History of the Constitutions of Iowa Part 10

Again, he declared that if disunion should ever be attempted "the West must and will rally to a man under the flag of the Union." "To preserve this Union, to make its existence immortal, is the high destiny a.s.signed by Providence itself to this great central power."

The arguments for restriction prevailed, and the Duncan amendment, which proposed to subst.i.tute the _Nicollet boundaries_ for the _Lucas boundaries_, pa.s.sed the House of Representatives by a vote of ninety-one to forty.

In the Senate the bill as reported from the House was hurried through without much debate. Here the question of boundaries seems to have received no consideration whatever. There were, however, strong objections in some quarters to coupling Iowa with Florida in the matter of admission.

Senator Choate, of Ma.s.sachusetts, called attention to the fact that this was the first instance in the history of the admission of States where it was proposed to admit two States by the same act. Under the circ.u.mstances he could welcome Iowa into the Union, but he could not give his hand to Florida. It could not be argued that Florida must be admitted to balance Iowa, since the admission of Texas was already more than a balance for the northern State. However appropriate it might have been at an earlier day to pair Florida with Iowa, it ought not to be thought of at this time. For, since the introduction of the bill, "we have admitted a territory on the southwest much larger than Iowa and Florida together--a territory that may be cut up into forty States larger than our small States, or five or six States as large as our largest States. Where and how is the balance to be found by the North and East for Texas? Where is it to be found but in the steadfast part of America? If not there, it can be found nowhere else.

G.o.d grant it may be there! Everything has been changed. An empire in one region of the country has been added to the Union. Look east, west, or north, and you can find no balance for that."

Senator Evans touched upon the great issue when he proposed an amendment which provided that so far as Florida was concerned the bill should not take effect until the people had removed from their Const.i.tution certain restrictions on the General a.s.sembly relative to the emanc.i.p.ation of slaves and the emigration and immigration of free negroes or other persons of color. He was opposed to discriminations against free persons of color. Why, then, retorted a Senator from the South, do you not direct your artillery against the Const.i.tution of Iowa which does not allow a colored person to vote?

No good reason had been urged showing why Iowa should not be admitted into the Union. All of the essential qualifications for statehood were present--a large and h.o.m.ogeneous population, wealth, _morale_, and republican political inst.i.tutions. Congress did not pa.s.s an adverse judgment on the Const.i.tution of 1844, since that instrument provided for a government which was Republican in form and satisfactory in minor details. Only one change was demanded, and that was in relation to the proposed boundaries. Here Congress insisted upon the _Nicollet boundaries_ as incorporated in the act of admission of March 3rd, 1845, in opposition to the _Lucas boundaries_ as provided for in the Const.i.tution of 1844.

XIII

THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF 1844 DEBATED AND DEFEATED BY THE PEOPLE

While Congress was discussing the boundaries of Iowa and carefully considering the effect which the admission of the new State might possibly have upon matters of National concern, the Const.i.tution of 1844 was being subjected to a.n.a.lysis and criticism throughout the Territory. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the only provision of the Const.i.tution which was held up and debated in Congress was the very one which was generally accepted by the people of the Territory without comment. Whigs and Democrats alike were satisfied with the _Lucas boundaries_. Nor did the people of Iowa at this time think or care anything about the preservation of the "balance of power." Their adoption of, and adherence to, the _Lucas boundaries_ was founded upon local pride and commercial considerations.

Opposition to the Const.i.tution of 1844 was at the outset largely a matter of partisan feeling. The Whigs very naturally opposed the ratification of a code of fundamental law which had been formulated by a Democratic majority. Then, too, they could not hope for many of the Federal and State offices which would be opened to Iowans after the establishment of Commonwealth organization. And so with genuine partisan zeal they attacked the instrument from Preamble to Schedule.

Nothing escaped their ridicule and sarcasm. By the Democratic press they were charged with "an intent to keep Iowa out of the Union, so that her two Senators shall not ensure the vote of the United States Senate to Mr. Polk at the next session."

But the Whigs were not altogether alone in their opposition to the proposed Const.i.tution, not even during the early weeks of the campaign. There was some disaffection among the Democrats themselves, that is, among the radicals who thought that the new code was not sufficiently Jeffersonian. The editor of the _Dubuque Express_, for example, was severe in his criticisms, but he intimated that he would vote for the Const.i.tution in the interests of party discipline. The _Bloomington Herald_, on the other hand, although a strong organ of the Democracy, emphatically declared through its editorial columns that "admission under the Const.i.tution would be a curse to us as a people."

As a party, however, the Democrats favored the Const.i.tution of 1844, defended its provisions, and urged its adoption by the people. They held that as a code of fundamental law it was all that could be expected or desired, and with a zeal that equaled in every way the partisan efforts of the Whigs they labored for its ratification at the polls.

