the suggestion of Mr. LOGAN, was adopted as follows:

Strike out all after the word "title," and insert and no private or public act of the General Assembly shall take effect, or be in force, until after the expiration of sixty days from the end of the session, at which the same may be passed, unless in case of emergency, the Legislature shall otherwise direct, by a vote of two-thirds of each branch of the Legislature.["]

Mr. THOMAS moved to strike out the words "private and." Carried.

SEC. 19. STYLE OF LAW

No amendment.

Sec. 20. The sum of two dollars per day, for the first forty-two days' attendance, and one dollar per day for each day's attendance thereafter, and ten cents for each necessary mile's travel, going to and returning from the seat of government, shall

307

be allowed to the members of the General Assembly, as a compensation for their services.

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved to strike out "forty-two" and insert "sixty." Yeas 44, nays 50. No quorum. By unanimous consent, the vote was taken again. Yeas 48, nays 55. No quorum.

The committee then rose, and the chairman reported to the Convention that the committee was without a quorum.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved a call of the Convention.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess suggested that as the object of the call was only for the purpose of ascertaining whether a quorum was present or not, he hoped that the President would count the members present.

Mr. CASEY withdrew his call.

Mr. THOMAS renewed the motion for a call, and it was ordered. And one hundred and twenty-eight members answered to their names. The Convention then resolved itself into a committee of the whole — Mr. CASEY in the Chair.

And the question being on striking out, the same was decided in the negative — yeas 51, nays 64.

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved to strike out "two dollars" and insert "not exceeding three dollars." Lost.

Mr. SCATES moved to insert before the word "attendance," wherever it occurs, "actual;" decided in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to add to the section, "and no more." Carried.

Mr. ROUNTREE offered an amendment allowing the Speaker of the House of Representatives $1 additional pay each day; the clerk of the House and secretary of the Senate to be allowed $3 a day; the assistant secretaries, door-keepers and engrossing clerks $2 per day.

Mr. LOGAN moved to amend the amendment by allowing the Speaker $2 per diem additional.

Mr. KITCHELL moved the committee rise; decided in the affirmative — yeas 58, nays 50. The committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again; which was granted.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

308

AFTERNOON

The Convention met, but few members being present, a call was ordered and made; and after the absentees had been again called a quorum appeared.

Mr. THOMAS moved the committee go into committee of the whole. Carried, and Mr. Z. CASEY was called to the Chair. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the Legislative Department. The question pending was on the amendment proposed by Mr. LOGAN to the amendment of Mr. ROUNTREE; and the question was taken thereon and decided in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend the amendment by striking out all except so much thereof as related to the pay of the Speaker; which was adopted — yeas 65, nays 44.

Mr. SCATES moved to allow the President of the Senate the same pay as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Lost.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to insert, after "two dollars a day," the words, "in gold and silver, or its equivalent;" decided in the negative.

Mr. ADAMS offered, as an additional section to be numbered 21, the following: "The per diem and mileage allowed each member, shall be certified by the Speaker of each House, and shall be entered upon the journal." Carried — yeas 80, nays not counted.

Mr. DEITZ moved to strike out the words "ten cents for each necessary mile's travel," and insert "fifteen cents," &c. Lost.

Section 21. No amendment.

SEC. 22. No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he shall have been elected, or during one year after the expiration thereof, be appointed or elected to any civil office under this State, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during such time.

Mr. WHITESIDE moved to strike out all after the word "elected," where it first occurs, and insert, "be eligible to any civil office under the authority of this State."

Mr. WEAD moved to insert in the amendment, after "civil office," "or place of trust;" which amendment was accepted; and the question being taken, it was lost.

309

Mr. THORNTON moved to insert, as an additional section, the following: "And no person who has been or may be a collector or holder of public moneys, shall have a seat in either house of the General Assembly until such person shall have accounted for, and paid into the treasury, all sums for which he may be accountable."

Mr. WEAD moved to insert after the words "civil office," "or place of trust." Carried.

Mr. HILL moved to strike out "one year after the expiration thereof." Lost.

SEC. 23. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeaching; but a majority of all the members present must concur in an impeachment. All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate; and when sitting for that purpose, the senators shall be upon oath, or affirmation, to do justice according to law and evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members present.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery moved to strike out the word "present" and insert "elected." Carried.

Mr. SCATES moved to strike out "two-thirds," and insert "majority." Lost.

Section 24. No amendment.

SEC. 25. No judge of any court of law or equity, secretary of State, attorney general, attorney for the State, register, clerk of any court of record, sheriff or collector, member of either House of Congress, or person holding any lucrative office under the U. States or this State, (provided that appointments in the militia, postmasters, or justices of the peace, shall not be considered lucrative offices,) shall have a seat in the General Assembly; nor shall any person holding any office of honor or profit under the government of the United States, hold any office of honor or profit under the authority of this State.

Mr. BALLINGALL moved to insert after "shall" where it first occurs, "during the time he shall hold the office, be eligible," &c. Lost.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean moved to strike out "Postmasters." Carried.

Mr. HURLBUT moved to strike out "Register" and insert "Recorder." Adopted.

310

Sec. 26. No amendment.

Mr. SCATES offered as another section a long series of defined powers to be conferred upon the Legislature. He then, briefly, explained the necessity of placing in the constitution limitations on the powers of the Legislature, and the question being taken thereon, it was lost.

Mr. WEAD offered as an additional section the following:

The Legislature shall never grant or authorize extra compensation to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after the service shall have been rendered or the contract entered into. Adopted.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to re-consider the vote by which Mr. SCATES' amendment was lost. And the same was re-considered. After a short discussion upon the proper mode of bringing the matter understandingly before the Convention, by Messrs. Minshall, Servant, Peters, and Davis of Massac the proposed section was withdrawn.

Mr. HARVEY moved to add "that the Legislature shall never have power to appropriate more than — dollars for contingent expenses." Lost.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon offered as an additional section the following:

The General Assembly shall direct in what manner suits may be brought against the State; and no claim against the State shall be allowed until proven and established before some tribunal and afterwards approved by the Legislature.

Mr. KITCHELL moved to strike out all after the word "tribunal," which was decided in the negative; and then the proposed section was adopted.

Sections 28 and 29. No amendments.

SEC. 30. The General Assembly shall have no power to authorize, by private or special law, the sale of any lands or other real estate belonging in whole or in part to any minor or minors, or other person or persons, who may at any time be under any legal disability to act for themselves.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved to strike out all after the words "in whole or in part to any," and insert "individuals," and the amendment was adopted.

311

SEC. 31. The General Assembly shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals rights, privileges, immunities, or exemptions, other than such as may be, by the same law, extended to any member of the community who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law; nor shall the Legislature pass any law whereby any person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, property, or franchises, without trial and judgment.

Mr. BUTLER moved to insert after the word "individual," where it first occurs in the section, "corporations or associations." Lost.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved to insert after "individual" where it first occurs, "nor to pass any law authorizing any proceeding in any court affecting the property or rights of any individuals other than is allowed under the general laws of the State." Yeas 62, nays 41; no quorum voting. By unanimous consent a second vote was taken and the amendment was adopted.

Mr. SCATES moved to strike out all after the words "provisions of such law." Before any question was taken thereon Mr. GEDDES moved that the committee rise, and ask leave to sit again; which motion was granted, and the committee rose, the chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again; which was granted.

Mr. SCATES moved that certain amendments to the report of the Legislative committee, be laid on the table and printed; which motion was agreed to.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow at 9 A. M.

312

XXIV. Tuesday, July 6, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. DRESSER.

Mr. ROBBINS presented a petition of sundry citizens of Randolph county, praying the exemption of a homestead from execution; referred to the committee on Law Reform.

Mr. SERVANT presented a petition of sundry citizens of Kaskaskia in relation to certain commons granted to them. Referred to a select committee of five.

Mr. WEAD presented a petition of 62 citizens of Fulton county, praying the appointment [of] a State superintendent of Education; referred to the committee on Education.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a communication from the Auditor of Public Accounts, in reply to a resolution of the Convention, requiring information of the amount of revenue since 1839, with reports from the clerks of 17 counties.

Mr. THOMAS moved that the report and accompanying documents be laid on the table and 500 copies printed.

Mr. KITCHELL suggested that the report and documents be referred to the committee on Revenue, for the present.

Mr. THOMAS withdrew his motion, and the documents and report were referred to the committee on Revenue.

Mr. HARVEY, from the committee on Incorporations, presented the report of the majority of the committee; which report he moved be laid on the table and 200 copies be printed. 500 and 1,000 were suggested, and 1,000 copies were ordered to be printed.

BANKS — INCORPORATIONS

Majority Report

ARTICLE — CORPORATIONS

SEC. I. Corporations not possessing banking powers or privileges may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special acts except for municipal purposes, and in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws.

313

SEC. 2. Dues from corporations, not possessing banking powers or privileges, shall be secured by such individual liabilities of the corporators, or other means, as may be prescribed by law.

SEC. 3. No State bank shall hereafter be created, nor shall the State own, or be liable for, any stock in any corporation or joint stock association for banking purposes.

SEC. 4. No banking powers or privileges shall be granted either by general or special acts of incorporation, unless directed by the people of the State as hereinafter provided.

SEC. 5. The Legislature may, at any session, but not oftener than once in four years, direct the vote of the people to be taken, on the day of the general election, for or against the absolute prohibition contained in the fourth section of this article, six months' notice having first been given; and if a majority voting shall decide against the prohibition contained in the said fourth section, the Legislature may authorize the forming of corporations or associations for banking purposes by general acts of incorporations, upon , the following conditions:

1st. No law shall be passed sanctioning in any manner, directly or indirectly, the suspension of specie payments.

2d. Ample security shall be required for the redemption, in specie, of all bills and notes put in circulation as money, and a registry of all such bills and notes shall be required.

3d. The stockholders in every corporation and joint stock association for banking purposes issuing bank notes or any kind of paper credits to circulate as money, shall be individually responsible to the amount of their respective share or shares of stock in any such corporation or association for all its debts and liabilities of every kind.

4th. In case of insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill holders shall be entitled to preference in payment over all other creditors of such bank or association.

5th. Non-payment of specie shall be a forfeiture of all banking rights and privileges, and the Legislature shall not have power to remit the forfeiture or relieve from any of its consequences; and provision shall be made by law for the trial, in a summary way, by the judicial tribunals, of all contested questions of forfeiture of banking privileges.

314

SEC. 6. Acts of incorporation for municipal purposes, whether general or special, may at any time be altered, amended or repealed, and all general acts granting corporate powers of any kind other than for municipal purposes may at any time be altered, amended or repealed. But such alteration, amendment or repeal shall, unless the right to make the same be reserved, operate prospectively.

Mr. HARVEY, from the same committee, reported back sundry resolutions, (Mr. PRATT'S resolutions,) in relation to a provision to be inserted in the constitution, that all contracts based upon paper currency shall be void, and asked leave to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. Concurred in.

Mr. KINNEY of St. Clair presented a report from the minority of the committee on Incorporations.

Minority Report

SEC. 1. No corporate body shall be hereafter created, renewed, or extended, within this State; with banking or discounting privileges.

SEC. 2. Corporations shall not be created in this State by special laws, but the Legislature shall provide by general and uniform laws, under which corporations, or associations of persons, may be formed, and not otherwise, except corporations with banking or discounting privileges, the creation of which is prohibited.

SEC. 3. No person, corporation, or association of persons, shall be allowed to make, issue, or put in circulation, within this State, any bill, check, ticket, certificate, or other paper, or the paper of any bank or its branches, or any evidence of debt, intended to circulate as money.

SEC. 4. No branch, or agency, of any bank or banking institution in the United States, or any State or Territory, within or without the United States, shall be established or maintained within this State.

SEC. 5. The members of such corporations, or associations of persons, shall be individually liable for the debts, liabilities and acts of such corporations, or associations, and for the consequences resulting therefrom.

On motion ordered that 1,000 copies be printed.

315

Mr. HARVEY, from the committee on Incorporations, to whom had been referred various propositions in relation to banks, reported the same back to the Convention, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of them. Concurred in.

Mr. JENKINS, from the committee on the Division of the State into Counties, and the Organization thereof, made a report, which was laid on the table and 500 copies ordered to be printed.

Mr. TURNBULL presented a report of the minority of the same committee, which was laid on the table and ordered to be printed with the other.

Mr. JENKINS, from the same committee, made a report in accordance with certain instructions from the Convention, and recommended that the same be not adopted. Ordered that 500 copies be printed.

Mr. JENKINS offered a resolution of inquiry; referred to the committee on Judiciary.

Mr. LOGAN moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole. And the Convention went into committee of the whole — Mr. WOODSON in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Legislative committee. The question pending at the time of adjournment yesterday was on the striking out of the latter clause of the 31st section, all after the words "such law."

Mr. HARVEY advocated the motion to strike out, on the ground that the clause as it stood now would effectually deprive the State of the power to sell land for unpaid taxes. He contended that if this were done, the State would be deprived of one of her main sources of revenue; and of the only means of collecting taxes due by non-resident landholders.

Mr. WILLIAMS followed in opposition to the motion. He thought that the introduction of the question of tax upon land, into the question was unnecessary and uncalled for. He thought the only proper question was, should the Legislature have power to pass laws whereby a man's liberty or property could be taken away, without first obtaining for that law the sanction and approval of the judicial branch of the government. This was secured by the words "a trial of judgment," now proposed to be stricken out. He then went into an elaborate discussion of the

316

nature and propriety of selling a man's property to pay taxes thereon; thus depriving and disseizing a man of his freehold, without a trial and judgment of a court; which he said was in violation of the great fundamental principles of our government. He pointed out the great length the courts of Illinois had gone to in sustaining tax titles, and the unjust and unrighteous consequences thereof upon the land owner.

Mr. LOGAN opposed not only the last clause, but the whole section. Its language was new, and unfamiliar to the courts and to the people; it could not be so readily understood as the old, long known and sufficient language contained in the bill of rights. He thought we would be going too far in thus binding and prohibiting the Legislature from doing anything which that section might be construed to embrace.

He then explained at some length, the clause proposed to be stricken out, and said that the words "the Legislature shall not pass any law whereby any person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, property or franchise, without trial and judgment," had a much greater effect than some gentlemen seemed to put upon them. He interpreted those words, as prohibiting the arrest, or seizure of any person on mesne process, or the detention of any man's property (no matter what the circumstances of the case might be) by attachment. He argued for some time on the inconvenience and disadvantages of such a law. He put this case among many others: that no man could be put in jail upon any charge, and detained there for a moment, without depriving him of his liberty. Now, the clause proposed to be stricken out, said no man could be deprived of his liberty without a "trial and judgment;" and how, he asked, was this to be done. How could a man have a "trial and judgment," be tried and adjudged, unless he appear and be tried. He proposed that in the bill of rights, and not in this article of the constitution, there should be inserted the well known provision, found in all constitutions and taken from Magna Charta, that "no man should be deprived of his life, liberty, &c., unless by a trial of his peers and the law of the land." After entering into the bearing this clause had upon the question of a sale of land for unpaid taxes, he moved that the whole section be stricken out.

317

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin was in favor of the section remaining as it had been reported by the committee. He thought that the provisions in the first part of the section, were wise, and should be adopted; and the mere fact of their not being in familiar language was not sufficient for him to vote against them. He thought that the cases put by the gentleman from Sangamon, as necessarily following the adoption of the latter clause, were extreme cases and could be easily avoided by a further provision in some other part of the constitution.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said that at first he was in favor of the motion to strike out, but from what had been said, he was now in opposition to that motion. He was wholly opposed to striking out the first part of the section, where it prohibits the suspension of general laws for the benefit and convenience of private individuals; and put to the Convention an example of its operation. He said the Legislature had been for many sessions beset by applications for extension of time to sheriffs and collectors, in which to make their returns. In one case in his county the time had been extended to a sheriff, and that extension had released his sureties, and now the same man was more unable to account with the State, than he was at the time of the suspension. He was also opposed to the passage of any special law, suspending general laws for the benefit of any individual. He did not care much whether the provision should be retained in this article, but he desired it should be somewhere in the constitution.

Mr. WEAD said, that he had known for years, and had heard and witnessed much of the extraordinary ingenuity of the gentleman from Sangamon, and the influence he exerted over men's minds by his perseverance and ingenuity where he had some particular object to carry. He never dreamed that any member of the Convention could be induced to reject the section, until he heard the argument of that gentleman, and remembered his great talent in carrying out his views, and accomplishing what he undertakes by special and ingenious argument. He says that this provision is contained in new language and difficult to understand; that it will lead to confusion and chaos in the interpretation of it by courts of law; that it cannot be comprehended unless it shall be passed on by courts of law. Mr. W. read the clause: "Shall

318

not suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual." Cannot this be understood by any man? Does it require a court of justice to pass on this to enable the gentleman from Sangamon to understand it? We all know the gentleman's ability to comprehend such things, and measuring this language by the gentleman's ability to understand, must we not believe that he can understand it without the aid of a court of justice? We must come to that conclusion. Now, sir, if he can and does understand its meaning, and advocates that it be stricken out, should we not infer that he is opposed to the restriction, and in favor of granting the power to the Legislature to create laws bestowing this evil of special privileges? Does he understand the clause, or is he in favor of granting the power? On which horn of the dilemma is he? Mr. W. read the next clause: "Nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the laws of the land." Is there anything in this difficult to be understood? Cannot the gentleman from Sangamon understand the plain language of that clause, or is he in favor of leaving with the Legislature the power which this clause prohibits? What is it but a prohibition against the granting to one man privileges and powers not conferred or enjoyed by all. The same argument will apply to the whole of the first part of the section. He then came to the last part of the section: "Nor shall the Legislature pass any law whereby any person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, property or franchises, without trial and judgment." He had heard the able and ingenious argument of the gentleman against this section, and upon its effect upon the titles to land derived under tax sales, and notwithstanding their ability, &c. he would attempt to answer them. He said that in other States it had been over and again decided that no man should be disseized of his freehold and his land sold except on a judgment of law; that they had decided that no land should be sold for non-payment of taxes except on a judgment. But the supreme court of Illinois had decided otherwise. Here was a great difference in opinion upon a great principle of right, and in judicial interpretation of the power to deprive a man of his freehold. This provision was intended to meet this difficulty by setting, in the constitution, the true and proper meaning and construction of law on this subject, and with

319

a view to preserve, inviolate, the right of property. It is said that the question is, shall land be sold for taxes or not? That, said Mr. W., is not the question. If I understand the provision now before us, or the views of the honorable author of it, the question is, shall land be sold for taxes without having first a judgment? Mr. W. then went into an inquiry of the nature of the titles by which the greater part of the land in the military tract were held, and advocated the adoption of the clause proposed to be stricken out, because it would require a judgment before a sale of property. He cited several cases showing where this provision would operate advantageously. — Without concluding, he gave way to a motion that the committee rise.

The committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

The Convention then, on motion, adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

The Convention met, no quorum appearing, on motion, a call of the Convention was ordered. After a quorum appeared and further proceedings were dispensed with,

Mr. MARKLEY moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole — Mr. WOODSON in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the Legislative Department.

Mr. WEAD resumed his remarks. He denied that it would be more difficult to overturn or set aside a deed given under a sale after judgment, than it would be under a deed without a judgment, and as had been previously the case in this State. He proceeded to give a history of the various laws passed by the Legislature in relation to taxes. In 1823 the first law was passed for the sale of land for taxes. It required that, before the sale, they should be advertised, and then the Auditor might go on and sell them without any judgment. That law said the Auditor's deed should convey a perfect title to the purchaser, no matter how it had been advertised, or whether anything had been done according to law. The deed was sufficient — it conveyed a perfect title. In 1827 this law was changed. It required the land to be advertised in a particular manner, but when the Auditor gave a deed, it vested in the

320

purchaser a perfect title; and it made no difference whether it had been advertised according to law or sold for the right amount, &c. The deed vested a perfect title. It swept everything from the tax payer without any trial or judgment. Our courts had uniformly decided that the mere deed shall be full and conclusive evidence of title, without requiring any proof of the execution of the deed, or of any of the pre-requisite facts, mentioned in the law. Could any judgment of a court give a better or a stronger title than this? But it begun [sic] to be doubted whether the perfect title could be given to the purchaser under this deed, as that article of the bill of rights says no man shall be disseized of his freehold, &c. And in 1839 the legislature passed a law saying that a judgment should be had before a sale of a man's property. But our supreme court said, that the provision, said to be in the Magna Charta, did not apply to such cases, as the deed was a patent. Mr. W. then read from the law of 1839, the various facts which the tax deed shall be conclusive evidence of, and throwing upon the man claiming the property under the original grant, the necessity and difficulty of disproving them. This latter he contended it was almost impossible to accomplish, in consequence of no records being kept by the officers, of those transactions, necessary for him to make out his case. He contended that the policy of all legislation in this State, from 1823, had been to make these deeds the strongest kind of titles, and conclusive evidence of the facts necessary to establish them. But the supreme court had at length decided that a judgment was necessary, and then a law was passed requiring a judgment.

Before this law the deed of the Auditor was omnipotent — changed a man's property at once; now you must first have a judgment and an execution. It was to secure this, that the present provision was inserted; strike it out and you take away the last safeguard a man has over his property. In the course of Mr. W.'s remarks, he replied to the argument of Mr. LOGAN, in relation to the effect this clause would have upon holding a man's property, under an attachment and the arrest under mesne process; and denied that any such interpretation could be placed upon it as argued by Mr. L.

Mr. LOGAN repeated his former views of the question in all its

321

bearings upon the tax question, and deprecated too much action on the part of the Convention in providing a remedy and a prohibition for every imaginary evil. He thought, as has been said, that all the wisdom of the State had not been exhausted in forming that Convention, and that we should trust much to the discretion and judgment of the Legislatures to come after us. He thought that while we were complaining so much of too much legislation, there was also a danger of our performing too much constitutioning. He said the present provision was in the words "trial and judgment," which were very different in their import and effect from the former and well known phrase — "trial by his peers and the law of the land:" and he argued at length that the words "law of the land" should be inserted after the clause as it now stood; or, if the clause were stricken out, that those words, with such other provisions as might be deemed necessary, should be inserted in the bill of rights. He objected to a prohibition being inserted in the constitution restraining the Legislature from suspending any general law for the benefit of private individuals. He had voted for suspending such laws in more instances than one; and if such cases should arise again, and he denied that he could say they would not, he would always vote for it. He alluded to the cases where the whole American bottom was overflowed by the great freshet in '44, and when the people of that section of the country lost everything they had, or only secured so much as to enable them to live till such time as they could regain in some measure the means of subsistence, then the sheriffs of those counties applied to the Legislature for an extension of their time for making their returns, because they could not, in many cases, collect, taxes without seizing upon what little had been spared the people by the flood. The Legislature had suspended the law upon these circumstances, he had voted for it, and would any man in the Convention oppose it, or refuse to grant an extension of the time under such terrible and afflicting circumstances? He had also voted for an extension of time to collectors and sheriffs when the offices in which their books and accounts had been kept were destroyed by fire, and they were unable to account with the Auditor. He pointed out that under this section no charters could be granted to individuals to construct railroads or any other kind of

322

improvement, for if they did it was conferring upon those persons chartered privileges which other persons did not enjoy.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin said he could not see the great difficulties in this section which had been pointed out by the gentlemen, and which they had discovered to be so alarming. The language appeared plain to him and not in anyway to be misunderstood. It was a prohibition against special laws and a suspension of general laws for the benefit of particular individuals. He thought the cases mentioned by the gentleman last up — the cases of the flood — and of fire, might be provided for by a general law, giving the Legislature a power under certain circumstances which would enable them to meet these cases. It had been said that this prohibition would put an end to all railroads being constructed by private individuals. Now, when an object can be obtained by a general law, as well as by special laws, general laws should be adopted. Suppose a law be passed that A. and B. shall have the privilege of constructing a railroad from Alton to Springfield, it is a special law, and the same object can be obtained by a general law, that any person may construct that road, thus bringing all persons who have the means of bringing themselves within the provisions of the law, into competition and permitting them to make the road.

