DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS 1':\'CT,OUDiNG TH-T ORGANIC( ACT OF THE TERRITO0R. ENABLING ACT OF CONGRESS, THE ACT OF THE TERRITORIAL LEGISLA TURE RELATIVE TO THE CONVENTION, AND THIE VOTE OF THE PEOPLTE ON TIHE CONSTITUTION. ttep-( Ol y by Fra. i........ Report:e~] Ot'telally- by Franei.s X-I, S'ml'0t. SAINT PAUL: EARLE S. GOODRICII, TERRITORIAL PRINTER. PIONEER AND DEMOCRAT OFFTOR. 1857. v:lli THE OF THETP Wirn,aia Cfl$ iduga D fi~tDu WIITHT1'rTlH ,; C 11A C I N D E X ABSENCE OF IMEMIBERS-Leave granted, - 124, 126, 276, 351, 417, 421 ABSENT AIEMBERS-to be permitted to sign the Constitution, - - 601 ADJOURNMENT, FINAL —Motions and resolutions for, - 523, 542, 558, 631 ADDITIONAL PAY TO MEMBERS AND OFFICERS-Resolutions for, 602, 613, 615, 629 ADMISSION OF TIlE STATE INTO TIlE UNION, WISH or TIIE PEOPLE, - - 101 Resolutions offered by 3Ir. Sherburne, - - - - 101 Amendment offered by Mr. Brown, -. 102 Debate on the Resolutions and amendments, - - - 101-109 Adoption of Resolutions with amendments, - - - 109 AMENDMIENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. Standing committee appointed, - 119 Report of committee presented and laid upon the table, - 212 Considered in committee of the whole, - - - - 453 Reported back without amendments, - - - 453 Adopted and ordered engrossed, -. 453 Reported engrossed, - 480 AMES, ALFRED E. (member from Heniuepin) 5, 11, 12, 61, 100, 119, 212, 269, 271-276, 295, 381, 399, 417, 460, 464, 489, 509, 517, 542,561, 572-576, 586, 601, 615, 628, 629 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on 397, 408, 418 Bill of Rights, remarks on the - - - 292, 315, 340, 347, 370 Executive Department, remarks on the - - - 376 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the - - - 67 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of - - - 602 Corporations other than Banks, remarks on - 180, 131, 146, 218, 225 Counties and Towns, remarks on 486, 584 Impeachment and Removal from Office, remarks on - - 588 Judiciary, remarks on the - - - - 519, 578, 579 legislative Department, remarks on the - - 234, 248, 252, 257, 258 M:ilitia, remarks on the - - - - 149, 150, 152' Miscellaneous Subjects, remarks on - - 544, 547, 548, 555 Name and Boundaries, remarks on 568 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. G ornan's resolution, 119, 621 J,eport of Committee on Standing Rules, remarks on the - 111 Report of C ommittee on School Funds, Education and Science, submit'd 275 Resolution for a committee to confer with a committee from Repulic'ns, 521 Resolution offered by, for a Committee on Enrollment - - 275 Riesolutions on Compromise, remarks on - - - 353 Schedule, remarks on - -. 591 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks 438, 439, 440, 441, 449, 455, 464 e..r..Xs@'t, S7 I N 1) 1]! X. Am}s, {ICfAir1~ E. (member from llamnsey) 13, 105, 119, 124, 156, 181, 185, 351, 398, 518, 522, 540, 541, 560, )561 587, 614, 615,. Appoirntment of standing comnmittees, rernarks on the - 112 Banks and Banking,, and Finances of the State, remarks on 388,,389, 393, 39'4, 3-96, 399, 403, 582 Boundary Resolutions submittcd by Mr. Flandrau, remarks onl j533, 535 Distribution of Powers of Govermnent, remarks on ]8(6, 187, 195, 198 Executive Department, rena.rks on - - - 1. ~Judiciary, remarkls on the - - - 518, 577, -579 Lecgislative Department, remlarks o - - - 2(36, 273-275) ,Iarried Women, IRights of to hol(l liPr (-erty riearks - - 5d0 5tilitia, remarks on - - - - - 149, 177, 179 MIiscellaneous Sujlijects, remirkLls on - - - 549, 555, 58() Name and Boundaries, remarks on - - - 568, 5(;9 PBay of Republican {Meml)ers, remarks onl 3r. (-orman's resolution, 619, (62'2 Preamble tIIandI Bill of Rights, remarks on 205, 293, 308,,09, 310, 311, '322;-325, 3293, 330, 348, 373, 571 575 lieport of Committee on D)istribution of tlle Powers of Government, 155 Riesolution offered by, for printing Rules and Enabling Act, - 124 Resolution offere(d by, relating to Printing Debates nd proceedings, 602 AsTRaoxNG, T'o[OAs f. (ieminl)er hioax Mowover) - - - - Bight to a seat,, submiitted to a c()rnittce, - - - 