An examination of the arguments as set forth in the Territorial press reveals two cla.s.ses of citizens who opposed ratification. First, there were those who were hostile to the Const.i.tution because they did not want State government. Secondly, there were others who could not subscribe to the provisions and principles of the instrument itself.

The out-and-out opponents of State government continued to reiterate the old argument of "Economy." They would vote against the Const.i.tution in order to prevent an increase in the burdens of taxation. This argument of itself could not possibly have defeated ratification, since there was at this time an overwhelming majority who desired admission into the Union. And yet the plea of economy (which always appealed strongly to the pioneers) undoubtedly contributed somewhat to the defeat and rejection of the Const.i.tution of 1844.

Prior to the first of March, 1845, opposition to ratification was expressed chiefly in objections to the proposed Const.i.tution. As a whole that instrument was characterized as "deficient in style, manner, and matter, and far behind the spirit of this enlightened age." It could not even be called a code of fundamental law, since it contained legislative as well as Const.i.tutional provisions. It confounded statute law with Const.i.tutional law.

In its detailed provisions and clauses the Const.i.tution of 1844 was still less satisfactory to the opponents of ratification. They seemed to see everywhere running through the whole instrument erroneous principles, inexpedient provisions, and confused, inconsistent, and bungling language. They declared that the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the government were not sufficiently separate and distinct. The principle of the separation of powers was clearly violated (1) by giving to the Executive the power of veto, and (2) by allowing the Lieutenant Governor to partic.i.p.ate in the debates of the Senate. Nor were the popular powers--namely, the powers of sovereignty--always differentiated from the delegated powers--or, the powers of government.

The Const.i.tution was roundly abused because it provided for the election of the Judges of the inferior courts by the people. To the minds of the critics the office of Judge was too sacred to be dragged into partisan politics and through corrupting campaigns. Judges ought not to be responsible to the people, but solely to their own consciences and to G.o.d. Likewise, it was contrary to the principles of efficient and harmonious administration to provide for the popular election of the Secretary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, and Treasurer. Such positions should be filled by executive appointment.

Again, the Const.i.tution was attacked because it provided for biennial instead of annual elections. The salaries fixed for State officers were "n.i.g.g.ardly and insufficient." The method prescribed for amending the Const.i.tution was altogether too tedious and too uncertain. The provisions relative to corporations were too narrow, since they restrained the General a.s.sembly from providing for internal improvements. By requiring all charters of banks and banking inst.i.tutions to be submitted to a direct vote of the people, the Const.i.tution practically prevented the organization and establishment of such inst.i.tutions.

Finally, objections were made to that section of the Bill of Rights which provided that no evidence in any court of law or equity should be excluded in consequence of the religious opinions of the witness.

To some it was horrifying to think of admitting the testimony of non-believers and Atheists.

Such were the arguments against ratification which were advanced by the opponents of the Const.i.tution of 1844. However, that instrument was not so defective as pictured, since back of all objections and all opposition was the mainspring of partisan politics. The Whigs were bent on frustrating the program of the Democrats. Were they able to defeat the Const.i.tution on the issue of its imperfections? No, not even with the a.s.sistance of the radical Democrats! But fortunately for the cause of the opposition a new and powerful objection to ratification appeared in the closing weeks of the campaign. The news that Congress had, by the act of March 3, 1844, rejected the boundaries prescribed by the Iowa Convention reached the Territory just in time to determine the fate of the Const.i.tution of 1844.

A close examination of this act of Congress revealed the fact that the fourth section thereof conditioned the admission of Iowa upon the acceptance of the _Nicollet boundaries_ "by a majority of the qualified electors at their towns.h.i.+p elections, in the manner and at the time prescribed in the sixth section of the thirteenth article of the const.i.tution adopted at Iowa City the first day of November, anno Domini eighteen hundred and forty-four, or by the Legislature of said State." Moreover, it was found that the provisions of the Const.i.tution of 1844 just quoted read as follows: "This const.i.tution, together with whatever conditions may be made to the same by Congress, shall be ratified or rejected by a vote of the qualified electors of this Territory at the towns.h.i.+p elections in April next, in the manner prescribed by the act of the Legislative a.s.sembly providing for the holding of this Convention: _Provided, however_, that the General a.s.sembly of this State may ratify or reject any conditions Congress may make to this Const.i.tution after the first Monday of April next."

In the light of these provisions it appeared to the people of Iowa that a vote cast for the Const.i.tution would be a vote for the Const.i.tution as modified by the act of Congress. This view was altogether plausible since no provision had been made for a separate ballot on the conditions imposed by Congress. And so it was thought that a ratification of the Const.i.tution would carry with it an acceptance of the _Nicollet boundaries_, while a rejection of the Const.i.tution would imply a decided stand in favor of the _Lucas boundaries_.