Mr. THOMAS. Will the gentleman show me how a man can, under a general law, obtain an exclusive privilege?

Mr. PALMER. Suppose the gentleman and I are desirous to have a certain quarter section of land, and we both start tonight to Edwardsville for that purpose; I arrive there first and have the land entered in my name. I thus, under a general law obtain a peculiar special privilege and right in that land, to the exclusion of every one else. I hope the gentleman considers himself answered. I obtain this right under no special act, but simply from superiority of speed with which I started. This same rule, if applied to railroads, would be found to act as well; for it would then enable every man, with means, to enter into the business.

Mr. WILLIAMS made some remarks in reply to what had

323

been said about the law of the land, and argued in favor of the retention of the last clause. He also alluded further to the question. The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the whole question, and decided in the negative.

The question was taken on the motion to strike out the last section, and decided in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to add to the section the following words: "in court, provided nothing herein contained shall prevent the passage of any law for seizing and holding persons or property by mesne process until such trial can be had."

Mr. HARVEY moved to insert after the words "trial and judgment" the words "or law of the land." And the question being taken on the last amendment, it was decided in the negative — yeas 46, nays 63.

Mr. THORNTON moved to insert after the word "law" where it last occurs, "provided the General Assembly shall have power to grant such charters of corporation as they deem expedient, and not prohibited."

And the question was taken on Mr. WILLIAMS' amendment, and it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. MARKLEY moved that the committee rise. Carried.

The committee rose, reported progress and had leave to sit again.

Mr. LOGAN asked leave for the ladies of the Episcopal church of this city to occupy the Senate chamber on Thursday next. Granted.

The Convention, on motion, adjourned till to-morrow, at 9 A. M.

324

XXV. Wednesday, July 7, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. HALE.

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago presented a petition praying the appointment of a superintendent of common schools. Referred to the committee on Education.

Mr. HOLMES presented a report from the minority of the committee on Military Affairs; read, laid on the table and 200 copies ordered to be printed.

Mr. LOGAN moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole. And the Convention went into a committee of the whole, and took up the report of the committee on the Legislative Department — Mr. WOODSON in the chair.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean moved to strike out all after the word "to," where it first occurs in the section, to the word "pass," where it occurs last.

Mr. LOGAN said, he would be glad if some member of the committee who had reported this section would explain the meaning of the words "nor to pass any law granting to any individuals rights, privileges, immunities or exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law, extended to any member of the community who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law."

Mr. SCATES said, that he would state what his understanding of the language was. Suppose a railroad was wanted from Alton to the Indiana line, and the Legislature should pass a general law authorizing the same, but requiring that a subscription should be opened and let every man subscribe to the stock who had the means. This would be a law open in its privileges to all who had the means of bringing themselves within the provisions of the law, and not a special charter to a few individuals. The language of the section is to prohibit special acts of incorporations. If gentlemen will understand it all, it means then all these things are to be accomplished by general laws, instead of special acts of legislation. He was not opposed to the Legislature passing laws

325

allowing persons to make roads or canals, but he wanted those laws to be general in their nature and not special. He alluded at some length to the great cost which it had been to the State in consequence of these acts of special legislation being continually before the Legislature and the great amount of time wasted in their deliberation.

Mr. LOGAN thought it meant no such thing. He thought it offered no check to special charters of incorporation by the Legislature. As to the case of the railroad subscription, that case did not come under the language of this section, for if a charter of incorporation, granting certain rights, privileges and immunities to those who subscribe, were passed by the Legislature, those only then who first subscribed, would be entitled to the rights, benefits &c., for no one else can bring themselves within the provisions of the law after the stock is taken. Does this prevent special charters? Suppose the Legislature should grant an act of incorporation to the Chairman and Judge Scates, to make a road — no one can bring himself within the provisions of the law, but those two; it is then left with the Legislature to say who shall bring themselves "within the provisions of the law." This would be nothing more than a special act of incorporation. He did not desire this kind of provision, if gentlemen desired that no special charters should be granted, why not say so plainly, in language which every man could understand; and leave out these ambiguous terms.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean said, he had made the motion to strike out for a two-fold purpose. No one could foresee the great difficulties which this ambiguous language contained in this section would cause hereafter, and would throw in the way of private relief, in meritorious cases, by the Legislature. The case mentioned yesterday of the suspension of the time for a sheriff's return in consequence of the great freshet in '44 was conclusive to his mind, and should be so to all. He objected to the binding down of the Legislature by constitutional provisions, against granting any relief from a general law in meritorious cases. He protested against the wholesale abuse that gentlemen were continually throwing upon the past legislatures of the country. They, it might be, had done wrong, but they were not to blame, they

326

represented public opinion and were driven by the force of that public opinion into what they had done. He did not desire to see incorporated into the constitution any provision which shall require legislation and judicial interpretation upon it. If gentlemen desired to say that no special charters should be granted, let them come out and say so in terms that any man can understand.

Mr. BROCKMAN was opposed to striking out any of this section, except the words "such as may be able to bring themselves within the provisions of the general law;" for he did not believe there was a man in the State who was unable to avail himself of the privileges of a general law. Gentlemen saw something important in this provision; it was full of meaning. Why should a general law be suspended for the benefit of a private individual? In the county of Brown they had lost over $1,000 by extending the time to a collector, and such would always be the case if this power was left to the Legislature. They say this provision will prevent the making of any more railroads through the State! Gentlemen think and feel that this provision will act on their favorite — the bank question! And so it does, sir; and for that very reason I will vote against striking out. This section is full of meaning. Suppose we reverse its language, and let it read, the Legislature shall have power to suspend general laws for the benefit of private individuals. It would then be easily understood by the gentlemen; and it may be as easily understood in its present shape. He said, that he had been opposed to the last clause in the section, because it interfered with the primary arrest of persons charged with crime, &c., but as that had been amended he would vote for it.

Mr. SCATES still could not see any objections to the section, as had been argued by the gentlemen. If those gentlemen who think it does not prevent special charters and special legislation would vote for it he would be satisfied. The cases put yesterday, where a suspension had been made, could be provided for in another section; they could insert a power in the constitution, that the Legislature could, in case of the destruction of a sheriff's books by fire, extend the time for that officer's accounting, to the next session of the Legislature. He pointed out many cases where losses had occurred by an extension of time to these officers, and the releasing thereby of their sureties. He objected to the many

327

reprimands that had been delivered to him in consequence of his having spoken of the evils of past legislation, and because he had endeavored to have adopted certain necessary remedies of the evil, and guards against a recurrence of it. The people had called this Convention to remedy that evil, and their representatives should be heeded when they asked that these things should be done. If everything was to be left open for the patriotism, discretion, and purity of future legislatures, it would be better to have no constitution. But the people required a constitution and that in it the powers of the Legislature should be limited, and the evils past legislation remedied.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac said, that various opinions had been expressed as to the meaning and proper interpretation of these provisions in this section. He was firmly of the opinion that nothing contained in it prohibited, but authorized, a general banking system, and this he was sure was not contemplated by the gentleman from Jefferson.

Mr. SCATES said, that he supposed there would be other provisions in the constitution upon the subject of banks, and had no thought of it in respect to this section.

Mr. DAVIS. It is thought by many that these provisions will restrain the acts of the Legislature, and to prevent the General Assembly from passing acts which tend to impair the public good. He did not entertain a doubt but that they authorized a general banking system, and that every man who could bring himself within the provisions of the law, will be entitled to enter into that system. If he thought it would prohibit such a thing he would vote for it; but believing that it would allow that system, he would vote against it and for striking it out. He was extremely sorry to differ from the gentleman from Jefferson, but he felt satisfied that if that gentleman would give the subject some consideration and mature reflection, he would come to the same conclusion. He was in favor of a single, plain provision, that the Legislature should grant no special charters or acts of incorporation, and would prefer it to one which will lead to so much difficulty, debate, and strife, as this provision would when it came to be acted on by the Legislature. — He had a different opinion in relation to the duties and objects of this Convention than that entertained by some gentlemen.

328

He thought they had not come there for the sole purpose of saving a few dollars, but for the nobler and higher object of making an organic law of the land, which was to govern the people and secure them the greatest prosperity. Government should be so established as to give it the power to do everything necessary for the public good; and he thought we should not restrict the Legislature within limits too narrow to enable them in all cases to act for the good of all the people.

He had no doubt but that this provision will authorize general banking throughout the State; he was satisfied that this will be the undoubted and certain — the common sense — interpretation that will be placed upon it. Is the gentleman from Jefferson ready to go for it after having declared banks of every description a curse upon the land? He thought that when gentlemen understood this, the provision would not have so many advocates.

He asked, is it prudent to divest the Legislature of all power? He thought more evil would result from this prohibition, than would if the whole matter was left open. He explained the force of it, under the interpretation which he said would certainly be placed upon it, to be: A and B are authorized to bank, &c., and any man who can bring himself within the provisions of the law is authorized to carry on banking, this would be the sure and positive result` Is there anything in this section providing that A and B shall not be incorporated? Not a word. Again, any man who can subscribe to stock in a railroad company, brings himself within the provisions of the law, and there is no preventive against such incorporations, and thus are brought about the very consequences which the gentleman from Jefferson has opposed, and again will the prosperity of the State be blasted and destroyed. — It was his serious conviction that it would be better to leave the constitution as it is, than to have any provision which will authorize a general banking system, allowing the creation of these monsters all over the State, leaving its impress on the prosperity of the people forever.

Mr. WILLIAMS said, he was not present at the meeting of the committee when the section now before the Convention was

329

adopted. He felt more interest in the principle contained in the last clause, and in committee he brought it forward, and the committee tacked it on the end of the section. That matter having been settled, he thought that the first provisions of the section ought to be stricken out. It would be remembered that he had not advocated the first part of the section, but had confined himself to the latter clause. Let those, said he, who are in favor of such a provision and prohibition go to work and make up something and have it inserted, in some less ambiguous terms, in the bill of rights, or some other part of the constitution; and not have this section burdened with language and provisions so ambiguous in their expression as to lead to much difficulty hereafter, and to so many different interpretations.

Mr. POWERS said, he was a member of the committee, and was present when this part of the section was adopted. The committee thought it proper to guard against a suspension of general laws for the benefit of private individuals; but for one, he was satisfied that the case mentioned yesterday by the gentleman from Sangamon, in relation to the suspension in favor of the sheriffs of that part of the State which had suffered so much from the great rise in the river, showed conclusively that cases might arise when such suspensions would be just and proper. He did not see, however, that under the second provision of the section that the Legislature would have the power to authorize general banking. That provision, in his opinion, would defeat all special charters; and if any doubt was entertained the other provisions in the constitution, in relation to that subject, would settle the matter.

Mr. HARVEY said, that on yesterday he was in favor of the first part of the section, but now he was ready to vote against all of it, and would state his reasons. There were many in the Convention who were in favor of a prohibition against banks, to be inserted in the constitution. Now, if he understood the gentleman from Massac, general banking might be established under this section, and for that reason he would vote against the section. If he (Mr. H.) was in favor of a general banking system he would vote against the section, and if opposed to such a system he would vote against the section. It was too ambiguous and indefinite,

330

and he thought it a cowardly way of fighting the question. Let the principle be stated plainly, and not shelter the scheme behind a provision couched in ambiguous language. The prohibitionist and the anti-prohibitionist, each, see their object in this section; it blows hot, and it blows cold, but he thought that it would be found to blow neither. Now, if this section came to be passed on by the judiciary what would be the decision? If the gentleman from Jefferson was the judge of the supreme court, we should have a total prohibition interpretation; if the gentleman from Sangamon was the judge, we would have a general banking interpretation; for he believed that both of these gentlemen have expressed their true opinions on the subject.

Mr. H. alluded to the fact that this provision would not enable a man to establish a ferry on our rivers, because every man had not the same right; and he asked, were they prepared to say we should have no ferries because their owners enjoyed rights not enjoyed by all?

Mr. SERVANT was of opinion that this provision was very little understood, either by its friends or opponents, and it reminded him of an anecdote told of an Irishman, who was asked what was the meaning of metaphysics. He replied, "when you see two men disputing and arguing upon some subject, and neither understands what the other has said, nor what he is saying himself, nor what is the subject of debate — that is metaphysics."

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin said, that the only serious objection to the provision was its ambiguity. So far as that was concerned he thought it plain enough to be understood by any one who was disposed to do so, and he would say to the gentleman from Knox that he, nor any of those "fifty-eight" with whom he had voted in opposition to banks in any shape, were disposed to fight behind any ambiguity; they sought no cowardly means to accomplish their ends; they desired to fight no bush fight. But the gentleman's position could be compared with that of a man who came into town one day, very drunk, and sat down in the street, declaring that the whole town was drunk and he only sober; so with the gentleman from Knox, he cannot see the meaning of this sentence, and therefore thinks no one else can understand it. He thinks everybody else is drunk and does not see himself

331

staggering. Mr. P. had a word to say in relation to banks, which he did not think in any way effected [sic] by this provision. Hereafter, in some other part of the constitution, in some other section, would be inserted a provision in relation to incorporations; and will any ambiguity contained in this section have bearing upon that express provision on the particular subject? It is a well established legal rule, that where there is any provision in a law open and plain upon any particular subject, that any other section, which, if it stood alone, might have a bearing upon that subject, shall not affect the question as settled in the section upon the particular subject. Now, the questions of ferries and banks, if we provide for them specially, will not in any way be affected by any bearing this section may have upon those subjects. Again, suppose we say that nothing contained in this section shall have any reference to the subject of banks or ferries, would it not be admitted that such a declaration would obviate the difficulty? Well, if a well established legal principle of interpretation has the same effect, then the objections of the gentleman from Knox, from Massac, and from Sangamon and other objectors fall to the ground. The gentleman from Randolph has, as we sometimes say, taken water; he says this section may be perverted to other purposes than intended by the committee or the Convention. The committee who reported this section, knew that the subjects of banks and incorporations had been referred to another committee, and supposed that a provision would be reported to be inserted in the constitution, which would settle the matter. Mr. P. again repeated that the "fifty-eight," were no bush fighters, and would be found ready to meet their opponents on the subject of banks, in a fair and open field.

Mr. LOGAN said, he had taken the meaning he placed on these provisions from the gentleman from Jefferson, who said it was to prevent special charters; but it appeared that even the friends of the section were not of one opinion as to its meaning. He said he believed the interpretation of the gentleman from Macoupin was the correct one. But there was no general law that would not have to be suspended in some cases, or acts should be passed which would protect certain persons; for instance, the judges of our courts should be privileged from arrest, the members

332

of the Legislature, jurors and witnesses, while in attendance, should be privileged from arrest. These persons all enjoyed rights, privileges and immunities not enjoyed by the rest of the community. Would any man be in favor of depriving those persons of that right and privilege from arrest? If so, a man who desired to defeat a cause had only to have issued a writ, and the judge would be arrested sitting on the bench; witnesses would be arrested and taken away, and a man might lose his case in consequence. These were cases, and there were many others which this section did not provide for, and which would be defeated were it allowed to pass.

Mr. SCATES explained what his interpretation of the section was — to prevent special legislation — and renewed his opposition to the motion to strike out.

Mr. KNOWLTON said, he was sick of this 31st section. He had heard all that had been said upon it and his opinions had not been changed in anywise. He did not understand the section at first nor did he now. Organic law should be plain in its provisions, so plain that all might understand it clearly; there should be no ambiguity in its language. If the object was to prevent special legislation, let the section read — "there shall be no special legislation" and then we would know what we were speaking about. The gentleman from Macoupin was uncharitable to those who could not comprehend this section, and he had compared them with the drunken man who thought all others were drunk and he alone sober. He (Mr. K.) would inform the gentlemen that if they were drunk on this question they had used a little better liquor than had John Thompson.

Mr. THORNTON withdrew his amendment.

[Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon said that his desire was to avoid all inconsistency, and to prevent the possibility of any misconception, and this, he thought, would have been accomplished by the proposition which he had intended to offer. [Mr. Edwards read the proposition referred to.] His proposition was entirely different, he said, from the one now under consideration. It provided that no charter of incorporation should be granted, nor any private act passed, when the object could be as well attained by

333

a general law. And the proposition went on to provide that no private act should be passed at the expense of the State. He held that there had been an abuse of this power on the part of the legislature, and he thought that the exercise of the power ought to be restrained. It was true that it would have to be left to the discretion of the legislature to say what should be considered to be an act of public necessity, requiring special legislation, as in the regulation of the police of towns, which was now a custom to be proved for by general enactment. It had been very properly said, that it was necessary to restrain legislation in regard to private enactments. Nine-tenths of the laws at present passed by the legislature, were purely private acts, in which the people at large had no interest. His resolution provided that in case of the application for the passage of a private act, all the expenses attending it should be borne by the party for whose benefit it was intended.]

Mr. CALDWELL moved to strike out all between the word "exemptions" and the word "nor," in the last sentence, and to insert after the word "pass," "any special or private."

Mr. HAYES thought the question, as it presented itself on these two last amendments, was open for a better discussion than at any time before, and he hoped gentlemen would express their views upon it.

The question was taken on the motion to insert, and decided in the negative; the motion to strike out was also decided in the negative.

The question then was on the motion to strike out the whole of the section except part of the last sentence, as made by the gentleman from McLean, and being taken separately on each paragraph, was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. GEDDES moved the committee rise. Lost.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to add to the section, "or for collecting taxes by distress and sale of personal property without judgment." Carried.

Mr. HOGUE moved to strike out the whole section as it now stood; pending which motion, the committee rose, reported

334

&c., and had leave to sit again. And then on motion the Convention adjourned to 3 p. m.

AFTERNOON

Mr. Z. CASEY offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn sine die on Friday, 31st inst.

Mr. MARKLEY moved the Convention go into committee of the whole; decided in the affirmative and the Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole — Mr. WOODSON in the chair, resumed the consideration of the 31st section of the report of the Legislative committee.

Mr. LOGAN said as this section was a pet of his friend from Adams, who was sick, he hoped it would be laid aside for the present. Agreed to.

SEC. 32. In the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, and every tenth year thereafter, an enumeration of all the white inhabitants of this State shall be made, in such manner as shall be directed by law; and the number of senators and representatives shall, at the first session holden after the returns herein provided for are made, be apportioned among the several counties or districts to be established by law, according to the number of white inhabitants.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to amend by inserting after the word "law," where it first occurs, the following:

And in the year eighteen hundred and fifty, and every tenth year thereafter, the census taken by authority of the government of the United States, may be adopted by the General Assembly as the enumeration of this State.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon offered the following as a substitute:

The apportionment of Senators and Representatives shall be made according to the census, which may be taken by the order of Congress, next preceding the making such apportionment, among the several counties or districts to be established by law, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants.

Mr. WHITNEY opposed the substitute as unfai[r] — in its

335

operation to those counties whose population was increasing, and advocated the amendment first proposed.

The question was taken on the substitute, and the same was rejected.

Mr. WILLIAMS suggested that under the proposed amendment, an extra session of the Legislature must be called to apportion the State.

Mr. LOGAN moved to add to the amendment — "said apportionment shall take place at the first regular session of the Legislature after the census shall be taken;" which was accepted, and the question being taken on the amendment, it was adopted — yeas 80, nays 40.

Mr. THOMAS offered as an additional section, to come after section 32, the following:

Senatorial and Representative districts shall be composed of contiguous territory, bounded by county lines, and only one Senator allowed to each senatorial, and not more than three Representatives to any one representative district; Provided, that cities and towns containing the requisite population shall be divided into separate districts, but the ratio of representation in such cities or towns shall be equal to one and a half of that required for counties, and not more than two Representatives shall be allowed to each of such districts.

Mr. NORTHCOTT moved to strike out "three," in the proposed section, and insert "one." Lost.

The question was then taken on the section, to the word "provided;" and it was adopted — yeas 79, nays 40.

Mr. MINSHALL moved to strike out "and town," in the second clause of the section. Lost. And the question being taken on the second clause of the section, it was adopted — yeas 74, nays 48.

Mr. THOMAS offered, as an additional section:

In forming senatorial and representative districts, counties containing a population of not more than one-fourth over the existing ratio shall form separate districts and the excess shall not be computed, but shall be added together and given to such county or counties in the same judicial circuit not having a

336

Senator or Representative as the case may be, which has the largest white population.

Mr. HARDING offered the following as a substitute:

Whenever a county shall be entitled to a separate Senator or Representative, and has an excess of population over the existing ratio, such excess, unless it amounts to more than one-fourth of such ratio, shall be disregarded; and whenever a county has two Representatives, and has an excess, such excess, unless it amounts to more than one-half the existing ratio, shall be disregarded.

Mr. HAYES opposed the substitute as unjust, atrocious and unfair in its provisions, and as depriving one portion of the people of the right of representation. He opposed any arbitrary rule, which would restrain the people in having their most sacred right of representation, and throw away in the apportionment a large body of the people.

Mr. LOGAN advocated the adoption of the substitute, which although it might deprive a fraction of the people of a representative, it would also prevent any apportionment for party purposes, by the dominant party in the Legislature. He alluded to the apportionment made by the Legislature in 1840, when counties in reference to the state of parties had been tacked together, for the purposes of securing a political majority. He cited several cases of this kind, particularly the joining of Randolph and Monroe counties.

Mr. CALDWELL moved to lay the substitute on the table.

The CHAIR decided the motion out of order.

Mr. CALDWELL said, he would vote against the proposition and the substitute because he deemed them unjust and oppressive. Unjust because it deprived a part of the people of the right of representation, and of a sacred franchise.

Mr. SERVANT advocated the substitute, as it prevented such iniquitous and atrocious apportionment as had been made by the Legislature in 1840. He alluded to the case of attaching Randolph and Monroe, which had been put into one district, for party purposes; and that democrats had acknowledged that such was the object.

Mr. HAYES. The secret is out. The object of this rule has been divulged — it is the welfare of the universal whig party! If

337

that apportionment was iniquitous, it was in the power of the Legislature to alter and change it. Mr. H. pursued the subject at some length, and alluded to the fact, that a few days ago the gentlemen were loud in their condemnation of party spirit in the Convention, and that they desired it should be dispersed, like the mists of morning before the rising sun. But now their song had changed, and their object was to secure whig representatives in the Legislature, which might be defeated if this rule was not adopted. — Mr. H. argued at some length on the subject, and in opposition to a rule which had been admitted to be unjust and unfair.

The discussion was continued by Messrs. DAVIS of Montgomery, TURNBULL, GEDDES, and LOGAN, in favor of the substitute, and in disclaiming for their party, the introduction of party spirit; and by Messrs. BROCKMAN, DAVIS of MASSBC and HAYES, in reply.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin agreed with the gentleman from Sangamon, that it was right to restrain a dominant party from doing evil, but he differed from him in the mode of so doing. Not one of the advocates of the rule insisted that the principle contained in it was just or correct; they did not deny that it will disfranchise part of the people. He had illustrated this same thing a few days ago, when the same principle was before them, by showing that a county might lack one vote, or a fourth of the fraction, and thus lose its representation. The gentlemen from Sangamon and Morgan this morning were in favor of leaving the legislature unrestrained — of giving them full rope, but now they introduce a proposition which they acknowledge is based on a false principle, and desire that it be incorporated into the Constitution, which will prevent the Legislature from so apportioning the State as to give all the people a representation.

Mr. POWERS moved the committee rise and report progress. Carried. The committee had leave to sit again; and then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

338

XXVI. Thursday, July 8, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BARGER.

PERSONAL

Mr. HAYES said,

Mr. President, I would ask the attention of the Convention to a matter personal to myself. I wish to correct a newspaper misrepresentation.