97 Report of committee fivoralc. - --:17 )9 Sworn in, - - - - - - 39 At CDITING CoMNIria Ai)poiteii-te( - -';42 Report presented. - - - -' BAAsEN, FR.AN'cIs, (mriember frlom Browvn} 1 3, 119, 123, 1.77, 18 3,218 2381, 339, 346, 372, 373, 540, 541, 560, 573, 584, 585, 600, 61 5) Banks and Bankhi.g, and IFinances ofl the State, remarks on 391, 897, 58" Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, - 598, 604, 607, 610 offers a substitute for the Report, which wats adopted, - - 181 Counties and Towvnshlips, remarks on - - - 475, 479, 488 Executive Departmient, reiiatrks on thie - - - 380, )81 Mlilitia, remarks onl the --- 15 t Pay of Republican Members, rearkm's onl Mr. (Gornnmi's resolution for, (l 8 Beported from Committee on Militia, - - - 122 Schedule, remarks on the - - - )592, 59; School Funds, Education and Science, remarks oni - 4388, 463, 580 BAILT.Y, HEI'rY G. (member from Dakota) - - - - 13, 119 BAKER, D. A. J. (member from Ramsey) - 13, 119, 238, 276, 361, 397 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks 387-389,,39l, 392 Bill of Rights, remarks 283, 288, 289, 292, 311, 312. 320O, 3,45, 347, 364 Boundaries of the State, remarks on - - - 295, 296 Compromise Committee, remarks on Mr. Amnes' resolution, - 52'2 Compromise Besolutions offered by Mr. S8herburne, remarks on - 358 Conduct of the Republiecans, remarks on the. - - - 8 4 Elective Franchise, remarks on the 426 Judiciary, remarks on the - 496( Legislative Department, remarks on - 236, 262, 266, 267, 271, 275 'Resolution for Admission into the ITnion, remarks on the - - 108 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on,. 443, 446, 450, 458, 463 BANRqING PRIYILEGES, CORPORATIONS HAVING' NO. See CO,PORATIONS. IV I; t k ~,,!, i 1I N 1).E X. BANKS AND BANKING, AND) 1INANCES OF TIlE STATI:. Committee appointed, - - - 119 Report of committee presented and laid on the table, - - 269 Considered in committee of the whole, - - 384-397, 399417 lteported,back with amendmLenits, - - 417 Considered in Convention, - - - - 417-421 Adopted with amendments -.. 421 ordered engrossed, - -.. 421 Reported engrossed, - - - - - 520 Report of Committee on Revisioit ard l)hraseolog'y considered, 581-583 BAIRIET, R. IH. (memlber fromt St. Louis) - - 1', 119, 453 4, 5, 559, 561 Schedule, remarks onl tile -. 594 B(,cKEr, G-rEonGB L. (ienber firom Raimsey) 6, 7, 10, 11, 27, 58, 85, 97-()9, 105, 110, 118, 1 0. 1.'2, 1r55, 2102. 340,'3)49., 4'2 482, )519, 523, 526, 5,42, 6,3i ]itnks oand }1)ldring', aid i'iit nlesu of the S;[, remaro'.iikos t38'9, 418, 419, 581, 582 B1ill of 1Rigits. reiirlkls on teiie. 05, 207, 208, 253, 287, 288, 294, 3115, 16, 3"19-21, " 32 3O805-, 347, 3Gi6,367, )70,5 lound-(lary of the State, remarks on - - 304, O5 1Boutndary 1Resolitioiis submritted by Alr. 1tnt l'aud,' ronai' li, 51,' 539 Conference Committee, remnarks on teport of - - ()01 (Corporations oother than nks, renmarks on l2o, 134,1_35, 167, 21(,'2O':, 2') (,ounties anid Townships, remarks on, - 4(9 4-7'3, 475, 484 -48( Elective Franchise, re:marks on tlhe- - - 42 Executive Department, remarks 01i the - - 7 Judiciary, remarks on thle - -4, 50t9, 518 JIegislative I)epar'tmernt, reinarks on ()i th - 2'38, 252-' 2254, 26 oi Militia,i remnarkls o - - - - 150-152, 181-183 Pay of lepu-lican \leinbers, reniarks on eti. Gorman's resolution for, 620) Publishing the lebtes, remarks on - - 60-62 Report from Committee on Name arnd Bouidaries. - - 254 Resolution for uniform Oath submitted, - - -- }'esolution of Thanks to, - 1- 2.. Iesolution relating to Election Returns, offered by - t; Rtesolution to have the!teports of Standing Committees printed in 1)ill form, adopted, - --- 276 School Funds, Education ard Science, renmars on, 460, 462, 495, 580 BFILL OF RIGHTS, P.rKEMBLiE AND. Committee appointed, - -. 