Those who during the fall and winter had opposed ratification now renewed their opposition with augmented zeal. The Whigs turned from their petty attacks upon the provisions of the Const.i.tution to denounce the conditions imposed by Congress. They declared that the Const.i.tution must be defeated in order to reject the undesirable _Nicollet boundaries_.

The boundary question now led a considerable number of the more moderate Democrats to oppose ratification. Prominent leaders of the party took the stump and declared that it would be better to reject the Const.i.tution altogether than to accept the limited boundaries proposed by Congress. They declared that the "natural boundaries" as prescribed by the Const.i.tution should not be curtailed, and called upon all good Democrats to vote down their own Const.i.tution. Many, however, continued to support ratification, believing that the boundaries imposed by the act of Congress were the best that could be obtained under the existing conditions. Augustus Dodge, the Iowa Delegate in Congress, took this stand.

When the Const.i.tution of 1844 was before Congress Mr. Dodge had stood firmly for the boundaries as proposed in that instrument. But on the day after the act of March 3, 1845, had been signed by the President, he addressed a letter to his const.i.tuents in Iowa advising them to ratify the Const.i.tution and accept the _Nicollet boundaries_ as prescribed by Congress. Mr. Dodge thought that the State would still be large enough. He knew that the country along the Missouri river was fertile, but "the dividing ridge of the waters running into the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, called the 'Hills of the Prairie,' and which has been excluded from our new State, is barren and sterile." He called attention to the fact that the boundaries prescribed by Congress were those suggested by Mr. Nicollet, a United States Geologist, "who had accurately and scientifically examined the whole country lying between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers." Then he pointed out the influences which operated in reducing the boundaries, and concluded by saying: "Forming my opinion from extensive inquiry and observation, I must in all candor inform you that, whatever your decision on the first Monday in April next may be, we will not be able hereafter under any circ.u.mstances to obtain _one square mile more_ for our new State than is contained within the boundaries adopted by the act of Congress admitting Iowa into the Union."

From the returns of the election it was evident that Mr. Dodge's const.i.tuents either did not take him seriously or were sure that he was mistaken in his conclusions. The Const.i.tution of 1844 was rejected by a majority of 996 votes.

The result of the election was such as to "astound the friends of the Const.i.tution and to surprise everybody, both friend and foe." Those who had labored for ratification throughout the campaign abused the Whigs for opposing so perfect an instrument, censured the Convention for submitting the Const.i.tution to Congress before it had been ratified by the people, and preferred general charges of misrepresentation. The friends of the Const.i.tution clamored loudly for a resubmission of the code of fundamental law as it had come from the Convention, so that the people might have an opportunity to pa.s.s upon it free from conditions and without misrepresentation. Within a few weeks the seventh Legislative a.s.sembly of the Territory was to meet in regular session. The members would be asked to give the Const.i.tution of 1844 another chance.

XIV

THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF 1844 REJECTED A SECOND TIME

On Monday the fifth day of May, 1845, the Legislative a.s.sembly of the Territory met in regular session. Three days later a message from Governor Chambers was presented and read to the members, whereby they were informed that the vote in April had certainly resulted in the rejection of the Const.i.tution. "And," continued the Governor, "there is reason to believe that the boundary offered us by Congress had much influence in producing that result."

Believing that the rejection of the Const.i.tution by the people called for some action on the part of the a.s.sembly, Governor Chambers proposed and recommended "that the question be again submitted to the people, whether or not they will at this time have a Convention." But a majority of the a.s.sembly were in favor of re-submitting the Const.i.tution of 1844 as it had come from the hands of the Convention.

A bill to re-submit was accordingly introduced and hurried through to its final pa.s.sage.

A formal and solemn protest from the minority, signed by nine members and entered on the journal of the House of Representatives, set forth the leading objections to re-submission. 1. The a.s.sembly had no delegated power to pa.s.s such a measure. 2. The act was designed to control rather than ascertain public sentiment. 3. The Const.i.tution of 1844 had been _deliberately_ rejected by the people. 4. No memorial indicating a change of opinion had been sent up by the people since the election. 5. In the April election the people had not been misled; they voted intelligently; and their ballots were cast against the Const.i.tution itself. The conditions imposed by Congress "doubtless had influence in different sections of the Territory, both for and against it. What was lost on the North and South by the change, was practically made up by the vote of the center where the Congressional boundaries are more acceptable than those defined in the Const.i.tution." 6. The question of territory being a "minor consideration," the Const.i.tution was rejected princ.i.p.ally on account of its inherent defects. 7. Under no consideration should the Const.i.tution of 1844 be again submitted to the people since it embodied so many objectionable provisions.