I find in the Shawneetown Gazette, of the 30th of June, a letter, dated June 17th, 1847, which is known to have been written by one of the editors of that paper, occupying a seat on this floor by the courtesy of the Convention. In that letter, besides some comments which I do not purpose to notice at this time, I find the following passages: "I must, however, give Mr. HAYES the advantage of one remark which he made during the course of his speech (which you will see reported in the Register) in favor of the poll tax — for he took ground in its favor." But having gone thus far in approving the effort itself, let me now introduce for your reflection, one sentiment with which he ornamented it. In advancing the opinion that the people of Illinois were willing and disposed to pay the tax, he thought it was not oppressive upon the poor — the poorer classes owed it as a duty to their government to submit to this tax — they now paid no tax to support the government, (the rich paid it all) — and they (the poor) were therefore a parsimony upon the bounty of the rich." So much of this letter as purports to be a report of the remarks which I made upon the poll tax, is an entire misrepresentation, both of my language and its spirit. I did not discriminate invidiously between different portions of our people. I did not say, "they (the poor) now paid no tax to support the government, the rich paid it all." I did not use the language, printed in italics, "they (the poor) were, therefore, a parsimony upon the bounty of the rich." Nor did I use any expression which could be construed into such ridiculous nonsense. The obvious effect of this letter is

339

to create the impression that my speech was an abusive harangue against poor men.

It is true I have never played the demagogue or claimed to be the especial champion of the poor, either on this floor or elsewhere; but I submit it to every member of this Convention whether I have at any time ridiculed poverty. I have experienced its distresses, and know how to sympathize with those who suffer them, and would be the last to say anything in disparagement of them.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, that in that paper — the Shawneetown Gazette — there had appeared an article in relation to himself; though he cared nothing for what was said in any paper, he took occasion to say, that the article alluded to was unqualifiedly, prematured and basely false, in every part, from beginning to end.

The reading of the newspaper article was called for by many members, and was read by the secretary. It consisted of a number of letters, purporting to give an account of the proceedings of the Convention. After the reading,

Mr. DAVIS of Massac said, that he had risen not only to complain of the injustice of that report in relation to himself, in the misstatement it contained in reference to what he had said on the subject of a poll tax, but of some things said in it which reflected on the character of this body, and which might require some action on the part of the Convention. He said, that the remarks made by him on the question of a poll tax were misrepresented, wholly misrepresented, by that reporter.

Mr. KNOWLTON said, that he desired to say a few words in relation to this matter. In the preceding number of that paper just read he had come in for a larger share of abuse than had been dealt out to any other member. The reporter had represented him as saying that the heroes who had fought from Bunker Hill to Yorktown never murmured at taxation, with some comments upon my knowledge of history and acquaintance with dictionaries and Murray's grammar. He would say to that man, whose form he had seen moving about the hall, that there was one book which he (the reporter) had never opened, and that book was the history of truth, that to him was a sealed book, the language therein was to him unknown! Mr. K. cared nothing about what a man writes

340

in the papers concerning him; for if those letters should be copied into the papers at his home, he thought his friends knew enough of him to disregard them; and he would have said nothing now unless this subject had been introduced, and because he thought this due to set himself right in the eyes of strangers. Any man who is permitted to sit in this hall, and states in regard to the members what is false, basely, maliciously false, and then turns round and attacks the Convention as a body, is unworthy to be allowed here, and almost too low to notice.

I would say to that man, that when he advises the convention to adjourn to the other State house, twenty miles above St. Louis, that it would be more proper for him to go there and engage in the works of that place, and give us the benefit of his example.

Mr. KITCHELL thought that the writer of those letters was unworthy of the least notice on the part of the Convention or of its members.

Mr. CALDWELL rose to make an inquiry. He thought that it was advisable that the name of the writer should be known. It had been said that he sits at a desk on this floor, and it is presumed that his name is known to the President.

No reply being made, the subject dropped.

Mr. SERVANT presented a petition from a number of citizens of Kaskaskia, in relation to commons; referred to the select committee on that subject.

Mr. Z. CASEY, from the committee on the Revenue, to whom had been referred the communication of the Auditor and certain documents in relation to the amount of county revenue, &c., reported the same back, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration of the same. Agreed to, and laid on the table.

Mr. PRATT offered as an additional rule — that no member shall be allowed to speak on any one subject longer than 30 minutes at one time. A motion to lay it on the table was lost — yeas 34, and the question being taken on its adoption, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 84.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to amend the 18th rule, by striking out that portion which allows members, in committee of the whole, to speak more than twice on any subject. After a short

341

debate, in which Messrs. PRATT, MARKLEY, BROCKMAN, ALLEN, and Z. CASEY advocated the motion, and Messrs. MINSHALL, THOMPSON, HURLBUT, CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess, DAVIS of McLean, and KINNEY of Bureau, opposed the motion, the question was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted — yeas 58, nays 78.

[Mr. PRATT advocated its adoption. He was not disposed, he said, to place any improper restraint upon discussion, but he would suggest the fact that nearly two-thirds of the time in committee of the whole, was occupied by six or eight gentlemen, prompted apparently by an ambition to lead. There was no doubt whatever about the salutary nature of free and full discussion, but so far from having a free interchange of thoughts and opinions the debate as he had observed, was chiefly confined to a few gentlemen, to the exclusion of those who were less ambitious, but whose opinions he had no doubt, were of as much value as those which they were forced to hear so frequently reiterated. He thought that unless gentlemen who were so prominent in debate on all occasions had a greater fund of thought than had yet been developed they would experience no difficulty whatever in affording all the light, and in shedding all the intelligence which it was in their power to furnish upon any given subject, without speaking more than once. He trusted it would not be supposed that he offered these remarks in a censorious spirit, but he confessed that he had found it very irksome to listen to so many editions of the same speech, and in order to avoid, if possible, a repetition of the evil which he thought had become sufficiently apparent to all, he was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Fulton.

Mr. MINSHALL said, he was not a talking man himself, and was not much in favor of long speeches, at the same time he could not see that much advantage would result from the alteration of this rule. It was one which had been in practice he believed, from time immemorial, ever since anything like deliberative bodies had been known. If gentlemen were not disposed to listen to much speaking they might attain their object by refusing to go into committee of the whole.

342

The debate was continued by Messrs. PALMER of Macoupin, ALLEN, THOMPSON, MARKLEY, MASON and BROCKMAN.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, he hoped the motion would not prevail; he was opposed to it for the same reason that he was opposed to the resolution which had been passed this morning limiting the duration of the speeches of delegates to thirty minutes each. He was opposed to it because he did not desire to see any innovation made upon the principles of parliamentary law, which had been established and confirmed by the wisdom and experience of ages.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean said, he believed the rule which had been adopted restricting the speeches of members to thirty minutes, had passed without attracting the notice of the convention generally. He was of opinion that if it had been reflected upon it would not have been adopted. He did not suppose that he would himself desire to occupy more than thirty minutes at one time, but he protested against the assumption that no gentleman in the convention would need a longer time to express his views upon certain subjects. There were subjects to be discussed with which some gentlemen were pre-eminently familiar; subjects to which they had devoted their lives, and upon which they were qualified therefore to enlighten the convention; but it would be in vain to expect anything like a full elucidation of the subject if the speaker was limited to thirty minutes. They were assembled for the purpose of consulting together upon the common good and of bringing their labors to a certain result, and before a single article of the constitution had been adopted, before they had completed one solitary item of their work a proposition was introduced that the convention should adjourn in the space of about three weeks. He must be permitted to say that if a proposition of this kind had come from a young man he would have considered that it had been brought forward for the purpose of making capital at home, but coming as it did from a gentleman of established standing and reputation, a gentleman who held so large a share in the estimation of the community as did the gentleman from Jefferson, he could not of course suppose that it proceeded from any such motive. Would it be within the range of possibility to get through

343

in three weeks? He certainly thought it would not. The Louisiana convention, consisting of seventy members, were engaged for four months and a half in forming the constitution of that State. The New York convention was in session one hundred days, and they acknowledged that they had not time sufficient to perfect their work. He believed that if in three months time they succeeded in framing a good constitution, it would be considered by everybody that they had done well; but if they adjourned within three weeks and made an imperfect constitution, as must necessarily be the case, they would have done worse than nothing. The sessions of the legislature although they recurred every two years lasted three months, and yet this convention which was assembled for the purpose of forming an organic law to last for centuries, was expected to complete its work in a few weeks. He was opposed to all propositions to adjourn until they had finished the work which they came to perform.

After some remarks from Mr. KINNEY of Bureau, Mr. Z. CASEY observed that he did not desire to continue this discussion, but merely to make a single remark in reply to the gentleman from McLean. He was sincerely desirous that the labors of the convention should merit and receive the approbation of their constituents, and in order that they might merit and receive that approbation, he thought they should be performed within a reasonable time. It seemed to him that it should be one object, at least with the convention, to do up the business for which they were assembled, within a reasonable time. He was inclined to the belief, and he thought that almost any gentleman would concur with him in this, that if the mode of discussion which had been hitherto pursued in this body, were to be continued through all the ramifications of the various subjects to be considered, they would find themselves sitting for the next eighteen months. He was perfectly sincere when in offering the resolution yesterday upon the subject of adjournment, he had stated that before he had left home he believed the business of this convention might be finished in six weeks. He was now convinced that it could not under two months; but he was inclined still to believe that if gentlemen would confine themselves within reasonable bounds in debate, it could be concluded without exceeding two

344

months. He would inform the gentleman from McLean that he had no desire to act for bunkum. He had no future aspirations, here or elsewhere, to be gratified. He desired to see the convention form a constitution that would be acceptable to the people, and that would tell upon the future destinies of the State; but he was convinced that if they sat there for six months, engaged in this wild (perhaps he had better take that word back,) — in this wide range of debate that had been indulged in, he doubted very much whether they would be able to succeed at all in accomplishing the object for which they were assembled. He thought, therefore, it would be better that they should be confined to a reasonable time for finishing the work; and he was convinced that in this way it would be more satisfactorily accomplished. He, for one, was for expediting the business of the convention, and in order to do this, they ought to limit the duration of the session to a reasonable time.

Mr. SINGLETON said he was opposed to any rule that would restrict in any degree the expression of opinion...uld be glad to see a rule adopted, if...now in existence, whi...to the ques-...admit,... been ... only ...if made which had not shed new light upon the questions discussed. He was for a full and free discussion. He had not come here for the purpose of saving time. If that had been the object of the constituency of this body, they would have refrained from sending them here. If time and expense were what they wanted to economize, the convention would not have been called together. They had in view a higher purpose; they were assembled for the purpose of amending and improving the organic law of the State; for the purpose of changing and improving their form of government. This was a matter to be done with very great deliberation. He would ask if any gentleman would be prepared to decide upon a question from merely hearing it read at the clerk's table? Some gentlemen after having expressed their own opinions, would no doubt be quite willing that the question should be taken without further debate; but he for one was not disposed to constitute himself the judge as to when a question had been sufficiently debated; the constituents of other gentlemen had reposed confidence in their discretion, and he might be permitted to say in their talking

345

powers, to do something for them — something to forward their views and to promote their interests, and he was not for depriving them of the opportunity of exercising these powers; and if it were to take until December, he was for giving to every member an opportunity to express his views upon every subject that was to be determined upon. He hoped the proposition would not be adopted.]

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison presented the following preamble and resolutions:

Whereas, we have just learned, with deep emotion, that the remains of Col. J. J. HARDIN and Capt. JACOB ZABRISKIE have reached St. Louis, and that preparations have been made to inter them with funeral honors at Jacksonville; and whereas, these events excite afresh the grief with which every heart was penetrated when the mournful intelligence of their fall on the bloody field of Buena Vista was first spread among us; and whereas, it is the custom of all civilized nations to honor their illustrious dead, and especially those who have gallantly fought and [who] gloriously fell in the service of their country; and whereas, it is deemed highly right and proper in itself, as well as promotive of the spirit which ought to animate a free people, that we should commemorate, if not by costly monuments, at least by a spontaneous expression of feeling, the heroic deeds and manly virtues of the deceased; it is, therefore, by this Convention,

Resolved, That we do cordially sympathize with the friends and families of the slain, who, by this awful visitation, have sustained a loss which all the honors of the world cannot deprive of its bitterness.

Resolved, That we sincerely mourn the loss of the State, in the death of HARDIN, ZABRISKIE, HOUGHTON, and others who have so largely contributed to the lustre of her arms and the glory of her name.

Resolved, That in the death of Col. HARDIN, we sincerely mourn the loss sustained by the State, in being deprived of a citizen who has deservedly acquired the affections of the people, and a statesman,

346

whose distinguished ability and integrity were justly admired by all.

Resolved, That this Convention, in honor of those who have so gloriously fallen in the service of their country, do adjourn so soon as information is received of the arrival of the remains of the deceased at Jacksonville, for the purpose of joining in the celebration of the funeral ceremonies of the lamented HARDIN and ZABRISKIE.

Mr. EDWARDS in presenting the above resolutions said:

The preamble and resolutions, which I have had the honor to submit for the consideration of the Convention, explain themselves. We are not called upon, by the tenor of these resolutions, to testify our high sense of the important services of the living heroes of the Mexican war, to tender to them our congratulations for the splendid victories achieved by their valor, or to cheer them onward in their brilliant career of glory and renown; but to render a mournful tribute to the memory of those gallant spirits who have fought and bled and died in their country's cause, to mingle our tears with those of their desolate friends, their stricken widows and their bereaved orphans. We are not allowed the pleasing task of weaving the crown of unfading laurel to invest the brows of living TAYLOR, SCOTT, WOOL, BAKER, BISSELL, MORRISON, LEAVITT, POPE and a hundred others who have encircled, with a halo of glory, the American name; but to perform the sad office of entwining the cypress wreath in mournful remembrance of the dead HARDIN, ZABRISKIE and HOUGHTON.

As for myself, Mr. President, I find it vain to attempt to analyze my own feelings. I know not, indeed, what feeling at this moment, predominates in my own bosom. But, this I do know, that when I would rejoice with the living, I am ready to weep for the dead — when I would sound the note of congratulation, it is hushed in the sadness of sorrowful condolence. And such, I doubt not, are the mingled emotions of this Convention. It is right, sir, that it should be so. It is right to contemplate the desolating havoc of war, blighting the rich fruits of peace and prosperity, spreading sorrow and dismay throughout the land, scathing the widow's heart, and withering the orphan's hope. It is right, too, to soften these manifold horrors of war, by the soothing

347

influence of sympathy, to dry up the tears of mourning friends, to mitigate the sorrows of the widowed wife and to light up the beam of hope in the languid eye of orphanage. And what so well calculated to dry up those tears, to alleviate those sorrows, and to enliven those hopes, as to point them to the noble bearing of the lamented dead — to the deathless fame that awaits them; that the husband, father, brother, friend is not dead, but lives enshrined in the hearts of his countrymen. Death, which comes to all, has come to them with a crown of imperishable honors. Their names are not only the theme of contemporary praise, but enrolled on the page of history, as a memento, to their latest posterity of their illustrious lineage. Where, sir, is the sting of such a death? To behold the gush of sympathy in the tearful eyes all around her, to hear the admiring accents, poured forth as the spontaneous tribute of both whig and democrat, to the memory other honored husband. Is not all this a healing balm to the crushed spirit of the accomplished widow of the ever to be lamented HARDIN? May it prove an all-sufficient solace to her bleeding heart. HARDIN! A name ever to be remembered. The name of JOHN J. HARDIN will never, can never, be forgotten by him who now addresses you. Sir, I knew him well. He was my friend, personal and political, through good and through evil report. I knew him as the husband and the father amid the endearments of the family circle. I knew him as the light and life of the social party, diffusing a joyous hilarity through every bosom. I knew him as a neighbor, discharging all the kind offices of that relation in a spirit of courtesy, of generosity, of open-hearted hospitality. I knew him in the halls of legislation as the bold, manly, independent, consistent politician — alike beloved by his friends, and respected by his opponents; for enemies he had none. And we all know him as the ardent patriot, the gallant soldier — ever the first to advance, and the last to retreat; a soldier by right of inheritance, mingling in his veins the best blood of the Hardins and Logans, the bravest of the brave sons of Kentucky. His devotion to his country is written with his blood and sealed with his life. —

But, in mourning the loss of our beloved Hardin, shall we forget those choice spirits of Kentucky, McKee and Clay, worthy sons of noble sires — or that distinguished scion of revolutionary stock,

348

the chivalrous Lincoln — or the valiant Yell, who, at his country's call, forsook the halls of Congress, for the tented field: all of whom, mingling in the hottest of the fight, and, by their deeds of noble daring, shedding such a lustre upon the name and character of the nation — have, side by side with our Hardin, offered up their lives as a sacrifice upon the altar of their country.

And, Mr. President, as citizens of Illinois, knowing and appreciating their worth, shall we be said to disparage these great names by associating with them, in mournful remembrance the names of our fellow citizens, Zabriskie,Houghton,Fletcher, Robbins, Ferguson and others? Though moving in an humbler sphere, their hearts were warmed with a glow of patriotism as intense, and their hands were nerved by a spirit as dauntless. They fought as bravely, bled as freely, and died as gloriously. Honor to their memories, and the solace of our heart-felt sympathies to their mourning relatives.

But, sir, what could not be achieved by such officers, sustained by such soldiers as were under their command? It were invidious to discriminate where all have proved themselves so worthy. And yet, may I not as a Kentuckian, be pardoned for alluding to the gallant Kentucky regiment, led on by their brave and chivalrous commanders McKee and Clay? Does not the number of slain in this memorable action attest their indomitable courage? Have they not proved themselves true scions of the old stock who watered the plains of Raisin with [t]heir blood, and who boldly bared their bosoms to the murderous tomahawk and scalping knife, of the ruthless savage at Tippecanoe? Sir, the spirit which animated them in their death struggle for liberty, was breathed into them by the soul-stirring eloquence of McKee and Henry Clay, in the halls of Congress. And these, their noble hearted sons, and their brave companions in arms — fired by the same spirit and borne onward by the same impulse — have as freely watered with their blood, the field of Buena Vista, and have as deservedly won for themselves and for their native State, an imperishable fame.

And now, Mr. President, I ask not your indulgence, I crave not the pardon of this Convention, for placing side by side with this gallant Kentucky regiment the no less gallant 1st and 2nd

349

regiments of Illinois volunteers — nor for claiming for them as high honors and as imperishable renown. As nobly have they earned it — for they have poured out their blood as freely upon the same field. Their loss, too, equally attests their invincible courage and their devoted patriotism. Add to these, sir, the brilliant achievements of the 3d and 4th regiments at Cerro Gordo, led on successfully by the gallant Shields, and by the high-spirited, the chivalrous Baker, both favorite sons of Illinois — and is not the measure of our glory full to overflowing? Sir, proud as I may be of the name of Kentuckian, I feel this day no less proud of the name of lllinoian; and have chosen it as the State of my adoption, I ask for me and mine no higher privilege than that of living and dying an Illinoian. And to whom, sir, am I, and you, and all the members of this Convention, indebted for this just sentiment of State pride? To whom do we owe it that Illinois stands, this day, foremost in the estimation of all the States of this glorious confederacy? To those very names whom we are called upon by the resolutions under consideration, to go in a body and convey to their last resting place on earth. And shall we hold back when a neighboring city, in a neighboring State, is pouring forth its thousands to pay the solemn tribute of their respect, when all, the high and the low, the rich and the poor, the aged and the young, the native and the foreigner, the men of all parties, trades and professions, are gathering in mournful procession around the bier, not of citizen soldiers of St. Louis or of Missouri, but of our own Hardin, Zabriskie, and Houghton? Sir, we ought not, we will not, we cannot, fail in meeting the invitation of the citizens of Jacksonville to unite with them in this last sad homage to the memory of our beloved Hardin, and his brave associates.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Jo Daviess, presented the following resolution; which was unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That this Convention, in testimony of their deep sense of the loss the State has sustained, in the death of the lamented HARDIN, and other volunteers who have fallen in the service of their country, will wear crepe on the left arm for 30 days.

In offering the above resolution Mr. C. said, that after the eloquent remarks just made by the venerable and eloquent gentleman from Madison, which had sunk deep as the untimely sorrow

350

for the illustrious dead, in the heart of every delegate, he feared that what he could say would rather disturb than deepen the feeling.

We see, sir, that in other states, that in the patriotic city of St. Louis, that they think, and they have a right to think, the glory of the name of Hardin and his companions, belongs not alone to their own State, but that it sheds a halo round our national glory. On this question all party spirit is forgotten! All party asperities are lost sight of as we kneel in sympathy and patriotism and shed tears of sorrow upon the graves of those who have fallen in the cause of their country. This resolution is offered not in ostentation; the occasion requires it, patriotism demands it, and I sincerely hope the Convention will adopt it.

Mr. BROWN offered the following; which was unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That copies of the foregoing preamble and resolutions signed by the President and Secretary, be transmitted by the Secretary, to the families of the deceased.

Mr. KNOWLTON said, that from what had just taken place, and the deep feeling excited in every breast, he knew the Convention were unfit for business. Our thoughts now are not here, they are upon the battle field of Buena Vista and Cerro Gordo! And the Convention was not in a state of feeling to transact business, he, therefore, moved the Convention adjourn till 3 p. m. And the Convention adjourned till 3 p. m.

AFTERNOON

Mr. SINGLETON moved leave of absence for his colleague, Mr. BROCKMAN, for six days, on account of sickness in his family. Granted.

Mr. ARCHER moved the Convention go into committee of the whole; and the committee resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the Legislative Department — Mr. WOODSON in the chair. The question pending was on the substitute offered by Mr. HARDING for the additional section proposed by Mr. THOMAS.

Mr. ARCHER said, he desired to say a few words on the question now before the committee, and would give his reasons

351

why he should vote against the substitute and the proposed section. He had some difficulty at first in arriving at the proper view of and in coming at the proper conclusion and construction of the proposition of the gentleman from Warren; and he yet felt some difficulty in doing so. The substitute proposed that, when a county had a fractional excess over one-fourth of the ratio, that that excess should be given to the county in the circuit having the largest white population. There seemed to him to be no sort of propriety in adding this excess to that county having the largest white population in the circuit, when that county might have enough without the fraction to entitle it to a representative. He thought the effect of the substitute would be to disfranchise a large portion of the people of the State, and could not give his consent to any proposition which would deprive any portion of the people of the right of representation, or tend to their disfranchisement. We may as well, if we deprive them of the right of being represented in the government, excuse them from paying any taxes or bearing any of the burdens of government. We are told that the principle contained in this provision, is not to have any effect upon the apportionment to be made at the present time. This argument made no difference with him. If the principle was wrong, it was no argument in its favor with him to say that its operation was to be kept for the future, that it was to be delayed. He understood that the gentleman from Sangamon supported this proposition; yet if not much mistaken he heard that gentleman a few days ago read a severe lecture to the gentleman from Jefferson, on account of his great distrust of Legislatures. A great change must have taken place since then in that gentleman's views. He made them a long speech, in favor of the legislative department of the government, which he said was the right arm of the people. And now he is in favor of taking away from the Legislature the power to apportion the State. He is in favor of binding it down by an arbitrary rule. He (Mr. A.) thought this matter should be left open for the Legislative, and not attempt to do too much, by entering into details. If we entered into details at all we should do so with great accuracy, but we were not familiar with the views of our constituents upon all these trifling matters and he thought it best that they should be left to the Legislature.

352

He alluded also to the probability that if this principle of apportionment were adopted, although it was said that it was not intended to operate on the present apportionment, that gentleman in order to preserve consistency, might endeavor to make this rule apply to the present apportionment.

Mr. POWERS could never recognize the justice of any rule which would deprive the people or any part of them of the right of representation. Population is generally admitted to be the only true basis of representation, and any rule going to deprive any part of the population of the privilege of being represented, was, in his opinion, wrong. He referred to the present state of things in relation to Highland and Adams counties, and said, that he did not believe that this rule, admitted by those who introduced it to be arbitrary and unfair, would be at all satisfactory to the people of Adams county. He had examined facts in respect to the operation of this rule, and had ascertained that there were twelve counties in the State that would have an average excess of two thousand white inhabitants, over the ratio; and the whole of this large excess would be entirely unrepresented; and this excess would be given to the smaller ones. They propose to give Adams county, with a population of 18,000, two representatives, and throw the large excess over the ratio into a small county adjoining with a population of 5,058, thereby giving the smaller county a sufficient number for a representative. Thus, instead of adding the small county to Adams and allowing them jointly three representatives, they give the excess to the small county and give her a representative. The effect is that a county with 19,000 inhabitants is entitled to two representatives; and the county with 5,058, a little over one-half the ratio, is entitled to one — making each vote in the small county equal to two in the larger. How gentlemen can reconcile the injustice of this principle with their sense of fairness and justice is more than he could comprehend.

Mr. BOND and Mr. PALMER of Macoupin followed in opposition to the substitute.

Mr. HARDING made some remarks in defence of his substitute and then withdrew it.

353

Mr. BOND moved to amend the proposed section by striking out the word "such" and insert the "nearest."

Mr. McCALLEN said, he was opposed to the whole plan. If any county was to have a member through charity, he thought it should be given to a small county in preference to a large one. Much had been said about principle, and long speeches had been made to prove that all our actions should be guided by principle alone; and he called on gentlemen to carry out the principle of a fair and equitable representation, by dividing the State into seventy-five election districts, without any reference to county lines, and thus have everyone represented, and avoid all fractions.

The question was then taken on Mr. BOND'S amendment, and decided in the affirmative — yeas 71, nays 39.

Mr. McCALLEN offered an amendment, "that no district shall have more than one representative." Lost.

The question was then taken on the proposed section of Mr. THOMAS, and decided in the affirmative — yeas 76, nays 49.

SEC. 33. The State may, to meet casual deficits or failures in revenues, contract debts, but never to exceed in the aggregate fifty thousand dollars; and no debt for any other purpose, except to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or defend the State in war, for payment of which the faith of the State shall be pledged, shall be contracted, unless the law authorizing the same shall, at a general election, have been submitted to the people, and have received a majority of all the votes cast for and against it at such election.

Mr. ARCHER moved to amend by adding at the end of the section, "and the Legislature shall provide for the publication, for three months at least, of each law, before the time of the vote thereon." And the question being taken thereon, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 95.

Mr. KENNER moved to strike out all before the word "unless," and insert "the State shall have no power to contract debts."

Mr. SIM offered as a substitute for the amendment — strike out all so as the section will read, "the State shall have no power to borrow money, except to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, or defend the State in war, for payment of which the faith of the

354

State shall be pledged, unless the law authorizing the same, and setting forth the purposes for which the same is borrowed, shall, at a general election," &c. And the question being taken on submitting this for the amendment, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. EDWARDS moved as a substitute for the amendment to strike it all out and prefix to the section the following: "The expenditures of the government for any given period shall never exceed the amount of revenue authorized by law to be raised in such period, provided the State may," &c., and strike out the word "but" in section.

Mr. THOMAS moved to strike out the word "period" and insert "year." Lost. And the question being taken on the adoption of Mr. EDWARDS' substitute, it was, on the third count, carried — yeas 57, nays 54.

Mr. HAYES moved to strike out all of the section after the word "contracted." Lost.

Mr. SHARPE offered a long amendment, which we had not time to copy, and which was rejected.

Mr. SHUMWAY, POWERS and PETERS offered amendments, which were embodied in the following] — and added to the section: "And provision shall be made at the time of contracting the debt for the payment of the interest thereon, by revenue to be raised by tax, or otherwise, for that purpose."

Mr. HATES moved to add to the amendment: "Provided that the law authorizing the debt to be contracted shall be submitted to the people, with the law levying the tax for the same."

Mr. HARVEY moved to add to the first amendment, "which law shall be irrepealable." Carried. And the amendment of Mr. HAYES was adopted; and the amendment as amended was also adopted.

Mr. SCATES moved to strike out "contract debts." Lost.

Mr. THORNTON moved to insert after "fifty thousand dollars," "and the moneys thus borrowed shall be applied to the purpose for which they were obtained, or to repay the debt thus made, and to no other purpose." Carried.

Mr. KENNER moved to strike out the words "against it,"

355

in 5th line, and insert "for members of the General Assemb[l]y;["] which was adopted.

Mr. LOGAN moved the committee rise. Carried; and the chairman reported and asked leave for the committee to sit again. Granted.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

356

XXVII. Friday, July 9, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. BERGEN.

Messrs. HAWLEY and SPENCER presented petitions praying the appointment of a State superintendant of schools; referred to the committee on Education.

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention, a communication from the Governor, enclosing a statement of the public debt, which will appear in our next.

Mr. CASEY moved that 1,000 copies [be] printed. 2, 3, and 5,000 copies were suggested, and voted down; and the first number was adopted.

Mr. HOGUE moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole. Carried, and Mr. WOODSON took the Chair.

Mr. SHARPE moved to take up the 31st section, which had been passed over informally the other day. Lost.

SECTION 34. No amendment.

SEC. 35. The Legislature shall provide by law that the fuel and stationery furnished for the use of the State; the copying, printing, and distributing the laws and journals of the General Assembly shall be let, by contract, to the lowest responsible bidder, and that no member of the General Assembly, or other officer of the State, be interested either directly or indirectly in any such contract.

Mr. THOMAS moved to insert "binding" after the word "printing." Carried.

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to insert "lights" after the word "fuel." Lost.

Mr. NORTHCOTT moved to amend by adding at the end of the section the words: "no private act shall be printed at the public expense." Yeas 77, nays 23. No quorum. A second vote resulted — yeas 57, nays 65. Rejected.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon proposed the same amendment, with the following words added thereto — "unless by a vote of three-fourths of the General Assembly."

357

Mr. TURNBULL offered as a substitute: — "no private act shall be published, except at the cost of the party for whose benefit it is passed." Lost.

And the question being taken on Mr. EDWARDS' amendment, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. DAWSON moved to insert "shall" after "State," in 4th line. Adopted.

Mr. BROWN moved to strike out "copying," in 2d line. Lost.

Mr. SCATES moved to insert after "journal" — "and all other printing ordered by." Carried. — Yeas 83.

Mr. BUTLER moved to strike out all of the 35th section.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, he thought the better way would be to leave this whole question open to the action of the Legislature, who could fix in the law, authorizing the printing, binding, &c., a statement of the prices to be paid for the work. He had some knowledge of this system of letting the work out to the lowest bidder, and knew from experience, that there would be no saving to the State. This matter of the binding had been let out by contract some time ago, to the lowest bidder, and what was the consequence? Why there were several binders in this city, yet there was but one bid, and the contract was given to them at prices but very little less than those before paid, and stated in the law. There was no competition, men could not come here from other places, and establish offices for the mere purpose of obtaining this State work; and he again stated his opinion was that the question should be left open for the Legislature.

Mr. LOGAN said, he did not agree with the gentleman last up, in his views of this question. He thought that if a "little" only was saved, it still was so much saved to the State by this means. He would point out to the gentleman, that in one case — the revised code — the contract for binding was let out to the lowest bidder, and the amount paid was only one-half the price that was fixed in the law.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess replied, that in the case cited by the gentleman, the contract was taken at prices so low that the man could not perform the work without a loss. For, after they had undertaken the work, and after the adjournment of the Legislature,

358

they had addressed a letter to the Secretary of State (Mr. C.) in which they state[d] the prices were too low; that officer explained to them that they had entered into a contract, and it was not in his power to annul it. If he was not much mistaken, the gentleman from Sangamon (Mr. LOGAN) introduced, at the next session of the Legislature, a bill for the relief of these contractors, in consequence of their losses by this contract.

Mr. LOGAN explained, that the bill for relief had been introduced because there was a difference in the kind of binding done, from what had been contracted for. The relief was given. They also had petitioned for relief in consequence of the amount of binding done was not as great as was anticipated when the contract was taken, for this however they received no relief. He said this much in explanation of his course in the Legislature.

Mr. WEAD said, it was a matter of regret that we should have to hear explanations of the gentleman's legislative course so often; and it was also a source of much greater regret that it had not been published in a book, so that we should not be obliged to hear it at the expense of the people.

It had been shown by the gentleman from Jo D. that nothing could be saved in the end by this plan of having the binding and printing done, and he could see no objection to leaving the matter open to the Legislature, to be provided for by them. Gentlemen had opposed all restrictions on the Legislature, had declared that with this Convention had not been exhausted the wisdom of the State, and that we should go into details. But now, gentlemen say that the legislature shall have no power, no discretion in this matter, and that we must bind them down by the most strict lines and provisions? He was in favor, as he had before stated, of leaving the question with the Legislature.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon said, that in order to meet the views of gentlemen and to carry out the suggestions of the gentleman from Jo D. he would offer the following proviso: "That the Legislature shall fix in the law a maximum price for such printing, binding &c."

Mr. BUTLER was in favor of striking the whole section out; it was a reflection upon the honesty and integrity of all future Legislatures. To say that they cannot make a contract about

359

the printing and binding the laws of the State, without wronging the State was a reflection upon the honor and integrity of the Legislature. He was not a little amused at the course of the gentleman from Sangamon, he was afraid a day or two ago that the Convention was doing too much, that it was legislating and leaving nothing for Legislatures to do hereafter. To-day he is in favor and desirous of binding them down by constitutional provisions upon this trifling matter.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery expressed himself in favor of the section as it is.

Mr. KNAPP of Jersey offered the following as a substitute:

"Provided, the Legislature shall have the right to determine whether the lowest responsible bid, as contemplated in the section, shall be reasonable in its amount and as low as could be obtained by private contract." Lost. And the question being taken on the amendment of Mr. EDWARDS, it was carried — yeas 76, nays 43, The question was taken on striking out the section, and decided in the negative.

Mr. SHARPE moved to insert after "bidder," "so that said bidder is a resident of this State." — Lost.

Mr. SINGLETON moved to re-consider the vote by which an amendment offered by him on Wednesday last, to the 3d section, had been lost; and the committee refused to re-consider — yeas 54, nays 55.

The committee then took up the 31st section as it was amended; which had been laid over.

Mr. SHARPE offered the following as a substitute for the section as amended: "The Legislature shall not have power to provide by law for the sale of non-residents' lands for taxes, until judgment shall first be had against the same."

Messrs. SHARPE, WILLIAMS, DAVIS of Montgomery, and SCATES made some remarks thereon, after which a motion was, made that the committee rise; which was decided in the negative — yeas 40, nays not counted.

Mr. ARCHER hoped the vote would not now be taken on this amendment, till the members had had sufficient reflection on the subject. He renewed the motion to rise — yeas 60, nays 61. Lost.

360

The question was taken on the amendment, and decided in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to insert after the word "process," the words "or otherwise."

Mr. McCALLEN was not ready to vote upon the question now, and he renewed the motion that the committee rise.

Mr. PETERS thought we might vote now upon this section now and report it to the house, have it printed, and then members could have time to vote deliberately upon its adoption. The motion to rise was decided in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS' amendment was then adopted.

Mr. LOGAN moved to insert after "court," "in some usual and regular tribunal." Carried.

The section then stood as follows:

"The General Assembly shall have no power to pass any law whereby any person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, property, or franchises, without trial and judgment in court, or some usual and regular tribunal; provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the passage of any law for seizing and holding persons and property by mesne process or otherwise until such trial can be had; or for collecting taxes by distress and sale of personal property without judgment."

Mr. Z. CASEY moved the committee rise and report to the Convention their proceedings; and the chairman reported, the committee had had under consideration, &c., and reported the same back with various amendments, and asked the concurrence of the Convention therein.

Mr. THOMAS moved the report and amendments be laid on the table, and 200 copies printed. Carried.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. LOCKWOOD moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole; and the Convention resolved itself into committee — Mr. CRAIN in the chair — and took up the report of the committee on the Executive Department.

SEC. 1. No amendment.

SEC. 2. Mr. LOCKWOOD moved to amend by providing

361

that the next Governor shall commence his term on the 2d Monday in January, 1849, and the next in January, '53, and every tour years thereafter, &c. Carried.

Mr. DALE moved to strike out "1853" and insert "1850." Lost.

SEC. 3. The Governor shall hold his office for the term of four years, and until another Governor shall be elected and qualified; but he shall not be eligible for more than four years in any term of eight years.

Mr. LOCKWOOD moved to amend by prefixing thereto the following:

"The first election of Governor shall be held on the first Monday in November, 1848, and the next election shall be held on the first Monday of November, 1852, and forever thereafter elections for Governor shall be held once in four years on the first Monday of November."

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved to strike out all after "qualified." Lost.

Mr. FARWELL opposed the amendment as it put the present Governor out of office before the expiration of his term. The question being taken the amendment was adopted.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved to add to the section "nor any other officer till the expiration of the term." Carried.

SEC. 4. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of Governor; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been ten years a resident within this State.

Mr. PRATT moved to strike out the section and insert the following; which was lost:

"No person except a citizen of the United States, and who shall have been a resident of this State for the pe[riod] of five years next preceding his election, shall be eligible to the office of Governor; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who has not attained to the age of thirty years."

Mr. LEMON moved to strike out "thirty-five," and insert "forty-five." Lost.

Mr. SCATES moved to strike out the words "a natural born citizen,["] and "at the time of the adoption of this constitution."

362

Mr. HENDERSON was in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Jefferson. He thought that the article as it stood now would exclude many individuals worthy the office, from being chosen by the people. There were several cases where the exclusion, contemplated by this section, would operate unjustly; one of these was in the case a person came here when a child, was raised here, with all the feelings and sentiments of an American, and he would be excluded from office. He saw no necessity for the restriction and hoped the amendment would be adopted.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said that he rose, not for the purpose of making a speech, but merely to say that when this question would come before them properly for action, and when the ayes and noes could be called, then this section shall not pass without a contest. This section as reported by the committee is a "Native American" principle carried into effect. Why was the old constitution changed? Why was this new theory introduced. We had not been sent here to break down and destroy the old constitution, but simply to amend it in such provisions and particulars as the people desired to have changed. Where — when did the people ask for this restriction? Had any petition been sent to this Convention asking for a change in the constitution? Which of the States that had adopted new constitutions, had introduced this restriction upon the right of the people to choose who they may?

He was in favor of allowing all citizens the same privileges.

Mr. LOCKWOOD said, that the committee had been unanimous in their action upon this section, and he knew none of them to be called "Native Americans." For himself he would say that he had no prejudice against foreigners, and if the gentleman would look at the old constitution he will find that this section is more favorable to them than that.

By the constitution, no foreigner could be eligible to the office of Governor, until he had been thirty years a citizen of the United States.

Mr. NORTON said, he did not propose, at the present stage of this question, to enter into any argument upon it. He should vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Jefferson. He

363

should do so for the reason that he would make no distinction between American citizens whether native or naturalized. He desired to see no such distinction incorporated into our constitution. He would desire the people of this country to become in truth one people, and when foreigners leave their native lands, and have settled amongst us, he would hold out every honorable inducement to them, to become Americans in deed, by conforming to the naturalization laws of the United States, and, when they have done this, he would offer no obstruction to their advancement in the State. This is what is contemplated by the amendment, and he should therefore vote for it.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, he would vote for the report as it came from the committee, and would state his reasons for so doing. The gentleman from Jo Daviess said, that popular opinion was not in favor of this restriction upon foreigners holding the highest offices; now he did not know what popular opinion was in Jo Daviess, but he knew as well as Mr. C. what it was in Bond and Montgomery, and he was sure he was supporting the popular opinion of those counties, when he voted for this report. Gentlemen say that this is placing an unjust restriction upon the citizens of our country, why did those men of the revolution, those who signed the Declaration of Independence, and who framed the federal constitution, introduce this same provision into it, by prohibiting any but a native born citizen of the United States from being President? And who desired it to be stricken out? If to preserve that principle which should be incorporated into our State constitution, and he who desires it not to be stricken out is a "Native American," then I am "Native American!" He was in favor of giving to foreigners, against whom he was not prejudiced, all privileges of our citizens they can properly claim, but not to the exclusion of Americans; not to raise them above the heads of our own countrymen, into high and important offices, before they are sufficiently acquainted with our language to speak it plainly. They were told that when this question came before them at another time, that the ayes and noes would be called, if so, he would not be afraid to record his vote in favor of the report.

Mr. GEDDES said, the friendship expressed for our European friends who came to our State, reminded him of certain tribes of

364

Indians, who gave to their guests their wives and daughters to sleep with. Now, while he was ready and willing to give foreigners meat and drink, he was not disposed to give up his bed. He was willing that they should kneel at the same altar with him, but not to be his priest. He was willing they should live in the country but not to be his rulers

Mr. PRATT stated that he had offered his amendment to effect the same object as proposed by the gentleman from Jefferson, in the amendment now before them, but as it had been voted down so quickly, he would like now to state his reasons for presenting it. He thought that any restriction like that contained in the section as reported, was a reflection upon the intelligence of the people — it doubted in them the capability of selecting their own rulers, it denied them the right of so doing when their choice fell upon one whose birth was in a different land. No matter what public service, what eminent talent; no matter how capable he might be to perform the duties of the office, he was excluded by this provision, and the people denied the privilege of elevating him. There were many cases where its effect would operate unjustly, and one had been cited by the gentleman from Will, (Mr. HENDERSON) of a child who might have been born in a foreign land, but who had been reared under our fostering institutions, and who had learned to love and revere them, and, no matter how eminent and distinguished he might become, was forever prohibited from holding the station of Governor of this State. He had no love for foreigners, but he had ever known them to make good citizens, men as devoted to the interests and welfare of the country as any others, and as well entitled to the confidence and respect of the Convention as any other class. The old constitution was a virtual prohibition of foreigners from holding the office of Governor. It provided that he should be a citizen of the United States for thirty years, which, supposing a foreigner came here at twenty-five years of age, then five years before he became a citizen, and it would make him sixty years of age before he was eligible to the office of Governor. — That was an age at which men seldom aspired to such an office, and they were, therefore, virtually prohibited. Now if this rule was to be changed at all, it should be because it was wrong, and if it was

365

wrong, why should it be presented in its present shape as a remedy? Another objection he had to the section was the proposed increase in the age of the person to fill the office. Thirty-five years was proposed. Why increase it from thirty, as it stood in the old constitution? Had any evils resulted from the age being fixed at that period? He referred the committee to the fact that when DeWitt Clinton, Daniel D. Tompkins, and Gov. Seward were chosen Governor of New York, neither had attained the age of 35. No one had ever complained of these men, or their administrations, because of their age.

After some further remarks on this subject, he returned to the subject of foreigners, and said that in the whole thirty States there were but three that had a provision in their constitutions like this reported by the committee; and neither of those States would he cite as an example for this State to follow in the formation of a government. Not one of the States which had lately formed constitution had anything of the kind contained amongst their provisions. Iowa had not; Louisiana and Michigan had not; New York had not — her provision is in the very words of his amendment which had been voted down.

Mr. LOGAN said, that when in order he would offer an amendment changing the section so that fifteen years citizenship should be required before a foreigner shall be eligible to the office of Governor. He was sorry that so much feeling had been shown on this question, and also sorry that the Convention had been threatened with the yeas and nays on this question. He had no fears himself to have his vote recorded, and he did not think that any others were to be influenced by any such proceeding. He had no love for foreigners, nor was he prejudiced against them; he never regarded foreigners in the community as foreigners through fear, favor or affection. He was not disposed to proscribe them, while at the same time he was unwilling they should have privileges, which, in his opinion and in his conscience, he thought they were not entitled to. Foreigners are becoming a powerful body in this Union; in some States they have a great influence, being what is called the balance of power party, and it was no more than prudent to guard against danger from an increase of that power and influence.

366

As to the question of age, for Governor, he was not in favor of reducing the period below thirty-five years. An age when men generally arrived at that necessary judgment, capacity and experience, to enable them to discharge the duties of that high office with fidelity and satisfaction. They had fixed the time for voting at an age when it was presumed that a man's mind had become sufficiently matured to be entrusted with that privilege, and he thought a time should also be fixed at a period when a similar presumption would exist, that his mind had been formed, and his judgment and capacity so settled that there would be no danger in committing to his hands the guidance of the government. He knew that age did not give more energy to the mind, nor increase the brightness of the genius, but every day that a man approached thirty-five he was improving in steadiness, experience and judgment. It was said that young men had been selected for this office, and that there were young men in the State who could fill the office, he would not deny; but it is well known that boys have, for a long time, their wild oats to sow, and that, generally, they were more easily influenced by friends and advisers, and did not possess that stability which age and experience confers. Exceptions to this rule may be found, but generally such was the case. Thirty-five years was a low period to fix, and the young man who has the ability to discharge the duties of that office, will not be any less qualified when he arrives at that age.

A man may have a good mind, may shine in the Legislative hall, his genius may display itself with more brilliancy — and his fancy and imagination may be more exuberant than all others around him; but for the sober discharge of the important duties of the chief executive office of the State, more than these are required — he wants steadiness, calculation, experience and sound judgment. You might as well say that we restrict the right of suffrage, when we exclude an intelligent boy of eighteen from voting, as to complain of our excluding a man from the office of Governor until he has arrived at thirty-five. The same principle applies to both cases. And so with a foreigner. The man who comes here from a foreign land knows the policy of the government of England, of Ireland, and of other countries — and when he comes here, he has to receive a new education in the principles of government, for

367

what do they know of the experimental — practical policy of our government? Now, if it takes a man, as it is said the provision in the constitution of the United States presumes, five years to become sufficiently acquainted with our government and institutions, to be entrusted with the privilege of voting, is it unjust or unreasonable to require that he shall remain here fifteen years before he can be eligible to an office of so much importance as the executive of a State. Another thing. He thought the man who would be selected to fill this office, should have been here a sufficient length of time for the people to know him, to become acquainted with his principles, and his character; he might be a man of great power of speech, of great conversational powers, of great brilliancy of intellect, and the people should have time to see through all this, not by a casual view, but by a thorough examination into the foundation of his character. That time should be given for the first blush of a bright appearance to wear off, and then the people to say whether he was worthy of their confidence.

This, he thought could be accomplished by the amendment he would offer.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, he intended to enter into no argument upon this subject at the present time. He rose now, as he had done at first, to ask the committee, before they decide this question, before they commit themselves even upon the informal vote here, to pause and reflect, before they placed any restriction upon their future action, upon the consequences of this proposed change in the old constitution. He was in favor of abolishing the restriction of thirty-five years as a qualification of the office of governor, and in favor of abolishing all and every distinction, now, or at any time, existing between the elector and elected. These, sir, are restrictions upon the people, they are restrictions upon the right of the people to say who shall be their choice to perform the duties of this office.

He would say that any man at the age of twenty-one years, should have full power to do that himself which he is authorized to do by an agent. This restriction says he shall not. It says that a man can vote for a Governor and shall have the power to rule by another, at the age of twenty-one years; but it precludes him from doing so, and the people from choosing him to do the

368

same. It says to him you may govern the State by an agent, but you shall not govern it yourself.

He was in favor of destroying and eradicating from the constitution every restriction upon the free and untrammelled voice of the people in the choice of their rulers. But it is said that there is great danger of the people selecting a man for Governor, who is ignorant, a foreigner, and incompetent to perform the duties of the station. This is an un-worthy reflection upon the intelligence and capacity of the people. To say that they have not intelligence to select men capable and worthy and deserving of the office, is, he said, a reflection upon their powers of self-government. Why give them the right to vote at all, if it was feared they had not the capacity to select? It is unjust, too, to the naturalized citizen, to exclude him on account of his birth. Shall it be said in this day that a man who leaves his native land and the home of his youth — who renounces all allegiance to his own and all other foreign princes, potentates and powers — who comes here to live in a land of freedom — who offers himself, and is always ready, to die in the defence of our stars and stripes — shall we say that he shall not be entitled to enjoy all the rights and privileges of other citizens of our land? Mr. C. then alluded to the age required for the office of Governor, and opposed it as a restriction upon the voice of the people in the choice of their Governor. He advocated that no age should be required; but the matter left open to the people. He alluded to the great disparity of ages in the members of this Convention — to the old and the young — the impetuosity of youth rising in its might and struggling for the mastery, and the calm sobriety and venerable experience of age — blending together, and displaying the same great and correct principles he had been advocating when he proposed to open to all, of every age and birth, the rights and privileges of citizenship, and leaving the people unrestricted in their free choice.