Although the bill for re-submission had pa.s.sed both branches of the a.s.sembly by a safe majority, Governor Chambers did not hesitate to withhold his a.s.sent. On June 6 he returned it to the Council. But it is difficult to ascertain the precise grounds upon which the Governor withheld his approval, since his message deals with conditions rather than objections. In the first place he reviewed the conditions under which the Const.i.tution of 1844 had at the same time been submitted to Congress and to the people of the Territory. Then he pointed out that, whereas a poll was taken on the Const.i.tution according to law, no provision had been made for a separate poll on the conditions imposed by Congress. This, he thought, produced such confusion in the public mind as to cause the defeat of the Const.i.tution. To be sure, he had proposed and was still in favor of submitting the question of a Convention to the people. But he would not now insist on such a policy. He freely admitted that the Legislative a.s.sembly had the power to pa.s.s the measure before him. At the same time it seemed to him that, should the Const.i.tution of 1844 be re-submitted to the people, it would simply give rise to confusion in attempts to reconcile and harmonize the various provisions of the statutes of the Territory, the act of Congress, and the Const.i.tution.

In the face of the Governor's veto the bill to re-submit the Const.i.tution pa.s.sed both branches of the a.s.sembly by the requisite two-thirds majority, and on June 10, 1845, was declared by the Secretary of the Territory to be a law. It provided "that the Const.i.tution as it came from the hands of the late Convention" be once more submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection. It directed that a poll be opened for that purpose at the general election to be held on the first Monday of August, 1845. The votes of the electors were to be given _viva voce_. Furthermore, it was expressly provided that the ratification of the Const.i.tution "shall not be construed as an acceptance of the boundaries fixed by Congress in the late act of admission, and the admission shall not be deemed complete until whatever condition may be imposed by Congress, shall be ratified by the people."

Thus the people were again asked to pa.s.s upon the Const.i.tution of 1844. The campaign of the summer of 1845 was very much like the campaign of the spring. All of the leading arguments both for and against the Const.i.tution were repeated in the press and on the stump.

The parties divided on the same lines as before, except that the Whigs in their opposition had the a.s.sistance of a much larger Democratic contingent.

One is surprised to find, in connection with the boundary question, little or no mention of "slavery," the "balance of power," or the "small State policy." Indeed the people of Iowa seemed wholly indifferent to these larger problems of National Politics. It is perhaps the most remarkable fact in the fascinating history of the Const.i.tution of 1844 that, in the dispute over boundaries, the parties did not join issue on common grounds. Congress, on the one hand, desired to curtail the boundaries of Iowa for the purpose of creating a greater number of Northern States to balance the slave States of the South; whereas the people of Iowa protested against such curtailment not because of any balance-of-power considerations, but simply because they wanted a large State which would embrace the fertile regions of the Missouri on the West and of the St. Peters on the North.

Augustus C. Dodge naturally received a good deal of criticism and abuse about this time on account of his March letter advising the acceptance of the boundaries proposed by Congress. By the Whigs he was set down as "a deserter of the people's cause." Even the Legislative a.s.sembly, which was Democratic, resolved "that the Delegate in Congress be instructed to insist unconditionally on the Convention boundaries, and in no case to accept anything short of the St. Peters on the North, and the Missouri on the West, as the Northern and Western limits of the future State of Iowa." Mr. Dodge was not the man to oppose the known wishes of his const.i.tuents; and so, after June 10, 1845, he was found earnestly advocating the larger boundaries.

One of the most interesting phases of the campaign was a surprising revelation in regard to the att.i.tude and ambitions of the people living in the Northern part of the Territory--particularly the inhabitants of the city and county of Dubuque. In 1844 the people of this region had been in favor of extending the boundary as far North as the St. Peters; and in the Const.i.tutional Convention of that year Mr. Langworthy, of Dubuque, had gone so far as to advocate the forty-fifth parallel of lat.i.tude as a line of division. But on April 26, 1845, the _Bloomington Herald_ declared that a proposition had gone out from Dubuque to divide the Territory on the North by a line running due West from the Mississippi between the counties of Jackson and Clinton and towns.h.i.+ps eighty-three and eighty-four. Later it was said that the _Dubuque Transcript_ was altogether serious in reference to this proposed division.

These charges were not without foundation; for the records of Congress show that in May, 1846, the Speaker of the House of Representatives "presented a memorial of the citizens of the Territory of Iowa north of the forty-second degree of north lat.i.tude, praying for the establishment of a new territorial government, extending from the Mississippi river between the parallel of forty-two degrees and the northern boundary line of the United States. Also a memorial of Thomas McKnight and others, citizens of Dubuque county, in said Territory of like import."

The official returns of the August election showed that the Const.i.tution of 1844 had been rejected a second time. But the majority against its ratification had been cut down by at least one half. Angry with disappointment the editor of the _Iowa Capital Reporter_ declared that its defeat was due to "the pertinacious and wilful misrepresentation of the Whig press relative to the boundaries."