Mr. BALLINGALL addressed the Convention in favor of the amendment; his remarks will probably appear hereafter.

Mr. HURLBUT said, that like some others who had spoken, he did not propose to enter into an argument upon this question, but merely to say a few words in reply to those who complained

369

of this section because it was a restriction upon the people. What is the restriction upon voters in Illinois? Is it not now a rule that no man shall vote till he is twenty-one years of age, and that is a restriction upon the right to vote, which he did not suppose gentlemen desired to, abolish.

Mr. BALLINGALL said, that at common law the right to vote was a privilege secured to a citizen.

Mr. HURLBUT said, he would like to know if that was the common law of Illinois? He would like to know if foreigners were not now allowed to vote and enjoy all the rights of citizenship upon a mere twelve months' residence in the State?

A MEMBER. They are not allowed to sit on juries.

Mr. HURLBUT. I know they are not called upon to sit on juries; jury and militia duties are burdens upon citizens — voting is the privilege! — The right to vote is the greatest that can be conferred; it is that which makes a man feel that he is a man. In rising, he had another object, and that was, to say that a well known individual who represented his district in Congress, had called him a "Native American," or, at least, certain remarks made by him had been wholly misrepresented by some small petty representative of a very small man, and the charge was based thereon. He was sure that no one who had listened to his remarks had discovered in them anything of the kind represented, and he would say to the reporters — no, he would excuse the reporters; none of them had done it — he would say to the man, be he who he may, who panders to that small man, that he was at liberty to state anything he thought proper, which he (Mr. H.) had said; but that if he undertook to misrepresent, even as humble an individual as himself, he would find he had mistaken his man.

The question was then taken on the amendment proposed by Mr. SCATES, and decided as follows: yeas 74, nays 49.

Mr. LOGAN moved to add to the section, "and shall have been a citizen of the United States for fifteen years. ["]

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said that he hoped the amendment just proposed by the member from Sangamon would pass. He would like to have this question settled now. Why was there so much fear expressed of, and so many warnings against, the committee committing themselves by a vote on this question?

370

Why are not the members as well prepared to vote and act now upon the subject as at any other time? He would always vote against anything allowing a foreigner to become Governor of Illinois, of being appointed a judge of a court, or of holding any other important post, after having been only five years in the country. He was not, as he said before, prejudiced against foreigners, but he would always oppose the system pursued by some, of running to them the moment they reach our land, and telling them, "oh, you understand our laws, you understand our governmen[t], you understand our policy, and you know as much about our institutions as anybody else, and you must have a vote." Sir, they know nothing about our institutions; they are familiar with the political government of the land where they spent their schoolboy days; their minds are stored with recollections and views of policy imbibed in foreign lands, and they, when they come here, have no true conception of the character of our institutions. How can they form an idea of our system of government? They have not read our books, they have no knowledge of our customs or laws, and in many cases are ignorant of our language.

We are a progressing people, and our country is fast filling up. Now is the time to apply these wholesome restrictions, which will prevent citizens — born and reared on the soil — from being excluded by foreigners from the enjoyment of these high offices. Shall we say that those who framed the constitution of the United States were wrong in imposing a restriction in that instrument excluding foreigners from holding the two chief offices of the national government? Sir, this Convention has this day, by the vote just taken, and by a large majority, said this restriction imposed in the constitution by the fathers of the country was wrong — all wrong. He had no fears of expressing his sentiments. He spoke what he believed to be true and correct. He would read to the Convention the opinion of Washington on this subject, and upon those views he would make no comments, for he believed the die was cast; that the question was settled, and he would not be surprised if the time was reduced to five years. He then read a letter written by Gen. Washington to a Mr. Morris during the war, in relation to foreigners, and one from Mr. Jefferson on the same subject.

He was willing to admit that the circumstances under which

371

those letters were written were different from our present. He was not a "Native American," but he would say to the Convention that the want of such restrictions as is contained in that section now upon the table, had been the cause of such a party in our country. Foreigners came to our land and remained in our large cities; they were seized upon by both parties — whig and democrat — and for the purpose of forwarding the interests of their respective parties, were put into high and important offices, to the exclusion of free American citizens, and whose every feeling was for their country; — this had driven the people in those cities to unite in these associations, formed to protect themselves and countrymen from the encroachments of the foreigners. He had no personal hostility to any foreigners, but he had seen instances of their being elevated over the heads of competent Americans and appointed to judgeships, and one of these was in his own county. He alluded to Judge KOERNER — who was the judge in his circuit, who was a foreigner, and he alluded to him, not out of any want of respect, for he was a gentleman, a sound lawyer, and an honorable man, but he was unable to charge a jury understandingly, because his language was so broken and difficult to be understood.

Mr. BUTLER thought this was a restriction upon the people. Gentlemen would liken it to a restriction upon the Legislature, but it was very different. The restriction contained in this amendment was upon the people themselves, and questioned their capability of judging who should have the offices to be received at their hands. We might as well say that we should declare in this constitution all the qualifications the Governor should possess, and we should say whether he must have received a common school, an academical, or a collegiate education; whether he should have a classical education or not; whether he shall be acquainted with Latin or Greek. This rule, sir, would not be more arbitrary than that proposed by the gentleman from Sangamon. He thought that we should place no restrictions in the constitution, but leave the matter with the people.

Mr. GREEN of Tazewell followed in support of the amendment. He thought that the restriction of fifteen years upon a foreigner was not more oppressive than that placed upon native

372

born citizens, who had to be in the country twenty-one years before they could vote.

Mr. PALMER of Marshall advocated the amendment at much length; he took similar views as those presented by those who had preceded him.

Mr. GEDDES repeated the views expressed by him earlier in the debate.

Mr. ARCHER was opposed to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Sangamon. He took the same view of it as others who had declared it to be a restriction upon the elective franchise of the people. He had no sort of doubt of the capability of the people to exercise that right, and was opposed to any provision restricting it, in the least particular, as he believed it would be safe in their hands, and that the better course for the Convention would be to leave the matter entirely with them.

He had no great love for foreigners. He was an American by birth, but he had always been proud to believe that the institutions of his country afforded a home for the opressed of all lands without distinction. He thought that the land of a man's birth was not the test of his right to the privilege of citizenship, but that merit was the true test to be applied to him. He had no desire to dwell upon the acts of foreigners who had taken an active part in our revolution, nor of the many who had rendered such valuable service, but he would say that he had never heard of an adopted citizen betraying his country, or of any act unworthy of a citizen. He did not desire that offices should be open to them as soon as they arrive in this country, but when they had renounced their allegiance to other powers, and had remained here for the term of five years, and complied with all the requirements which Congress, in their wisdom, had provided as necessary for them to become citizens, he desired then to see them become citizens with all the rights and privileges of citizenship without any restrictions or distinctions. It had been said that they came to this country with recollections of their native land fresh in their mind, and that their views and sentiments are influenced by associations of what they had experienced there. He thought this was true in one sense. They do come here with a vivid recollection of the land where they have been oppressed, and minds well calculated to

373

appreciate the freedom of our laws and the beauty of our institutions, because of the associations of government and tyranny they have experienced at home. The amendment would establish that the land of a man's birth, not the man, should be the test by which he should be judged. It had well been said, that a man who had just arrived here, unknown to the people, ignorant or unqualified, would not be selected by the people for the office of Governor. Public jealousy, distrust of strangers, will always excite a scrutiny into the character of any man offering himself for that office, and no danger need be felt that they would select such a person for that important office.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin advocated the adoption of the amendment. He was opposed to the section as it first was reported; but thought that the restriction of fifteen years upon a foreigner before he could hold the office of Governor was not too great. He thought those who denounced all restrictions upon the right to vote and hold office had gone too far. There were restrictions upon the ladies, precluding them from the enjoyment of these rights, and he did not think it was proposed by any to remove them. He thought that the period of five years fixed in the constitution, as the time for a foreigner to reside in this country, had been fixed as a period in which he might become acquainted with our language; and did not believe that fifteen years was too long a term for him to acquire a knowledge of the complicated machinery of our system of government. He thought that the privilege of living under the government of the United States, and enjoying the rights and privileges of a citizen of a free republic, should be sufficient for any foreigner, without the right to hold office.

374

We have given the above positions of Mr. P., as they are somewhat different from those advanced on the same side, and must offer as an apology for this brief allusion to his remarks, the crowded state of our columns.

[Mr. TURNBULL said that the gentlemen who were opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from Sangamon, (LOGAN) from their remarks appear to be in favor of making foreigners eligible to the office of Governor as soon as they are entitled to a vote, while they are for preventing the people from electing a native-born citizen until he has exercised the right of voting for fourteen years to that high office. I ask gentlemen, who are opposed to the amendment, how they will answer to the people of this State, or to the world, for requiring fourteen years of a native born citizen — one who has imbibed the first principles of freedom and republicanism from his mother, after he is entitled to a vote before he is eligible for the office of Governor — and make the foreigner eligible for that high office as soon as he is entitled to a vote? Mr. President, I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Sangamon, which requires fifteen years residence in the United States after he is entitled to a vote, before the foreigner is eligible for the office of Governor.]

Mr. PRATT resumed the subject and spoke at much length against the amendment and against the restriction upon the selection of a young man for the office.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved the committee rise.

And the committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Granted.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned.

375

XXVIII. Saturday, July 10, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. HALE.

The Convention resolved itself into committee of the whole — Mr. CRAIN in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the Executive Department.

The question pending was on the amendment of Mr. LOGAN, which was modified by him to read "fourteen" instead of "fifteen" years, and being take[n] was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. MARKLEY gave notice of a motion to reconsider the vote.

SEC. 5. The Governor shall, at stated times, receive for his services the sum of twelve hundred and fifty dollars per annum; which shall neither be increased nor diminished (during the period for which he shall have been elected;) and he shall not receive, within that period, any other emolument from the United States or any of them.

Mr. SHUMWAY moved to strike out "$1,250" and insert "$1,000."

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved to amend the amendment by striking out "$1,000" and inserting — two dollars a day for the first forty-two days, and one dollar a day, for each days actual service thereafter; which amendment was carried; and the question being taken on the amendment as amended it was decided in the negative.

Mr. KNAPP of Jersey offered the following as a substitute for the section:

"That the Governor shall receive the sum of fifteen hundred dollars per annum, for his services as Governor, and which sum shall not be increased nor diminished."

Mr. DALE moved, as an amendment to the amendment, to strike out "fifteen hundred dollars," and insert "one thousand."

In presenting the amendment Mr. D. said, that it behooved us, in view of the present pecuniary embarrassments of the State, to study economy — to introduce it into every department of government — and to act with an eye to it, in all our proceedings.

376

The people have clamored loudly, and with justice, against the heavy expenses of government; and gentlemen, here, would bear him out in the assertion, that, whilst we had a soil which yielded its fruits with less of labor and toil of man than did the same amount of territory anywhere else; whils[t], too, our harvests were, generally, very abundant, and our farms daily improving and presenting new beauties to the eye, yet, that the citizen, the tiller of the soil, did not exhibit that cheerfulness and contentment which these outward appearances would seem to indicate and to justify. The citizen was not entirely satisfied with the administration of his government — he complained that it was an expensive one — that notwithstanding a heavy debt hung over the State which was not, in any material degree, being reduced, yet that the taxes of his labor increased and were increasing on him from year to year — he believed and held that a frugal people, who were chiefly agriculturists, and whose wealth was dug, by the labor of their hands, from the earth, should have an efficient government but a frugal and economical one. To effect reforms which should insure such a government, was a consideration with the people in calling this Convention. In curtailing expenses he was pleased to say that thus far our action had come up to the views and expectations of the people. The expenses of a State census is to be saved by adopting the census taken by the U. S. government; elections are designed to be held in November and thus the necessity for two elections in a year avoided; the legislative session is limited and the pay of members is reduced and thus this heavy item in former appropriations, will henceforward be comparatively, a light one. Let the same reform be carried into every department — our circumstances call for rigid economy — the credit of the State demands it.

If, then, the experience of other States has shown that the office of Governor can be filled consistently with the public interest — can be well filled — at an expense less than that proposed by the resolution, the people will hold us answerable if we do not profit by that experience.

The State of Ohio, with a population double that of this State, allows to her Governor a salary of one thousand dollars; New Hampshire the same amount; Vermont seven hundred and fifty

377

dollars; Rhode Island four hundred dollars. If, in these States, where wealth and luxuriance abound, and some of which are free of debt, these sums are considered compensation, might they not well be considered such in this agricultural State — this State of simple manners and frugal habits?

He was disposed to allow the holders of the office of honor little more than a plain citizen required for the support of himself and family. The amendment, however, offered by him proposed an allowance equal to that reported by the committee as a salary for the Auditor. This ought to be sufficient. For a house is provided by the State for the Governor — none for the Auditor — the office of Auditor, too, is one of more labor and less honor. The argument that the Governor must have his levees and give his dinners might be a consideration to be entertained if the State were differently circumstanced, but should not while she continues in her present embarrassed condition. These things are not absolutely necessary, and if agreeable to the feelings of the Governor or any citizen let them be done at their private expense, not at the expense of the public.

Under these reductions of salaries and other expenses, the condition of the treasury would improve. Auditor's warrants would no longer be discounted and shaved and hawked about in search of buyers — jobs to be done for the State would not longer be contracted for at the present ruinous rates to which the State is forced, by reason of her paying in miserably depreciated warrants of the Auditor. These moderate salaries too will make it the object and the interest of officers and legislators to give an eye to the finances of the State and provide against any depreciation of her paper in the future.

But a great gain to the State from this reduction in the salaries of officers and pay of members of the Legislature will be in this, that the compensation allowed to them will form a standard of value, and that, in all contracts made by them in behalf of the State with agents, commissioners &c., the sums agreed to be paid for services will be regulated by this standard — the compensation which members and officers themselves receive. Countenance extravagance in them, by giving them large salaries and this extravagance will characterize all their appropriations and all

378

contracts made by them for the State. Make, however, the pay of members of the Legislature such as has, here, been voted for them, and the salary of Governor such as proposed by the amendment, and there will be an end to these extravagant expenditures of which our books are so full — an end to the exorbitant pay of former years, such, for instance as has been given to agents to select lands given to the State by the General Government, to agents to protect canal lands &c., there will be an end to this eternal speculation on the State.

Mr. THOMPSON opposed the reduction.

Mr. WEAD said, his vote upon the sum to be allowed the Governor would depend entirely upon the duties which would be assigned him in this constitution; and he would, also, like to know whether it was intended that the Governor should reside at the seat of government — which in his opinion was an important consideration. The present Governor is, also, fund commissioner, and before he could vote to fix the salary of the office, he would like those questions to be answered. Fifteen hundred dollars a year was not too much for the office, if the Governor was compelled to reside here. If allowed to remain at his home, so large a salary was not needed. In the eastern States, in Massachusetts, New Hampshire — certainly in Vermont, the Governor was not required to reside at the seat of government, and that accounted for the small salaries allowed them. The Governor who is compelled to reside at the seat of government was, in a great measure, obliged to keep an open house, for members of the Legislature, to receive strangers, and was to some extent the official organ of the State. He would be obliged to neglect his own business at home, and devote himself entirely to public business, while if at home, he could attend to his ordinary business without any pecuniary loss. He could see no necessity for our providing that the Governor should reside here, and thought that by attending here occasionally, at the time of the meeting of the General Assembly, that the duties of the office could be administered as well. He would vote for the $1, 500.

Mr. ARCHER was in favor of allowing a good salary to the Governor and having him reside at the seat of government.

Mr. LOGAN was like the gentleman from Fulton, unable to

379

vote upon this question until he knew what duties the Governor would be required to perform. He was in favor of the fifteen hundred a year.

Mr. PALMER of Marshall was in favor of the sum reported by the committee — say twelve hundred and fifty dollars a year, and thought that quite sufficient. He alluded to the State of Indiana where he had resided a number of years, and where the salaries of the Governor and the judges were very low.

Mr. BOND was in favor of the one thousand dollars a year.

The question being on Mr. DALE'S amendment to strike out $1,500 and insert one thousand, the question was divided; and being taken on striking out was decided in the affirmative — yeas 86, nays not counted; and then being taken on inserting, was decided in the negative — yeas 44, nays not counted.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess offered the following as a substitute for the amendment of Mr. KNAPP, to strike out the original section and insert — "the Governor shall reside at the seat of government, and receive at stated times, as a salary for his services, the sum of two thousand dollars per annum, which shall not be increased nor diminished; and shall be ex officio fund commissioner."

In offering the above, he explained the many duties which the Governor would be obliged to perform. He was obliged to be at the seat of government, as duties required the actual presence of the Governor every day. Requisitions from other States for persons charged with crime, were coming here, and the Governor and he alone was obliged to act upon it; for they required his personal action upon them. He was to decide upon their legality and could not delegate the power to do so to any other individual. They were cases requiring the exercise of his own judgment, and unless he were here to attend to them, the parties would have to hunt him up in all parts of the State, and the end of justice would be defeated by the escape of the accused. The same would apply to petitions for pardons, requiring an exercise of power, judgment and discretion which could not be delegated to any other person.

He alluded to the fact that no man of any ability could be selected to fill the office at one thousand dollars a year, and it was not to be expected that the Governor was to live in a style beneath

380

the dignity of the post, and in a way that he otherwise would not. Something must be allowed for the refinements of mind: something must be allowed to the accomplishments of thought, for they constitute the only aristocracy in the land, and they ought to be encouraged. He said, that a man chosen to be Governor of the State, would occupy a post where such things would be looked for, and there should be an allowance for something more than for the level of society. True these accomplishments of the mind, the aristocracy of intellect, were open to all, and should deserve our encouragement, but are we to erect toll gates upon the road to preferment through which they were to go? It should be recollected that a man gave up all other business to attend to the office of Governor — and had he a family, had children to educate — how could it be done with such a pittance? He had a right to educate his children and it should be every delegate's ambition to place it in the power of every man to give his children an education equal to their standing. He (Mr. C.) had lived here at $1,000 for four years — that is he didn't live at all. He had $1,000 for two years, and then was cut down to $800, and he could speak from experience that the salary was not sufficient to afford a man a living. He had remained here four years in office, and went home poorer than when he came; he went home and found himself out of business, his clients all gone, other lawyers had taken them, and he found himself like [a] young man just starting in the world; and now was forced to commence anew, to go to work at his profession to support himself and family. Mr. C. followed the subject much further and concluded by remarking, that if they allowed picayune salaries they must expect picayune officers — if dollar salaries dollar officers.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery replied, and in the course of his remarks, reminded the committee that at the last session of the Legislature there were a number of candidates hanging round the Legislature for a vacant judgeship, and the salaries were then but $1,000; and no sooner were they elected, than they crowded the lobbies and commenced begging the Legislature to increase their salaries, saying they could not live on one thousand — that they had families to support and children to educate. Nothing of this, however, was heard when they were candidates; they were willing

381

then to have the office at one thousand a year. He opposed any sum over that proposed by the committee, and would vote for that all through.

Mr. LOGAN advocated an increase to fifteen hundred dollars, as nothing more than a fair and reasonable compensation. He thought the effect of reducing the salary to one thousand, would be to give the office entirely to men who were rich, and who could afford to live even without the salary. He found it difficult even for him to live here on one thousand a year. He said that when the salary was at one thousand, they had Gov. DUNCAN, one of the wealthiest men in the State; Gov. REYNOLDS another, Gov. EDWARDS and Gov. COLES, both rich men, and all of whom could afford to live as Governor of the State without reference at all to the salary. He alluded to the difficulties attending the administration of affairs, if the Governor resided elsewhere than at the seat of government, and thought the proposed saving, by allowing him to reside at home, would be of more expense to the people having business to transact with him, and which required his attendance, would be more than the proposed increase. He thought it was poor economy; it was spoiling a knife worth twenty-five cents to skin a flint not worth a farthing.

Mr. GREEN of Taz[e]well said, that when the section had been proposed he thought it perfectly proper; then came the amendments, and he had watched to see who were in favor of amending; then he had endeavored to satisfy himself as to the motives inducing them to propose the amendments. And although it was not proper at all times to allude to motives of gentlemen, he hoped he would be pardoned in stating what had been his impressions. He had looked around at those who had proposed the increase, and had come to the conclusion that they all had a sly notion that at some time or another, they would be called upon to occupy the office, the salary of which we were now about to fix. This was more evident to his mind, from the fact, that his friend from Sangamon and his friend from Clinton, whose chances were very desperate and the probability very slight, proposed only the moderate increase of two hundred and fifty dollars; but the gentleman from Jo Daviess, whose chances were fair, who was on the right side, and who had the start of his competitors, had stopped

382

at nothing short of two thousand dollars. Now, he was very willing to oblige these gentlemen, but he felt he owed a duty to the State, which was much embarrassed and in debt, and he could not vote to increase the salary, particularly as he felt sure, from the patriotism of the gentlemen, that when the State could not get along without them, that they would generally give her their services at one thousand per annum.

Mr. HOGUE moved the committee rise, &c., which motion was carried, and the chairman reported and asked leave to sit again. Granted.

Mr. SCATES suggested to the members the propriety of remaining in the hall after the adjournment, to make arrangements about attending the funeral of Col. Hardin; and as the committees desired to have a meeting that afternoon, he moved the Convention adjourn till Monday at 9 A. M. Carried.

383

XXIX. Monday July 12, 1847.

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. PALMER of Marshall.

Mr. LOCKWOOD presented certain propositions in relation to the redemption of land sold for taxes, which he said he would call up at some other time.

Mr. HURLBUT moved that it be laid on the table, and 200 copies be ordered to be printed. Ordered.

Mr. SCATES, from the committee on the Judiciary made a report.

Mr. MARKLEY moved that 200 copies be printed. Ordered.

Mr. SCATES, from the same committee, reported back sundry resolutions, and asked to be discharged from the further consideration thereof. Granted.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac presented a report of the minority of the Judiciary committee. Two hundred copies ordered to be printed.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved a call of the Convention, and 124 members answered to their names; and then further proceedings were dispensed with.

Leave of absence was granted to Messrs. KREIDER, SHARPE, MORRIS and MILLER.

Mr. HURLBUT, from the Judiciary committee, reported certain additional sections to be added to those reported by the committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. ROUNTREE offered a substitute.

Mr. SCATES moved they be laid on the table, and 200 copies of each be printed. Carried.

Mr. DAWSON offered a resolution that a majority of the Convention shall constitute a quorum to do business, till the 20th, and that hereafter that no member shall have leave of absence, unless on account of sickness.

Mr. SCATES moved that the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole. Carried, and Mr. CRAIN took the Chair.

The committee resumed the consideration of the report of the

384

Executive committee. The question pending was on the substitute for Section 5, offered by Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess.

Mr. LOCKWOOD made a few remarks in favor of the Governor being required to remain at the seat of Government during his term of office.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess pointed out the vast difference in effect between the reduction of the pay of the members of the Legislature and that of the Governor. In the former case, they were called here in the winter season, when farmers could lose no crop, when lawyers could attend the supreme court at the same time, and when, from the shortness of the session, no person's business would be injured or neglected; while the Governor was obliged to sell out his furniture at home; give up all his business, — if a farmer, rent his farm — if a lawyer, lose all his clients, and be here four years, entirely cut off from any other business. He thought the reduction of the salary to $1,000 would have the effect of excluding all poor men from the office, and secure it to the rich; that the State would be deprived of the talents which poverty possesses, and have rich men for Governors though they were stupid and incompetent.

Mr. PINCKNEY thought that $2,000 was extravagant, and would vote for $1,500 a year as the salary of the Governor.

Mr. McCALLEN thought the discussion upon the salary was premature. He would like to know what duties were to be required of the officer, and whether he would be required to reside here, before he could vote upon the amount of his salary. If the office was to be a mere nominal one, one of empty title only, $500 would be sufficient, but if required to reside here, and give up all his other business, and devote himself to the duties of his office, $2,000 was nothing more than a fair remuneration. He was of opinion that the effect of allowing but a small salary would be to deprive every poor man in the State of the privilege of holding the office, and to raise up an aristocracy of wealth which it was our policy to oppose.

Mr. PALMER of Marshall advocated the amount proposed by the committee — $1,250.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess modified his substitute by leaving the amount of salary blank; and it was then adopted.

385

Mr. WEST supported $1,500 as a proper sum.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, that at the suggestion of his friend from Madison he would move to fill the blank with $1,500.

Mr. SCATES opposed the amendment as an unnecessary extravagance, in the present circumstances of the State; and was of opinion that the proper inquiry was, what sum was necessary to enable a man to live comfortably and well, and not what was required to enable him to live extravagantly. — The State should allow her Governor a sum sufficient to support him while in office, and no more; he did not think he should be paid for his services. He had made inquiries, and was informed that his friend from Sangamon, (Mr. EDWARDS) who, as everyone was aware, lived well, gave the most elegant and sumptuous entertainments, and whose house was always open to the members of the Legislature and strangers, had said that his expenses did not exceed $1,200 a year. Upon this sum, said Mr. S., I think the Governor may live comfortably and well, and I do not think that any one who may hold the office will desire to exceed in comfort and hospitality the gentleman from Sangamon.

Mr. THOMAS moved to fill the blank with "two thousand dollars;" and, on a division, the motion was lost.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, that he would like to ask the gentleman from Jefferson, if he, when he was receiving fifteen hundred dollars a year as judge of the Supreme Court, succeeded in laying up a large sum of money? Did he complain that that pay was too large, too extravagant? If there were any such complaints made, he (Mr. C.) never heard of them; but he had, when the salary was at one thousand, heard them declare from their seats that it was impossible for them to live at that pay and support their families.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery replied, that the judges were obliged to be absent from their families for nine months in the year; that they were obliged to pay tavern bills, when board was at one dollar to one dollar and fifty cents a day, and that their expenses were such that one thousand dollars was not sufficient.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon said, that he was sorry his name had been introduced, as the remark had been made by him without

386

any intention to have it bear upon the question. He would say, however, that he could live on the sum stated, but then he was at home, his house was furnished, and he would not be obliged to break up his household and furnish a new one, as would be the case of a Governor who came here from another part of the State. As to the hospitality which the Governor would be obliged to show, and the open house for strangers and members of the Legislature, he did not think this should have any weight upon the question. Past experience, and he made the remark in no spirit of unkindness or of personal application, had clearly satisfied him that it could be dispensed with. Not one of the State officers who had resided here for years past, with the exception of Mr. Walters, ever had shown any hospitality to strangers or members of the Legislature, or had kept an open house, such as spoken of by gentlemen. Moreover, he was informed that the present Governor rents out the house provided for him by the State, and has the amount of the rent deducted from his board. He thought the sum proposed by the committee sufficient.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess said, that the reason he gave no parties, nor kept an open house while he was a State officer, was that the State did not allow him enough to do so with.

Mr. EDWARDS said, he did not refer to the gentleman; his well known spirit of hospitality and friendship satisfied all that it was not his fault, if he was not generous.

The question was taken on the motion to insert $1,000, and result yeas 55, nays 62. Some misunderstanding having existed in relation to the vote, a recount was had, and resulted yeas 53, nays 63, and the motion was lost.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to amend by inserting, "the office of Governor shall be let to the lowest responsible bidder."

Mr. GEDDES moved to fill the blank with $1,250.

Mr. NORTON proposed $1,400.

Mr. KNOWLTON proposed $1,450, and the question being taken on the $1,400, it was decided in the negative — yeas 38, nays 71. The question was taken on $1,450, and resulted yeas 28, nays 70; no quorum. A motion was made that the committee rise, and decided in the negative — and then the amendment was lost. The question was taken on inserting $1,250, and resulted,

387

yeas 83, nays 22; no quorum. And then, on motion, the committee rose, and asked leave to sit again. Granted.

On motion the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

Mr. SHUMWAY moved a call of the Convention, and the Convention was called, and 99 members answered to their names; after some delay a quorum appeared.

Mr. LOCKWOOD moved to take up the resolution which had been laid on the table in the morning, providing that a majority shall constitute a quorum — yeas 41, nays 40, no quorum. A second vote was taken, yeas 56, nays 49; no quorum. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question was decided in the negative — yeas 41, nays 71.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved the Convention adjourn. Lost.

Mr. AIKEN offered the following:

WHEREAS, Mr. HALE, in a sermon on the 11th day of July, in the 2d Presbyterian Church, denounced the existing war with Mexico, as being unjust; and whereas, such declarations ought not to be tolerated, more especially in a republican government; and whereas, it is unbecoming in a Minister of the Gospel, to use such language in [a] Gospel sermon, or before the young and rising generation, therefore;

Resolved, That said Mr. Hale be excused from holding prayers in this Convention for the future.

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved to lay it on the table. Yeas 71, nays 23: no quorum. The yeas and nays were ordered and resulted — yeas 82, nays 36.

Mr. LOCKWOOD offered a resolution that a majority of the Convention shall be a quorum to do business till the 20th inst. Yeas 45; nays not counted. Lost.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved that the Rev. Mr. Hale be excused from praying in this Convention for the future. Mr. C. said that so far as Mr. Hale was personally concerned he felt kindly toward him, but he objected to any man speaking of those who had gone forth to fight the battles of their country as a moral pest to society.

388

Mr. TURNBULL asked if Mr. C. had heard him say so. Mr. C. replied he had not. Mr. T. then said that second-hand evidence was inadmissable anywhere.

Mr. HATCH said, that he was present at the delivery of the sermon and heard the words repeated, and he was ready to sustain what had been said by the gentleman from Jo Daviess. He was particular in noticing the language used.

Mr. WEST said, that he was present and heard the sermon alluded to, and he had understood it differently. Mr. HALE had used words of that kind, but not without a qualification, and said there were many honorable exceptions.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess. Honorable exceptions in a body of men who had perilled their lives in a defence of their country! Worse than the other.

Mr. WEST. He said exceptions amongst the volunteers.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well, honorable exceptions amongst those who had battled in the cause of their country!

Mr. SINGLETON said, that in order to obtain information of what Mr. HALE had really said, and to enable him to defend himself, he would move to lay the subject on the table. Carried.

Mr. KNAPP of Scott offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the Convention highly appreciate the services of the volunteers, both officers and privates, of this State, who have perilled their lives in the cause of our common country in the war with Mexico, that their fame is established upon an immovable basis, far above the reach of calumny, having earned for themselves a character that needs no vindication, and which cannot be impaired by detraction.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved to add to the resolution the following: "And this Convention highly deprecate all reflections upon the character of the volunteers, coming from the pulpit or any other source."

On this resolution and amendment a debate ensued, in which Messrs. DEITZ, CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess, PINCKNEY, and DAVIS of Montgomery participated.

Mr. LOGAN moved to insert after the word "character," in the amendment, the words "for courage or patriotism." And

389

the question being taken thereon, it was decided in the negative; and then the amendment of Mr. CAMPBELL was adopted.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin offered a preamble and resolution, as a substitute. The preamble contained a recital of the general principles set forth in the constitution of the United States, and the resolution disclaimed any power to control an expression of opinion by any person.

The debate was resumed and continued by Messrs. ARCHER, MCCALLEN, SERVANT, LOGAN, PALMER, and CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved to lay the substitute on the table.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin moved to lay the whole subject on the table. The question was divided and taken first by yeas and nays on laying Mr. P.'s resolution on the table — yeas 60, nays 54.

Then on laying the preamble on the table — yeas 9, nays 102.

Mr. MARKLEY moved to refer the preamble to the committee on Bill of Rights.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon raised a point of order — could the preamble be so referred?

After argument in opposition to the order of the motion by Mr. CASEY and MR. LOGAN, the CHAIR decided the motion to be in order.

Mr. SERVANT moved to lay the motion of reference on the table — yeas 53, nays 44. No quorum.

Mr. GEDDES moved the Convention adjourn till Thursday at 3 P. M. — yeas 41, nays 51. Lost.

The motion to lay the reference on the table was then put again and carried.

The question was then put on the substitute, (the preamble) and resulted yeas 44, nays 50. No quorum voting.

Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess moved the Convention adjourn till Thursday at 3 P. M.

Mr. BOND moved the Convention adjourn sine die — ayes and noes demanded, and then the motion was withdrawn.

Mr. WHITESIDE moved the Convention adjourn for two weeks.

390

Mr. CAMPBELL of McDonough moved the Convention adjourn till the 15th of November.

Mr. BOND renewed his motion to adjourn sine die; the ayes and noes were demanded and ordered.

Mr. Z. CASEY appealed to the gentlemen to withdraw their motions, and to the Convention to proceed with the business for which they had been sent. He deprecated the great waste of time, and earnestly hoped that we would proceed to business.

Messrs. WHITESIDE, BOND, CAMPBELL of McDonough, severally, withdrew their motions, and the Convention, in order to attend the funeral of Col. Hardin, at Jacksonville, on Wednesday, adjourned till T[h]ursday at 3 P. M.

391

XXX. Thursday, July 15, 1847.

The Convention, pursuant to adjournment, met at 3 P. M.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery said, there was apparently no quorum present, and probably there was not in town. He, therefore, moved the Convention adjourn till to-morrow at eight o'clock; and the question being taken on the motion, was decided in the negative.

Mr. PETERS moved a call of the house; and it was ordered.

The Convention was called, and after the absentees had been called again, a quorum appeared.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved that all further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. Carried.

Mr. Z. CASEY moved the Convention resolve itself into committee of the whole, and the Convention did resolve itself into committee of the whole — Mr. CRAIN in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the committee on the Executive Department.

The question pending, was on filling the blank, in the substitute proposed by Mr. CAMPBELL of Jo Daviess for the fifth section, with the sum of $1,250, (annual salary of the Governor;) and the vote being taken thereon, it was decided in the affirmative.

The section was then passed over informally for the present. Sections 6 and 7 were passed without amendment.

SEC. 8. The Governor shall have power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, after conviction, for all offences except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may think proper, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law relative to the manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction for treason, he shall have power to suspend the execution of the sentence until the case shall be reported to the General Assembly at its next meeting; when the General Assembly shall either pardon the convict or commute the sentence, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant a further reprieve. He shall, biennially, communicate

392

to the General Assembly each case of reprieve, commutation, or pardon granted; stating the name of the convict, the crime for which he was convicted, the sentence and its date, and the date of commutation, pardon, or reprieve.

Mr. PETERS offered to amend. After "applying for pardons," at the end of first sentence, insert, "and he shall also have power to grant pardons after indictments found, and before trial, and conviction, whenever the judge or judges of the court, wherein the indictment shall be pending, shall recommend to him to grant such pardon;" which amendment was adopted.

Mr. KNAPP of Scott moved to insert after the word "date" where it first occurs, the words, " and his reasons for granting such pardons."

Mr. HARDING offered as a substitute for the amendment: "and at the time of such pardon he shall publish at large his reasons for granting the same;" which substitute was rejected.

And the question being taken on the amendment, it resulted, yeas 37, nays 59 — no quorum voting. And a second vote being taken, it stood, yeas 35, nays 70 — no quorum voting. And the committee rose and reported that fact to the Convention.

Mr. THOMAS moved a call of the Convention. Ordered, and a quorum responded to their names. The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole again, and the vote being taken on the amendment, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. HARDING renewed his substitute as an amendment, and the same was again rejected.

Mr. TURNBULL moved to strike out the words "biennially to the General Assembly" and insert "publish in the several papers published at the seat of government." Messrs. ARCHER and DAVIS of Montgomery opposed the amendment and Mr. CONSTABLE advocated its adoption.

The question being taken, the amendment was rejected.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to amend by inserting after "treason" the word "murder."

He said, that when the report of the Judiciary committee came before the Convention, he intended, if none else did, to move the abolition of capital punishment, and the object of this amendment was to meet that proposition. He desired that when a man was

393

convicted of murder, that he should not be hung, and at the same time he wished to place him beyond the reach of the pardoning power, by the Governor.

Mr. KINNEY of Bureau opposed the amendment briefly.

The question being taken on the amendment it was decided in the negative.

SEC. 9 was passed without amendment.

SEC. 10. He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the General Assembly by proclamation, and shall state to them, when assembled, the purpose for which they shall have been convened; and the General Assembly shall be limited in their action to such matters only as the Governor shall lay before them.

Mr. PETERS moved to add at the end of the section: "Except at such special session trials of cases of impeachment may be had, and removals from office made in the manner provided in the constitution."

And the question being taken thereon, the same was rejected.

Mr. SCATES moved to insert after "occasions" the following: "which would cause great and irremediable injury by delay;" and, on a division the amendment was lost.

Mr. THORNTON moved to strike out all after the words, "the general assembly shall," and insert "enter upon no legislative business except that for which they were specially called."

Mr. CHURCHILL offered the following as an amendment to the amendment: strike out all after the word "proclamation," and insert, "the general assembly, when so convened, shall have the same power, and be liable to the same restrictions as in a regular session."

And the question being taken thereon, the same was rejected.

The question recurring upon the amendment of Mr. THORNTON, it resulted, yeas 43, nays 60; no quorum voting. A second vote was taken, and the amendment lost — yeas 42, nays 68.

Mr. McCALLEN moved to strike out all after "proclamation."

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery moved to strike out all after "convened;" which was accepted by Mr. McC. as a modification of his amendment.

394

Mr. CONSTABLE moved the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again; which was carried.

The committee then rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again; which was granted.

A motion was made that the Convention adjourn till to-morrow at 9 A. M., but the motion was negatived; and then, on motion, the Convention adjourned until 8 A. M. to-morrow.

395

XXXI. Friday, July 16, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. GREEN of Tazewell.

Messrs. MOFFETT, JACKSON, KNOWLTON, BROCKMAN, and FARWELL, presented petitions from their respective counties, praying the appointment of a superintendent of common schools, all of which were referred to the committee on Education.

Mr. WOODSON offered the following as two additional rules; which were adopted — yeas 71, nays 50:

RULE. No resolution or proposition which has been or which shall be hereafter introduced in the Convention shall be considered unless it relates to or is directly connected with the "alteration, revision or amendment of the constitution," without the consent of at least two-thirds of the members of the Convention previously obtained, and if such consent be so given, the same whall be voted on without debate.

RULE. Hereafter, immediately after the reception of petitions and reports from the standing committees, the Convention shall resolve itself into a committee of the whole on the reports of standing committees, which shall be the standing order of the day until the same are concluded.

Leave of absence was granted to Messrs. JAMES, KITCHELL, PALMER of Macoupin.

Mr. WEAD, from the special committee on townships, and the organization thereof, made a report containing a proposed article to be incorporated in the constitution; which was read, laid on the table, and 200 copies ordered to be printed.

The Convention then, on motion, resolved itself into committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of the report made by the committee on [Executive Department — Mr. CRAIN in the chair.

The question pending was on the amendment proposed by Mr. McCALLEN.

Messrs. MINSHALL and EDWARDS of Madison made a few

396

remarks in opposition to the amendment and in favor of the section as reported by the committee.

Mr. KINNEY of Bureau said, that he would be in favor of the report of the committee if he thought that it would hereafter be construed in the manner intended by the committee, but he considered that another interpretation than that intended would be placed upon it, and he would, therefore, move to strike out the last clause, and have the same idea inserted in language that cannot be misconstrued.

Mr. LOGAN said, he desired to say a few words in explanation of the position he occupied on this question. He thought he saw, when looking at this question through the dark vista of futurity, scenes of tyranny, oppression and misrule; a violation of the great principles of republican government, and the constitutional establishment of a legislative department, abandoned to the power and control of one man, styled Governor. This would be the effect of the last clause in the section now before us, if retained in the constitution.

He opposed the section in its present shape, because it conferred upon the Governor legislative power, which was not contemplated by any of the States, or the people of this State, when they proposed to establish a republican form of government. Our government was one of three co-ordinate branches, and it was never designed that either one of those departments was to invade upon the duties of the others, or in any way assume the peculiar functions not belonging to itself. The clause in the section now before us placed in the hands of one man the great and dangerous power to direct and control the Legislature in its actions — to say to it "thus far shalt thou go and no farther;" to say to it what acts he required them do, and to deny them the right of legislating upon those subjects which he had no desire should be touched. This section gave him this dangerous power over the action of the Legislature at a called session, and if the principle was good at a special session, why would it not hold good at the regular sessions? If it was safe and proper to give him the power at one session, why not let him have it at all sessions? If the great evil to be dreaded at special sessions was excessive legislation, and this section was intended as a remedy for that, why not apply it to general sessions;

397

for the remedy if good in one case was good in the other. He thought that under the spirit of our system of government, the legislative power properly belonged to the Legislature as the immediate representatives of the people, and that it contained the views and sentiments of the people, and a better knowledge of what laws the people desired than under any circumstances could be possessed by a Governor. And he objected against the bestowal of such an immense power upon the Governor. The constitution never contemplated conferring any legislative power upon the Governor; it gave him the power to call the Legislature together when extraordinary circumstances required it, because that body had no power to call themselves together. He also opposed the vesting in the Governor the power to call a session of the Legislature, and propose to them, as long as they continued in session, new schemes and projects. He desired to see the object set forth in the proclamation calling them together, and none other allowed, as it would be found to be the case that the Governor would find himself beset by friends, political friends, who would beg him to recommend to the Legislature favorite measures desired by them, and they, in their turn, would support the schemes of the Governor, and thus, by a system of combination and logrolling, the Governor would be enabled to wield an extensive legislative power. He would thus become a central power, and could control the others. He thought the Legislature the proper body to judge of what was its proper duties, and what legislation was required for the people.

Mr. KNOX moved, as an amendment, to add to the section "at the commencement of the session."

Mr. BROCKMAN followed in favor of the section as it stood. He thought the general sessions of the Legislature, to be held biennially, would be sufficient for the legislation required by the people, and for the stability in them so much desired; and that the extraordinary session should be devoted solely to the business which the Governor should lay before it. He had full confidence in the Legislatures that might come after us, and dreaded no such evil results as had been predicted by the gentleman from Sangamon.

Mr. HAWLEY opposed the section as unprecedented, and as

398

one calculated to defeat the object of the formation of an independent legislative department.

Mr. EDWARDS of Madison replied briefly to Mr. LOGAN, and controverted the probability of the evils declared by the gentleman to be consequent upon the adoption of this section.

Mr. DEMENT was in favor of the old constitution as it stood in reference to this subject, and opposed to the section as reported by the committee. He did not believe that the effect of this restriction would be to restrict legislation at the extraordinary session, but would rather increase it. Every member who had any particular subject which he desired legislation upon, would call upon the governor and request him to call the attention of the legislature to it; and if he had not the influence with the Governor, he would by the intervention of friends, obtain that privilege. The Governor would feel obliged, from feelings of courtesy, to do so, and thus every sort of matter would be before the legislature; and that too with the sanction of the governor's recommendation that they were matters of importance. And, in this way, the Governor himself would be placed in a very delicate position, either to recommend trifling matters or to lay himself open to the charge of denying one man's request when he may have acceded to that of another. He thought there was no danger in entrusting the legislature with all matters, and allowing them to be the proper judges of what was required by the people. He again said he would prefer the provision as it stood in the old constitution, to the section as reported by the committee.

Mr. DAVIS of Massac said, that he supposed the object of the committee, in reporting the section, or the last clause of it, was to prevent any legislation upon matters other than those for which it had been called. He was in favor of the object which they had had in view, but he did not believe that it would be effected by the section as it now stood. The clause, which it was proposed to strike out, placed in the hands of the Governor the power to recommend and lay before the legislature at this extraordinary session, any subject which he might think proper, whether that subject had any reference to the specific object of the called session or not. Mr. D. was not willing to give the governor this power, by which he would be enabled to regulate the action of the legislature

399

by submitting to them whatsoever he thought proper, and having legislation upon subjects which he only, perhaps, had a desire or an interest in having legislative action upon. He was opposed to it because he considered that when the legislature was called together, which should be only when extraordinary business required their immediate action, they should be confined in their actions to the object for which they were called, and should enter into no business but that stated in the proclamation. He would vote against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Knox, in order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from, Shelby (Mr. THORNTON) on yesterday, and which had been voted down, might be reconsidered, and adopted. That amendment defined, in proper terms, the action of the legislature at the extraordinary session, and prohibited any general legislation. It was similar to a provision in the constitution of the State of Tennessee, and he was sure it had not been understood, or else it would have been adopted.

Mr. WEAD was in favor of the section as it had been reported, and opposed to any amendment. He thought that it was understood that the people of the State felt there had been too much legislation in Illinois, and they had been informed upon that subject to-day, by men of experience and of age. That there had been too much legislation none could deny; and to remedy that evil and guard against it for the future, was one of the principal reforms expected from this Convention. Laws had been passed at one session and changed at the next; and all this was to be prevented for the future.

If, however, general legislation was desired more frequently than once in two years, why not have the Legislature meet every year, and do away with the provision for biennial sessions? He considered this matter settled and thought the only question now for them to dispose of was, what restrictions should be placed upon the action of the extraordinary sessions, which might be called by the Governor. It was, should we confine them to legislation upon the subjects contained in the proclamation by the Governor or to what is laid before them, in his message to them, when they shall have assembled or shall we allow them to act upon what he may lay before them from time to time, during the session or

400

shall they have power to go on and legislate upon all matters which they may think proper for them to legislate upon, independent of the object for which they may have been called? These, in his opinion, were the proper subjects of inquiry. The last had been settled by the former action of the Convention, in fixing the sessions to be held biennially, thus prohibiting general legislation more than once in two years. To the first there were many objections; one of these was, that no man could forsee the great number of events that might transpire between the time of issuing the proclamation and the time of the meeting of the Legislature; and the Governor may set forth in that proclamation a vast number of subjects, which will embrace every sort of matter proper for legislative action, some of which may not be popular with the people in one section, and some unpopular in another section. The Convention has already said that the legislature shall meet but once in two years for general legislation, with unlimited powers, except so far as restrained by the general provisions of the constitution, and can we not provide the restrictions to be placed upon their action when assembled for a specific object, so as to confine them to legislation upon that object, without prejudicing their action, or treating them with distrust? Much good will be found to result from this resolution. Take away from the Governor this privilege of laying before them the only subjects upon which they can act, and you throw open the doors again to all the evils of special, and local, and excessive legislation, as we would have if the sessions were annual.

He was in favor of allowing the Governor this check upon the action of the Legislature at this extraordinary session, and he feared none of those evils, of combination and log-rolling, which had been spoken of by the gentlemen. The Governor, it was to be presumed, was to be a man of some character and honesty, and that very character, his pride, his self-respect, and his regard for his position as representative of the State and the whole people, and not any local interest or section, would keep him above such contrivances and designing schemes, and govern all his actions with a desire to promote the general welfare of the State. He will take care that all things proper and desirable for

401

the action of the Legislature shall be brought before the people and all others excluded.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery made a few remarks in opposition to the section.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. KNOX, and it was rejected.

The question recurring on the amendment of Mr. McCALLEN to strike out, it was decided in the negative — yeas 60, nays 64.

Mr. WOODSON moved to strike out the words, "lay before them," and insert: "set forth in his proclamation."

Mr. CONSTABLE moved, as an amendment to the amendment, to add to the same: "and such other subjects as may be introduced by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members of each house composing said general assembly, based upon the important exigency demanding this action and connected with the public welfare."

Mr. PRATT opposed the amendment of Mr. W. as without a precedent in any state constitution in the Union, where the instance or precedent of a case where the Governor was required to state, in his proclamation calling an extraordinary session, the object for which he convened them. He would refer the gentleman to the extraordinary session of the Congress in 1837, called by the President. In the proclamation the object was not expressed, although every one knew the cause — the financial difficulties of the land; — but at the meeting of Congress, the President sent to them his message upon the subject of the finances of the country, and submitted to them the Independent Treasury. Congress, however, at the extraordinary session, rejected the Independent Treasury, and adopted a loan by treasury notes, for the Independent Treasury bill was not passed for two years afterwards. No such thing was required in any state in the Union, and there were good reason[s] for not doing so. One great reason was, the great expense of so doing. If the arguments were set forth in detail in the proclamation, it would make it very long, and to have it published in all the papers over the state, would cost a great amount, which he thought it better to avoid.

Mr. WOODSON said, that if he understood the objection urged by the gentleman, it was that the proposition contained in

402

the amendment was one which had not been required by other states; this was one reason in his (Mr. W.'s) opinion, why it should be adopted, and the legislature confined to the specific object for which they had been called upon to legislate. By having the object stated in the proclamation it would be known to the people in the state, and the representatives might be enabled to obtain an expression of the people's sentiments upon the subject. We had already made provision, in the article of the constitution reported by the committee on the Legislative Department, that the legislature should meet, for purposes of general legislation, but once in two years — a measure that had been universally demanded by the people; and if they were to be called together on these extraordinary occasions, the people should know the object of the call, and the representatives ought to have time, before the meeting of the session, to exchange their views and sentiments with their constituents upon matters which they were to act upon; and when they did meet to carry out the wishes of their constituents upon that subject, act upon it, and that only, and then go home.

Mr. LOGAN said, he would say one word to the gentleman from Jo Daviess (Mr. PRATT) upon the question of expense. If the objects which the Governor desired to lay before the legislature at these extraordinary sessions were presented in detail to the people, at the time of the proclamation calling the general assembly together, it would not cost any more than if he did so, as he would, in his message to them at the opening of the session. — They would have to be presented at one time or the other, and the expense would be no less at one time than at the other.

Mr. PRATT replied, that the gentleman from Sangamon was mistaken. To have the long proclamation advertised in the various papers of the state, for a month or more previous to the meeting of the legislature, would cost considerably more than having the message set up at one office, and then 20,000 extra copies, which would cost but the price of the paper and the presswork in addition, circulated over the state. If that gentleman would examine, he would find out that there would be considerable difference in the cost.

The question was then taken on the amendment of Mr. CONSTABLE,

403

and the same was rejected. And thereupon the motion of Mr. W. to strike out and insert, and the same was rejected — yeas 59, nays 63.

Mr. HAYES moved the committee rise, &c.; and the committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Granted.

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned till 3 P. M.

AFTERNOON

The Convention met, and immediately resolved itself into committee of the whole — Mr. CRAIN in the chair.

Mr. PETERS moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment proposed by Mr. THORNTON had been rejected.

And the vote being taken on reconsidering the same, it was decided in the affirmative — yeas 63, nays 57. And then the said amendment was adopted — yeas 75, nays 33.

Mr. KENNER moved to strike out the words, "when assembled the purposes for which they were convened," and the same was adopted — yeas 76, nays 40.

Mr. LOCKWOOD moved to strike out the whole section; which motion was negatived — yeas 41, nays 72.

SEC. 11. He shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of this state, and of the militia, except when they shall be called into the service of the United States.

Mr. KENNER moved to strike it out.

Mr. WHITESIDE offered, as a substitute: "He shall be commander-in-chief of the militia of the state, except when they shall be mustered into the service of the United States."

And the question being taken, both motions were decided in the negative.

SEC. 12. No amendment.

SEC. 13. PROVIDING FOR A LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE.

Mr. OLIVER moved the section be stricken out. Rejected.

SEC. 14. The Lieutenant Governor shall, by virtue of his office, be Speaker of the Senate; have a right, when in committee of the whole, to debate and vote on all subjects, and, whenever the Senate are equally divided, to give the casting vote.

404

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to strike out: "have a right, when in committee of the whole, to debate and vote on all subjects." Rejected.

Mr. SERVANT moved to strike out the words, "and vote on." Lost.

Sections 15 and 16 were passed without amendment.

SEC. 17. If the Lieutenant Governor shall be called upon to administer the government, and shall, while in such administration, resign, die, or be absent from the state, during the recess of the General Assembly, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State for the time being to convene the Senate for the purpose of choosing a speaker.

Mr. CHURCHILL moved to strike out all after, "assembly," and insert: "the speaker of the house of representatives shall act as Governor." Lost.

Sections 18 and 19 were passed without amendment.

SEC. 20. Every bill which shall have passed the Se[n]ate and House of Representatives shall, before it becomes a law be presented to the Governor: if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to the house in which it shall have originated; who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of the members present shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House; by which it shall likewise be reconsidered; and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, it shall become a law notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the members voting for or against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House, respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within ten days, (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature shall, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case the said bill shall be returned on the first day of the meeting of the General Assembly after the expiration of said ten days, or be a law.

Mr. WOODSON moved to strike out, "if he oppose [sic] he shall

405

sign it, but if not," and insert; "who shall sign the same and return it forthwith to the house in which it originated, unless he have constitutional objections to such bill, when."

And the question thereon being divided, was first taken on striking out, and decided in the negative.

Mr. CROSS of Winnebago moved to strike out, "two-thirds of the members present," and insert: "majority of all the members elect." Rejected — yeas 60, nays 61.

Mr. [SMITH of Macon] moved to strike out the whole section. Lost.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean moved to strike out, "two-thirds of the members present," and insert: "two-thirds of the members elect." He said that he offered this amendment for the purpose of giving the veto power, if it was to be retained, some little force. We had adopted, in the article on the Legislative Department, a provision that no bill should be passed until it received a majority of the votes of the members elect; and if the section stood as it now did, a bill, after having been vetoed by the Governor, might be passed by a less vote than in the first instance, for two-thirds of the members present might, in many instances, be less than a majority of the whole house. He thought it would be inconsistent to leave this section in its present shape, after the action of the committee on the former article.

Mr. PETERS enforced the same view.

Mr. LOCKWOOD thought differently; a bill which had been passed by the legislature, and which was returned by the Governor, came again before that body, not as a bill which had been passed, but as a new proposition for their action, and which would require, at least, the same vote as other bills required.

Mr. DAVIS replied, and repeated his remarks, and Mr. LOCKWOOD withdrew the opinion he had just expressed, and concurred in the view taken by Mr. D.

Mr. LOGAN said, that the section as it now stood, reduced the effect of the Governor's veto to a little less than nothing at all. The house consisted of seventy-five members, and it would require a vote of thirty-eight in its favor to pass the bill in the first instance; the legislature may say that one-third shall constitute a quorum

406

for the transaction of business, which would be thirty-four members, and under this section, two-thirds of this quorum may pass the bill. This destroyed entirely the veto power.

Mr. SINGLETON thought a majority of the members elect, which was required to pass the bill, a sufficient check upon the action of the Legislature, and a sufficient one for the importance to be attached to the objections interposed by any Governor which we may have in Illinois. He would vote for making the majority of the members elect, a sufficient number to pass a bill after a veto, and would oppose the two-thirds.

Mr. MINSHALL advocated the amendment — two-thirds of the members elect, as a most invaluable safeguard against the evils of hasty and unprovident legislation, which had been the subject of such universal complaint for years past in our state, and upon this floor where it had been denounced in such unmeasured terms; and he was astonished now to hear these same gentlemen hesitate to adopt this most salutary and wise provision against its recurrence. He had seen the time when, if such a clause as this had been in our constitution, it might have saved the state from the shame, ruin and disaster which had fallen upon them, by the wild and speculating notions of the legislature. He considered the veto power, particularly in the western states, where such a desire existed to rush into hasty legislation, and wild speculation, was the wisest and most saving clause to be inserted in any constitution to check the excess of over legislation. He was in favor of its adoption in this constitution, and he thought there was a great feeling existing among the people, which looked to this Convention for its adoption. Though its expediency in the hands of the President of the United States might be doubted by some, he could see no objection to it in a state government, but thought it most salutary and proper.

Mr. PETERS was in favor of the amendment as proposed by the member from McLean, and when the time would come when the ayes and noes could be called for, he would not hesitate an instant in recording his aye in favor of it. He thought its operation had been most beneficial, and had been informed that if it had been in our old constitution would have saved us from much ruin. He was not acquainted with the circumstances himself, (not then

407

being in the state) but he was informed that when the great cause of our misfortune — the internal improvement act, which had created our debt, and piled up millions upon millions, which we were to pay — the Governor had vetoed it, and when it went back to the legislature, it was passed again by a majority of those present.

Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon said, he had never understood that that bill had been vetoed.

Mr. THOMAS said, he was familiar with its history, when it was first passed; it came before the council of revision, the Governor vetoed it, and gave his reasons, Judge Smith did the same, and gave his reasons, and other members of the council did the same; all the members who opposed it, gave their reasons for vetoing it, separately, and differently.

Mr. PETERS said, that he was glad to have been informed upon the subject, for he knew nothing of it himself, and had referred to it as a matter of history. Any way, however, had the Governor not been clogged by the other members of the council of revision, and this two-third provision been in the constitution, the state might have been saved from all the devastating evils of that act. He again referred to the inconsistency of the section as it now stood, which allowed a bill to be passed after a veto, by a less number than it did in the first place, and advocated the adoption of the amendment.

The question was then taken on striking out "present" and inserting "elected;" and decided in the affirmative.

Mr. LOGAN moved to strike out "two-thirds" and insert "majority."

Mr. SERVANT said, he would vote to strike out two-thirds, if he thought he could have three-fifths inserted, but he feared that he might not succeed, and would therefore vote against striking out. He alluded at some length, to the internal improvement act, and argued that all its evils might have been prevented if a similar provision had been in the old constitution.

Mr. KNOWLTON followed in opposition to the veto power, in any shape, which he denounced as opposed to the principles of republicanism — it giving to one man, the power to defeat the action of a majority of the immediate representatives of the people.

408

Mr. SMITH of Macon said, he represented two counties, and this question was the principal one which had been discussed before the people by himself, and his opponents; and he was sure that he knew the sentiments of his constituents to be entirely opposed to the veto power in any shape. He argued at much length against it as a relic of the British constitution, and as entirely opposed to the true basis of republican government — the power and sentiments of the people, as manifested by their representatives.

Mr. McCALLEN was entirely opposed to the veto power being engrafted on our constitution. It was anti-republican, for it afforded means whereby the wishes and sentiments of the people might be defeated by one man; and as anti-democratic — for it gave one man, styled Governor, an equal weight with forty-nine of the representatives of the people. He alluded to the remarks that had been made upon the internal improvement act, which it was said might have been defeated by such a power; and argued that even admitting the truth of that remark, it was no cause why they should depart from the true principles of republicanism and democracy. He thought that the whole evil of that scheme, was the result of one exercise of the veto power by a President of the United States. The bank of the U. States had been destroyed by the veto of General Jackson, and the then good currency of the land was taken away; the people had resolved, in self defence, to have state banks, which had produced an inflation of the currency, and a desire to speculate; out of that desire had grown the internal improvement speculation — and then had come the ruin. All of this he attributed to the veto of the charter of the United States Bank. He denounced the veto power as one giving the executive an authority to encroach on the legislative department, which he said had been done gradually by every President since the first exercise of it; and at length, it had gone so far that the President had involved, by his own act, the country in a war, without consulting the legislative department at all. Many evils might have been averted to this state, had this power been exercised. Rome had been saved three times by clothing its executive with dictatorial powers, but that was no argument that the true principles of our government should be abandoned.

409

The question was divided, and first taken on striking out "two-thirds," and decided in the affirmative — yeas 68, nays 47.

Mr. MINSHALL moved to insert "three-fifths" instead of "majority," as proposed.

[Mr. MINSHALL addressed the committee:

As the question at present stands, said Mr. M., (the committee having in their report required a vote of two-thirds of the legislature to pass a bill over the veto of the governor,) there appears to be a diversity of opinion in the convention as to whether they will confer the veto power on the governor or not, in the manner in which it is thus proposed in the report of the committee. Unless the amendment which has been proposed, to strike out the words "members present," and insert members elected, be adopted, the veto power as conferred by the report will amount to nothing, for less than a majority of the whole number of members elect may pass a bill, or a bare majority, which is already provided for in the 16th section of the report of the legislative committee, requiring all bills before they can become a law, to be passed by yeas and nays, be a majority of all the members elected. I cannot, continued Mr. M., see the necessity or use of the veto, as proposed by the committee, unless the amendment proposed by the gentleman from McLean, requiring that the two-thirds should be two-thirds of all the members elect, should be adopted. I am not quite sure that two-thirds is the right number. I do not know but that I would prefer a smaller number; but I must be permitted to say, that in a State government, I regard the veto as an invaluable safeguard against the evils of hasty and improvident legislation, which has been the subject of universal complaint for years past, in this State; and we hear the same complaints reiterated on this floor. Have we not been striving in every possible way to prevent its recurrence hereafter, by narrowing down the legislative power, and heaping restrictions upon it in every shape and form? We have heard the legislation of the State denounced in unmeasured terms; and I must say, that I am not a little astonished to hear gentlemen who have been so eager to check hasty legislation

410

now, when we have arrived at the proper point — when we have in the progress of framing a constitution — arrived at the place were we may in the most appropriate manner interpose the proper check to improvident legislation, I am astonished, I say, to see the same gentlemen hesitate to adopt this salutary and wise provision against its recurrence. I have seen the time, sir, when such a clause as this, in the constitution of this State, might have saved the State from the shame, ruin and disaster which have fallen upon it. In the general government the Veto power, in my opinion, ought to be curtailed; but in our State government it may be safely increased.

[Some further discussion having taken place on the motion to strike out "two-thirds" and insert three-fifths of the members elected.]

Mr. MINSHALL said he desired to place himself in a correct position, inasmuch as the language of the gentleman from Greene, (Mr. WOODSON,) might subject his views to misconstruction. I am in favor, continued Mr. M., of this slight increase of the veto power in the State government, without regard to party consideration. I do not think that party has anything to do with the matter, although some gentlemen seem to argue as if there was in reality some connection between this matter and party considerations. I regard it as a matter pertaining to the State government alone; as a principle proper to be incorporated in the State constitution; as a necessary, salutary provision for the protection of the people against improvident and hasty legislation. I have referred to the executive of the United States and to the veto power in the United States Government, — not as a matter of party difference — although some gentlemen have treated it in that way; I have referred to it for the mere purpose of argument and illustration, and I presume it may be referred to for that purpose without differing with gentlemen as to the effects of the power on the legislative interest of the government of the United States, and without impropriety.

Mr. MINSHALL proceeded to enlarge upon this point. He insisted that there was no analogy between the exercise of the power under the United States government, and its exercise in a State government; and no just comparison could be made between

411

its exercise by the President and its exercise by the Governor of a State. It was not a fair argument to resort to on this occasion, where the simple deductions of reason alone were proper; because it furnished gentlemen with the opportunity of making improper appeals to the prejudices of our nature, without taking the distinction, which in reality existed, between the reason for the power in one case, and against it in the other. They were not parallel cases. The powers of Congress were different entirely from those of the legislature of the State. The powers of Congress were limited and restricted to certain specified matters. In the States, on the contrary, all power resided in the legislature except what had been delegated to Congress. The powers of Congress were of a limited delegated character, while those of the State legislature were sovereign and supreme. The patronage of the executive of the United States was large and increasing, and possessed a controlling influence which was likely to operate improperly, if it had not done so already on the legislative department of the government. The argument of the gentleman from Greene, and the quotation which he has made from Justice Story, proved that the veto power ought to be increased in the State government, and diminished in the government of the United States. It would be proper to restrict the power in the government of the United States, but the same reasons for its restriction, did not exist in a State government.

Look, said Mr. MINSHALL, at the history of our State government, and let gentlemen tell me when and where the executive department of this State, ever encroached upon, or overrun the legislative department; when the power of patronage or influence of the governor ever overran the legislature? When was it? Never. On the contrary, the history of the past in our legislative progress shows that the legislative department has constantly encroached upon the province of the executive; and that is almost always the case with State legislatures, they being the active branch and concentrating the sovereignty of the people.

Unless the executive and the other co-ordinate departments are strongly guarded, the inclination of the legislative department is, and ever will be, to encroach upon the others. Has not that been the case with our State government for the last fifteen or

412

twenty years? Did not the legislature take from the governor the appointment of prosecuting attorneys, and various other privileges which had been originally conferred upon him? Why, there has been nothing else since the beginning of this government, and particularly for the last 10 or 15; years, but encroachment after encroachment by the legislative department upon the executive, and judicial department of the government, until it has prostrated the one, and rendered the other contemptible. The veto power, then, is necessary to enable the executive by the exercise of this negative power, to protect itself and its co-ordinate department from the encroachments of the legislature. It must be perfectly apparent to all who are unblinded by passion and prejudice, that the power should exist in a State government, for the purpose of preserving the equilibrium and independence of the co-ordinate branches of the government. Are we to have a government of co-ordinate and independent departments? Have we not commenced with that as the basis of the constitutional government we are now framing? If so, this provision is necessary to the executive for its own protection. It would appear from the position of the gentleman from Greene, that he was for dispensing with the executive department altogether, from the holy horror which he manifested at what he is pleased to call this monarchical feature of the government. — Yet the government of the United States, and of all the States in this republic, all possess this same monarchical feature.

But this power is necessary for another important purpose, and that is, to carry out the position of the gentlemen who now oppose the power, but who have been strenuous advocates for inserting in the constitution, the clause restricting legislation at a special session, to the matters contained and specified in the proclamation of the governor as the reason for calling the special session, the inclination of the legislature will be to break over this restraint. Suppose the case of a special call of the legislature under our new constitution, for a specified object, and that during the session the legislature should, notwithstanding the restriction, pass an act the subject of which was not comprised in the specification of reasons for calling the legislature. How is the legislature to be restrained, if the governor has not the power to interpose

413

his negative to a bill of this kind, or if a bare majority be sufficient to pass the law notwithstanding the veto? This new feature in the legislative department alone, if gentlemen who are in favor of it, seriously design to make it available, requires a slight increase of the veto power. The gentleman from Greene says, that the internal improvement system is the only instance of excessive legislation which can be cited, and that would have passed in spite of the veto, if it had existed. But that is not the only case. Has the gentleman forgotten the scenes of 1840? Did we not [stand] shoulder to shoulder in resisting the encroachments of the legislature upon the judicial department? Was not that enormous breach of the constitution, and the prostration of the judiciary, returned by the council of revision; and does not the gentleman from Greene, well remember the manner in which it was passed, notwithstanding the council of revision, by a majority of just one vote? The increase of the veto power now advocated, to three-fifths instead of a bare majority, would have saved the State from that calamity, and the judiciary from that desecration. The gentleman from Greene says, that I am inconsistent in having advocated a large representation in the Legislature, and in now advocating an increase in the veto power; I maintain that it is a correct position. I entertain a desire to see a full and fair representation of the people in the popular branch of the Legislature, because this is the department which most closely and intimately reflects the wishes and interests of the people; but for the very reason that this branch also represents the passions and prejudices of the mass, and although generally desiring to do what they consider to be for the best; yet as they are occasionally carried away by sudden impulses, incident to all popular bodies, the executive should therefore be invested with this negative, this counteracting power. In this consists the beauty, harmony and science of our system.

If, continued Mr. M., our government is to consist of the three co-ordinate branches, distinct and independent of each other, and the executive is to stand upon an equality with the other branches; this increase of the veto power is indispensable to protect the executive and other departments from the encroachments of the legislature; I am firmly of opinion that this slight increase

414

of the veto power, will operate beneficially for the interests of the State hereafter. I feel assured that it cannot be productive of injury under the present organization of the department, and the little patronage that we are about to allow to the governor. If we were going to have in our constitution a provision giving to the governor a large appointing power; if we were about to confer extensive patronage upon him, so as greatly to increase his influence, the matter would than assume a different aspect, and in that event, I would be less inclined to confer upon him the veto power, but that is not the case. It is doubtful whether he will have the appointment of a single officer. He is to have no patronage; he is to be a mere shadow, an image, a sign of the sovereignty of the State; a representation of that sovereignty in name only, without possessing any of the attributes which belong to it; and yet gentlemen profess great fear and alarm at the proposition for investing the executive branch of the government, with the slight increase which is now proposed. In my judgment in view of all these considerations, the executive could never exert sufficient influence over the Legislature to check its progress from any extraneous causes; but if it exercise an influence at all, it must be from the mere intellectual and moral power which a great and good man only could possess, and that check, in all probability, would be for good and not for evil. I am therefore in favor of this increase of the veto power.

Mr. SINGLETON said, he was in favor yesterday of striking out that part of the section so as to leave the power with a majority of the legislature to pass a bill after the veto of the governor, but as he was satisfied from the vote of the convention yesterday, that a majority of the convention were not in favor of that proposition; he was now willing to vote for the proposition for the gentleman from Schuyler. He was not one of those who would go for no proposition which did not originate with themselves. He was willing, if he could not get the proposition he wanted, to take the best that he could get. He believed that a majority of the Legislature ought to have the power, but as it was impossible to obtain a vote of the convention in favor of that proposition; he was for making the evil as small as possible, by taking the proposition for a majority of three-fifths. It was clearly a party

415

question, and he was willing to compromise, in order to obtain the best terms that he could get. It was the first time, however, that he had ever offered to compromise, but he felt it to be a duty, which he owed to his constituents, that he should do so on this occasion, and it was only necessary to see the path of his duty before him, and he was ready to follow it. He was ready then to meet gentlemen on half-way grounds. There were serious objections against the proposition as contained in the report of the committee, requiring a majority of two-thirds to pass a bill after a veto of the governor. — That proposition would make the governor equal to sixty-six members — fifteen more than a majority. — The proposition of the gentleman from Schuyler would make him equal to a majority and nine over — a considerable reduction. This proposition, then, was preferable to the first.

Mr. SMITH of Mason said:

Mr. Chairman, — I have not trespassed upon the time of the Convention heretofore to any extent, and will not now inflict a regular speech upon the committee. I would not utter a word upon this subject did I not see a disposition to adopt the report of the committee before us without sufficient investigation; and I feel it to be my duty to make known the wishes of my constituents upon this subject; and when this is done, I am certain it will have more influence with the committee, than any argument that I can present. It will at least have the influence, so far as it goes, in making up the public opinion of the whole State. Certainly no gentleman here is willing to insert any provision in the constitution that will not meet with the approbation of the people of the State.

If I know the opinion of the people of the two counties which I have the honor to represent on this floor, upon any one subject, it is on this. I consider myself directly Instructed on this subject. The question of giving to the governor the veto power, was one of the issues between my honorable competitor and myself, when canvassing for a seat in this Convention. I was opposed to giving the governor this high power then, and am more opposed to it now. Considering what we have already done in this Convention, if there ever was a necessity for provision of this sort in the constitution, there certainly is not now. Gentlemen want the

416

governor to have the power to hold it as a check upon the legislature; — and gentlemen refer to the excesses of former legislation to show the necessity for such a check being placed in the new constitution, to prevent a repetition of similar excesses in the future. Gentlemen refer to the great internal improvement law, that has saddled upon the State the immense debt that hangs over us; and say that if Gov. Duncan had had the veto power, he would have used it, and would have prevented this error of the legislature. This all may be true enough; but gentlemen forget that we have already provided in the amendments that we have reported in the committee of the whole, against the evils of a public debt. We have provided that the legislature shall not pledge the faith of the State for any sum exceeding fifty thousand dollars, except in cases of war and insurrection, without first referring the matter to the people at a general election, and then it must meet with the approval of a majority. This is placing the veto power where it belongs. The people have to foot the bills, and they should hold the veto. Does anyone, sir, suppose that the people of Illinois would have ratified a debt of fourteen millions of dollars? They would have been as clear of that as was Gov. Duncan. They would have vetoed the matter; and, sir, I cannot see the necessity of providing a veto power to be used first by the governor and then by the people. In this case, if the governor thinks proper, the matter or bill may pass to the people, or if he choose otherwise he can veto the bill and the people will never get a chance at it, unless a majority of two-thirds of both branches of the legislature over-rule the veto. In that case it comes before the people, and if they veto it the matter is settled There are propositions also before this convention which I think will prevail, which will give the people a veto upon all bank charters. Then, I ask, what necessity is there in giving an additional veto to the governor? Sir, the legislative department of the government of Illinois has become the most unpopular branch of the government, and I believe it is deservedly so. And the cause of this is in the large amount of power conferred by the old constitution upon that department. Had the executive had the same power conferred upon it, it would now be as unpopular as is the legislature.

417

The proper way, as I consider, to prevent the abuse of power is in not conferring it. The legislature has given more dissatisfaction in taking such large pay for themselves, and in consuming so much time unnecessarily, than in any other one matter; and we have already provided against this abuse, by limiting the pay and the time. This is all called for by the people; but I do not think that the people want us to take power from the legislature and give it to the governor. If you give power to any one of the three departments of government, we must expect they will use it, and if you give the governor the power of becoming dangerous, you may expect that he will become so. The people want to hold in their own hands such power as we may take from the legislature, and not give it to the governor.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to giving the veto power to the governor, both on the ground of expediency and principle. I agree with the gentleman from Peoria, that the doctrine is anti-republican, and that it is contrary to the genius and spirit of a representative government. It is, sir, a kingly prerogative, and should be left in the hands of the sovereign people. There seems to be a disposition in this body to confer too much power upon the governor and to render the legislature powerless. You have restricted the legislature by your action in a called session to just such subjects as the governor may propose to them, and now you propose to give to him the veto power. If you succeed in one case, the legislature has the power of originating and proposing such laws as they may pass, — but in the other, they are denied the right, and you give the governor a veto in all cases. It does seem to me that if this plan succeeds, that the legislature, who are the legitimate representatives of the people, will cut but a poor figure in Illinois. I ask, sir, what use is there in having a legislature if you render it powerless, and place it under the control of the executive of the State — a one-man power — the representative of monarchy?

Mr. BOND said he was opposed to the proposition of the gentleman from Schuyler, for the reason, first, that the veto power was not an executive power; and in the next place, that if there was any necessity for guards and restrictions to be thrown around the legislative department, that had been sufficiently done already.

418

We have provided, continued Mr. BOND, as a security against improvident legislation, that no bill shall become a law unless it shall have received the votes of a majority of the members of the legislature. The sophistry of the arguments of gentlemen consist in this: that they do not say that it is a legislative power. If they would have the governor participate in legislation, why not provide a place for him to come in and engage in discussion, that his opinions may be duly weighed and properly appreciated? Again, the bill of rights provides that the people shall have the right at all times to assemble together in a peaceable manner, and petition for a right of grievances. Why, we might as well provide at once, that the people shall petition the governor and his legislature.

Sir, I am utterly hostile to giving the governor a power equal to that possessed by the people's representatives in the general assembly. I do not think it is such a power as he ought to exercise. — All that he should be called upon to do, is to sanction or not to sanction the acts of the legislature; and if he do not sanction their acts, there will be a sufficient guard thrown around legislation by providing that a majority shall pass such acts before they shall be permitted to go into effect.

The veto power is not suited to this meridian. — It might have been a proper conservative power, in the earlier period of the republic. But it pre-supposes that the governor of the State has some knowledge of our constitution and laws; that he shall be a man of learning; that he shall possess a knowledge of the affairs of government; above all, it pre-supposes him a man of common sense, and common honesty; and a man who can take a survey of things as they really are, and can act with a broad range of mind, can take in the whole community, and lose sight of everything but the good of the entire community. I might perhaps jocularly say, that I was opposed to this power because the people have greatly suffered from overtrading, and I meant to take from the different departments of the government, the fictitious capital upon which they have been trading. I am not willing to acknowledge the governor is superior to two-thirds or three-fifths of the members elected. Some gentlemen contend that he ought to have the veto power, because he acts for the people of the entire State;

419

whilst the members of the legislature, indiscriminately, represent particular districts. Sir, can he know the wishes of the people better than members of the legislature, who come fresh from the people themselves? If he can, he is something superior to what I have heretofore seen of the qualifications combined in a governor of Illinois; and I believe the responsibility is greater, in an individual who comes immediately from the people. Believing this, and believing also, that as a general rule, they are as capable of discriminating the wants of the people, and as honest and faithful in carrying them out, I never can consent to give my support to a proposition that will put it into the power of the executive to deprive the people of what they desire should be done.

Mr. WOODSON rose and asked the indulgence of the Convention, in order that he might, without consuming more than a very few moments of their time, explain the position which he occupied in reference to this subject. It was not his intention, he said, to enter into a discussion of the veto power. It was unnecessary to do so. He found that a majority of the Convention was disposed to retain that power in the constitution, and as it was to be retained in the constitution, he hoped it would be retained in its least objectionable form.

He was conscientious in saying that he believed it was a power which did not belong to a government such as ours. It was contrary, he thought, to the genius of our institutions. If the government was to be based upon the will of the people, then the veto, proceeding as it did, from one man, was to say the least of it, highly objectionable.

In discussing this question, continued Mr. WOODSON, I would not have alluded to vetoes which have heretofore been given, because I am averse to enkindle anything like party feeling, or introduce anything like party considerations; but I may remark here, that I do not think the veto power, as exercised by the President of the United States, should be exercised by the Governor of Illinois. There are reasons why the President should have the right to exercise the power in his capacity as President, which do not apply to the Governor of a State. In the first place, the executive of the United States is clothed with vast executive patronage, growing out of our foreign relations as well as our

420

domestic affairs, which makes it extremely necessary that he should sometimes exercise the veto power; but none of these reasons apply to the Governor of a State. I adopt the reason assigned by those who have written commentaries upon the United States government for giving this power. — Judge Story says:

"There is a natural tendency in the legislative department to encroach upon the executive, and to absorb all the power of the government." Now whatever tendency exists on the part of the legislature of the United States government, to encroach upon the executive, the same tendency does not exist in the State government. It cannot exist, as I shall show presently. Our State legislature is restricted and tied down, so that no inconvenience can possibly arise. The reason assigned for requiring the exercise of the veto power, is that it may be used as a check upon improvident, unwise and rash legislation. This is the only reason urged in favor of the exercise of that power here. Well, I think I can convince this convention that it will not apply to Illinois under the constitution which we are about to adopt. Before I touch this, however, I will allude to the remarks made by the gentleman from Fulton, regarding the veto power. He says it has never been exercised in any case in which it has not been universally approved by the people. Now I am not so sure that this is the case; I doubt that it has invariably received their approval. Sir, there is difference of opinion upon that subject; but it is not necessary to discuss that question in connection with the question which is now before the convention.

I differ most widely with the gentleman at any rate. The veto of Mr. Polk of the western river and harbor bill, has certainly not been approved. — I ask the gentleman to pause and reflect, and tell me whether there has not been one universal voice of condemnation in regard to that veto. Sir, have not men of all parties recently met at Chicago and expressed their disapprobation of the veto of that bill? Why unquestionably; there is scarcely a dissenting voice; and I remark also, that the gentleman cannot point out a single principle — a single object in that bill which has not at some time or other received the sanction of Presidents Jackson and Van Buren. However I will not consume the time by dwelling upon this subject. It is not necessary on this occasion.

421

I have been struck with the peculiar inconsistency (if I may use the expression without designing anything offensive) of the gentlemen from Schuyler and Fulton, on this subject. Sir, when the question came up as to the number of members of which the legislature should be composed the gentleman from Schuyler was eloquent upon what he called an infringement of the rights of the people — endangering their liberties, and yet, when a proposition is made by which the powers of that very people are to be curtailed, the gentleman can find an argument in any-thing and every-thing, to check the power of the representatives of the people.

Sir, the representatives in the general assembly come directly from the people, they are the people; and to the people alone should they be accountable and not to the executive. But, sir, I come now to the question, and wish to call the attention of the committee to it. Is there not sufficient restriction at this time upon the legislative action of the State? I admit, that there has been one single case, that of the internal improvement system, in which, if the governor had exerted the veto power, the State would have been in a better condition at this day. — But that is a single case; such a case cannot again occur under the restrictions which we have placed around the legislation of the State. It is impossible. But, will gentlemen suffer themselves to be frightened from their propriety by this single case? Are all principles to be surrendered because one single case existed which would have been an exception? No, sir, we should look at the consequences of an act in all future time; we should consider how the country is to be affected by it hereafter.

I desire to call the attention of the committee to some restrictions which they have thrown around the legislative department of the government. [Mr. W. referred to various amended provisions of the report of the legislative committee.]

No bill shall become a law unless it received the sanction of a majority of all the members elected. That is, said Mr. W., an important restriction; it was not a provision of the old constitution, it never existed in the old constitution. A majority of the quorum could pass a law without the yeas and nays. Now, it cannot be done without the yeas and nays, and without a majority of the whole number of members elected. Again, the members of the

422

legislature are to receive but two dollars per day for the first forty-two days, and one dollar a day thereafter. There is another important restriction on the action of the legislature; the sessions, instead of being almost unlimited as formerly, are now limited to a period of time which is barely sufficient for the transaction of the necessary public business; and another most important restriction is, that no bill for the payment of a claim against the State can be passed, unless the claim shall have been previously adjudicated before some judicial tribunal. Now I ask, what danger there is to be apprehended from legislative action under all these restrictions? There is no danger in future, regarding the passage of bills for internal improvement for which the people are to be saddled with taxation. State legislation is further restricted by the manner in which the legislature is constituted; the Senate acting as a check upon the House, and the House a check upon the Senate. This is what Franklin aptly compared to a wagon with one horse hitched before and another behind, each pulling in different directions. Gentlemen here, are not only for putting a horse before, and a horse behind, but for putting so great a weight upon the wagon, that it cannot be moved. If you invest the governor with the veto power, there will be such a weight imposed as will perhaps entirely clog the wheels of legislation. Suppose the governor should at any time come in collision with the legislature, so that feelings of hostility will be aroused; (and this is not at all improbable,) under the veto power, the governor might veto every law passed by the legislature. Suppose this convention should have refused to require the governor to sign bills when he has constitutional objections against their passage; this power will be illimitable, whether his objections are constitutional or otherwise. Such a restriction upon legislation, I think, is not in accordance with the genius and spirit of this government; a government derived from the people.

I merely throw out this, said Mr. WOODSON, as an offset to the assertion of the gentleman from Fulton, that the people had always expressed their approval in every case in which a veto has been given. It is a remarkable fact, and one which stands out in bold relief, in the history of this State, that the men who voted for that law, have been sustained by the people, and many of

423

them are now holding high offices in the State. When I rose I did not intend to detain the committee so long as I have, and I beg pardon for trespassing on their time. The people being the source of all power, the legislature should be accountable to the people for their acts, and not to the executive.

These are my views, and I cannot reconcile it to my mind, that the will of one man should be permitted to control the action of the legislature. If it is to be a representative government at all, I want the people to rule through their representatives, and I want these representatives to be amenable solely to the people. This is the safest course. — Sir, the veto power of the governor, even if a bare majority may set aside his veto, is of itself a sufficient check.

Let us examine how bills are passed. In the first place, a bill has to be read on three several days, unless three-fourths of the members agree to dispense with that rule, and the same formality takes place in both Houses. Here is sufficient time for reflection. The bill then goes to the executive and he vetoes it; and if they think proper upon reconsideration to pass the bill again by a majority, that I think is a sufficient check, a sufficient safe-guard against hasty and inconsiderate legislation, and I cannot consent by my vote that the legislature should be controlled by any further restriction than this. Do the people require that there should be any more restriction? As far as I know the question has never been mooted or discussed before the people of the country; but I believe they will be satisfied with the Constitution if you leave it as it is at present, in regard to this matter. There can be no objection to leaving it as it is. But I perceive that this Convention is determined that the veto power shall be exercised, but why they should be so desirous of introducing it, I cannot conceive.

Mr. WOODSON referred to the veto of Gov. DUNCAN and remarked that Duncan was less popular after that veto than before. As iniquitous as the law was, which was vetoed by him, yet the people returned to the legislature time and again the very men who voted for the law. The men who held the very highest offices in the State afterwards, were those who voted for that law.]

Mr. WEAD addressed the Convention on this subject, (his remarks will appear in our next)until the hour of adjournment.

424

XXXII. Saturday, July 17, 1847.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. GREEN of Tazewell.

Mr. DEITZ presented a petition in relation to the appointment of a superintendent of schools. Referred to the committee on Educat[i]on.

Mr. TURNER presented a petition praying the abolition of capital punishment. Referred to the committee on the Judiciary.

The Convention then resolved itself into committee of the whole — Mr. CRAIN in the Chair.

The question pending was on the two motions to insert "majority" and "three-fifths."

Mr. HARVEY briefly advocated the amendment to insert "three-fifths," as he thought the "majority" was reducing the effect of a veto to too small an importance.

Mr. WOODSON said, that it was manifest that the majority of the Convention were in favor of retaining the veto power; and if so, he was desirous that it should be adopted in its least objectionable form — by the amendment proposing a majority of the members elect. He opposed the veto power under any circumstances, as opposed to the spirit and genius of our government, which recognize all power as vested in the people, and from them in their representatives; and which was defeated by giving to one man authority to obstruct the passage of any law which those representatives thought it proper, wise and expedient to enact. There might be some propriety in vesting the President of the United States with some such power, but none that we should confer it upon a Governor of a state. The President has vast and extended patronage, and is the representative of the whole Union, and all its diversified interests, and it may be necessary at times for him to interpose this power, to prevent wrongs upon those interests by encroachments by the Legislature. Judge STORY has said, that one reason for the veto was that there is a natural tendency in the legislative department to encroach upon the duties

425

and rights of the others. This may be true in respect to the national legislature, but is not so in the state governments, nor in this state, which has been shown by the action of this Convention — which he would refer to presently. Another reason given, is that it is a safe-guard against rash and hasty legislation. What further safe-guard is required than those already provided by the committee in its action upon the report of the Legislative committee?

He asked leave to refer to the remark made by Mr. WEAD, "that in no case, where the veto power had been exercised, did it fail in receiving the universal approval of the people," and he would say to that gentleman that he was not altogether satisfied that the late veto of President Polk was so universally approved. In the western part of the country all parties were unanimous, and the great convention, the largest held in this section of the country, at Chicago, had united in the denunciation of that act. There was not a single item in that bill which had not, at one time or another, received the approbation of Presidents Jackson or Van Buren.

Mr. W. then referred in detail to the reduction of the number, of the Legislature, the many checks, re[s]trictions and prohibitions thrown around its action, the denial to it of the power it had heretofore of appropriating moneys upon private claims, and urged that all these were sufficient to prevent hasty or improvident legislation. He thought that the case of the internal improvement act was one which might not occur again in a century, and was not a sufficient argument to justify a departure from correct principles. And even if he was sure that the veto power would not be exercised, except on conservative grounds, still he would oppose it, because he believed it opposed to the spirit and genius of our government. He believed that if the Governor had the veto power at the time of the passage of the internal improvement act, and had exercised it, that the people would have still demanded and succeeded in passing that act; for they had shown their approval of the men who had carried it through, by elevating them even to this day to the highest offices in the State; one, at least, of our U. S. Senators was in favor of that act.

Mr. NORTHCOTT followed in opposition to the veto on

426

grounds similar to those expressed by those preceding him on the same side.

[Mr. NORTHCOTT said, he did not believe that he could do justice to his feelings, or his constituents, without occupying the time of the committee, while he submitted a few remarks for their candid and deliberate consideration; and if an apology is necessary, mine is found in the vast importance of the question before us; a question that involves great principles, the wise or unwise settlement of which, will tell for weal or woe, during the existence of the instrument we are now framing.

We have provided for three separate and distinct branches of government — Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Correct principle and good policy alike dictate, that each of these bodies of magistracy, in the performance of their various duties, should be independent of each other. The Legislative department is constituted for the purpose of framing laws for the government and well being of society. The Judiciary, for the purpose of adjudicating upon, and expounding those laws: and the Executive, for the purpose of seeing them faithfully executed. Sir, it would be just as reasonable to declare that the judiciary should, under the new constitution, exercise a controlling influence over either of the other departments, as that the governor should control the legislature. Indeed, it would be equally correct in theory, and expedient in practice, to give the governor the right to veto the judgments and decisions of the supreme court, as to vest him with power to veto the acts of the general assembly.

The object of the veto power, say its advocates, is to prevent hasty legislation. Are there no hasty decisions of the supreme court? Are not individuals frequently injured by those decisions? Most certainly they are. Then, gentlemen to be consistent, should carry out the principle, and say to that body, "What you can do in accordance with the will of the governor, that do: thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." If a concurrence of two-thirds of the legislature be made necessary to pass a bill that could not obtain the Governor's sanction, it would give him complete control of the law-making power; it would become a pliant tool in his

427

hand to do his bidding; and, sir, we had just as well abolish it at once.

Mr. Chairman, I utterly deprecate the introduction of party discussion here; but such are the circumstances by which I am surrounded, that I cannot do justice to the subject without glancing at a few of the circumstances that make a part of our State and National history for a few years past. I might have been spared the painful task, had it not been for the very extraordinary speech delivered here on yesterday, by the gentleman from Fulton. He has hurled defiance at us. Mark his singular language: "I defy those on the other side to show a solitary instance where the veto power has been wielded to the injury of the country." Again, speaking of vetoes, he says: — "They have been invariably sustained by the American people." He has thrown down the gauntlet. I take it up. Sir, the pecuniary embarrassments of this State, past, present and future, are the legitimate results of the exercise of that power; I mean the vetoes of the chief magistrate of this confederacy. When called upon to sign a bill for the recharter of the United States Bank, he refused, and in his message to Congress giving his reasons for that refusal, recommended to the States the creation of State banks, and to the banks liberal discounts. This coming from such a source, from a man the highest in power, first in the hearts of the American people, a hero, a patriot and a statesman, carried with it immense weight. Accordingly banks sprung up, like mushrooms during the sable shades of night, and scattered their promises to pay, thick as falling leaves of autumn.

Side by side with this bank veto, I will place another, similar in its character, and similar in its tendency, both of which worked conjointly to produce that overwhelming ruin, that came very near swallowing up our whole country in general, and Illinois in particular; I mean that of the Maysville road bill, in which the President recommended the States should construct their own works of internal improvement. That recommendation worked like magic, and the States, both old and new, weak and strong, indiscriminately, began these works with a vengeance. Magnificent schemes were planned and commenced; money was borrowed from abroad without stint, and paid to agents, contractors and

428

laborers, and from them it found its way into all the departments of business. This money, obtained by loans, and augmented by the issues of a thousand banks, all thrown into circulation at once, — all seeking profitable investment, — caused the sage to become visionary, the heretofore wise and prudent lost their caution and forethought, the nation became involved in debt, — States, corporations and individuals followed the example; the agricultural and manufacturing interests were neglected, and we, who should be able to feed the world, compelled to look to Europe for the means of subsistence. The balance of trade turned against us. Specie was demanded to make up the deficit. This caused a run on the banks for cash, deprived them of the means of redeeming their out-standing notes, which had been previously receivable for all government dues, and the "specie circular" was issued to save the government from loss; and this caused a further run on the banks, and they suspended specie payments. This cheated alarm all over the country, and spread consternation among our creditors abroad; no more money could be borrowed; the energies of our State, and of many other States, were completely paralyzed; and the people who were in 1832 progressing most speedily, and with the most apparent certainty in the acquisition of wealth, of fame and of happiness, in a short time were prostrated. The nation was scarcely able to redeem its plighted faith. States for a time, at least, driven to repudiation. Banks broke; individuals became insolvent, and their property sold at public outcry; credit was destroyed; confidence between man and man had given way to a spirit of distrust; ruin, like a stream of molten lava, had completely over-run the fair face of our lovely country; from Maine to Louisiana, — from our own blue lakes to the Gulf of Mexico, — all was a scene of desolation; scarcely was a green spot left on which the eye of the soul-stricken patriot could rest.

These are the financial evils resulting from these vetoes; and poor Illinois stands forth as a conspicuous witness of these assertions; the monument she has erected in memory of her fall is in the shape of a State debt of fifteen millions — the existence of which, I fear, will be co-equal with that of the pyramids of Egypt.

This veto was the commencement of an era in the executive history of this country. — Up to this period, moderation had characterized

429

the action of our chief magistrates; the balance of power had been preserved, and the co-ordinate departments had kept within their legitimate spheres. In the midst of the delusive and ephemeral prosperity that followed this assumption of executive responsibility, and the accompanying recommendations, the people were called upon to exercise the elective franchise, in the choice of a chief magistrate. The overwhelming majority he received, was taken by himself and friends as a direct approval of that act.

The opponents of the veto had prophesied convulsions and disasters, whilst its advocates sung the syren song of peace, lulling the fears of an unsuspecting people, and told of still better times ahead. This delusive state of things, and not the popularity of the veto, elected him for a second term.

But the Rubicon was crossed. The President held himself as the people's immediate representative, and should therefore control all departments of the government, and from that day to this, with the exception of one short month, "I take the responsibility" has been the motto of every President. That day proscription commenced, wholesale and retail, from custom house officer to the village post-master, all must make room for the favorites of the President; from that time Congress had to commence carving its work to suit the views of the executive, and when they have omitted to do it, the executive has interposed his fiat, and said, "it shall not be so." At one time, the President by repeated importunities received from Congress the Nation's purse; and while he held it meekly in one hand, reached out the other, and imploringly solicited the sword; the people's representatives answered, No. And at the then ensuing presidential election, the people, rising in their majestic might, answered in tones of thunder, "never." This was the death blow to executive usurpation. But it slumbered only for a time, it was galvanized in 1844, by the miracle working names of "Texas and Oregon;" in its galvanized state it has brought us into a war with a neighboring republic; now it moves, not as if guided by intellect, it exhibits but the convulsive throes of a galvanized corpse; and, sir, believe me or not, in the latter part of the year 1848, the people will, by the election of Gen. Taylor, bury it so deep, that Gabriel's trumpet will not cause it to twitch a single muscle.

430

The foregoing presents the great danger that our liberties are in from the veto power, as now wielded by the President; and in view of all these circumstances, who can say that vetoes are always right? And if productive of much evil, shall we engraft it in our new constitution? Shall we subject ourselves to the usurpation by one man, of such unlimited power, and enable him to defeat the popular will? I trust not, sir. Some gentlemen here, say that it is but a negative power; that it enacts nothing. Causes may arise in which it will have the same effect. Suppose a law to be unpopular and mischievous in its tendency — the people call loudly for its repeal — the majority of the legislature so determine; but Mr. Governor says, no; — by his will he prolongs the existence of a bad law. This, to a man of my humble capacities, looks like exercising legislative powers by indirection, and I think cannot be otherwise.

The gentleman from Schuyler says, "such powers should not be given to a president, but that the governor should have them by all means." Here is, I think, distinction without a difference; if the principle is correct both should have such authority; if wrong, as I think I have clearly shown both from fact and argument, neither. If a governor can prevent the enactment of good laws, and the repeal of evil ones, by that power, I say withhold it from him.

One other argument, Mr. Chairman, and I have done. The people know the candidate for governor by his previous acts; the candidates for the legislature they know personally — they converse with them familiarly face to face, about their wants; and is it to be expected that the governor, shut up in the city of Springfield, or in New York city acting as fund commissioner, can know the views, the feelings, the wants and the interests of the people of whom he has never seen one in ten far better than their immediate representatives fresh from among them? Sir, the idea is preposterous. I hope the amendment offered by the gentleman from Sangamon will prevail.]

Mr. DAVIS of Massac proposed to submit a few remarks for the consideration of the committee, in answer to the extraordinary arguments advanced by a gentleman on the other side of the question

431

— The gentleman from Hardin, in his remarks the other day, set out by saying that the veto power ought not to be exercised in a republic; that it was a concomitant of monarchy. And the gentleman from Greene, if I understood him, declared in his place to-day, that the power should not be exercised under a government such as ours; and I understood the gentleman who has just resumed his seat to declare that much, nay, almost all, of the evils of which we have had to complain for the last ten or fifteen years, have resulted from the exercise of the veto power. Sir, I am at a loss to know to what part of our national history gentlemen will go to support the assertions which they have made on this occasion. Sir, if it be the exercise of a power closely allied to monarchy, if it be drawn from the mother country from which we have drawn most of our notions of government, and if experience has demonstrated, as I think it has, that its exercise has tended to promote the interests of the whole country, it seems to me that gentlemen have stepped very far out of their proper sphere when they have denounce