119 Rleport of committee presented and laid upon the table, - - 124 Considered in Committee of the Whole, - 203-211, 276-294, 307-348 Substitute offered by Mtr. Brown for'-1he PreaLblle, - - 204 Debate on the substitute, - - - -205 -211 Substitute offered by'lr. Brown withdrawn, - - - 277 D)ebate on, and amendments considered, - - 281-294 RPeported back with amendments, - - - - 348 Considered in Convention and certain amendments concurred in 348, 349 Report laid upon the table, -...349 Taken up and considered in Convention, - - - 36i1-373 Report as amended adopted, - - - 373 Ordered to be engrossed, - - - - 373 V I ND E X. BITN Bous. Bnl Reor Reoto] omte nRvso n huelg osdrd 7-7 ]3UNAIS N AE Standn ommte poned Counties and Townships, remarks - 468-472, 474, 475, 479, 488 Credentials, remarks on.- - 6 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks 187, 189, 193, 198, 199, 202 Elective Franchise, remarks - - - 428, 429, 432, 434-437 Executive Department, remarks on the - - - 875, 381 Impeachments and Removals, remarks - - - 467 Instructions to Committee of Conference, remarks on resolution of, 524 Judiciary, remarks on the, - - - 510, 513, 514, 518 Legislative Department, remarks, 285, 236, 23'8-240, 243-246, 249-253, 255, 256, 259, 260, 263, 264, 269, 271, 274 Method of Proceeding, remarks on - - - - 112-114,116 Militia, remarks on the, - - - - - 183 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. Gormaon's resolution for, 618, 620, 621 Publishing the Debates of Convention, remarks on - - 58-62, 629 Reported from Committee on Legislative Department, - - 124 Resolution complimentary to Hon. S. A. Douglas, submitted by -. 520 Resolution for Admission into the Union, offered by, - 102, 105, 108 VI I N D E X. Resolution offered, and adopted, requiring the Secretary-of-State to cer tify to Resolution to be sent to Secretary of the Interior, - 120 Resolution offered, and adopted, providing for Papers for Members, 1.23 Resolutions offered by, on the proposition to proceed to frame a Consti tution, - -...102, 108 Resolution offered by, relative to making up the Journal, - 62 Rules, remarks on - - -7 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks - - 459, 463, 464 BURNS, DANIEL J. (member from Dakota) - - - - 13, 119 BUnWELL, JOSIAI, (member from Dakota) - 13, 119 BUTLER, CIHARLES J. (memberifrom Washington) - 12, 13, 121, 122, 248, 329 Boundary of the State, remarks on the - - - 304, 305 Compromise Resolutions offered by Mr. Sherburne, remarks - 368 Conduct of the Respublicans, remarks on the... -85 Leave of absence granted to, for five days, - - - 124 Legislative Department, remarks on the - - - 264 Printing the Debates, remarks on - - - - 630 Resolution offerred, and adopted, to have the Reports, with amendm'ts, printed, - - - - 59 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, - 462, 580 CANTELL, XAVIER, (member from Pembina) - - - 13, 119 CAPITAL, PERMANENT LOCATION or-Resolutions submitted by Mr. Murray, 540 Indefinitely postponed, - 541 CHAPLAIN-Resolution for pay of, 626 CHASE, CHARLES L. Secretary of Territory, called Convention to order, 3 CHASE, CHARLES L. (member from St. Anthony) 3, 4, 14, 122-124, 270, 351, 383, 394, 464, 523, 542, 559, 560, 562 Compromise Resolutions offered by Mr. Sherburne, remarks on, - 356 Counties and Towns, remarks on -472 Judiciary, remarks on the - - 511, 513, 514 Location of State Capital, remarks on Mr. Murray's resolution, - 542 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 580 COMMITTEES APPOINTED. On credentials, -. - On Rules for the government of Convention, - - - 100 To contract with Reporter, 100 To notify officers-elect, - - 109 On method of proceeding, - - - - - 109 -_ - -, 110 On postage, - - - Standing committees, - - - - - 119 On printing the debates, - - - - - 185, 211 On Enrollment, - - -76 s of Convention,~~~~- 342 To audit the accounts of Convention, - -42 On Impeachments and Removals, - - - - - 3 On Compromise resolutions proposed by Republicans, - - 422 COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS, SUBMITTED BY MR. SHEBRNE, - 350 Debate thereon, - - -50-361 .... ~~~~~861 Indefinitely postponed, - -6 COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS, PROPOSED BY REPLUBLICANS, - - 421 Referred to a committee, - - 422 -422 Committee appointed, -. Report of Committee presented and adopted, - - 4S482 .VIT I N D E X. COIMPIOMISB COMSMITTEE. Resolution fromn Repubal)licans for a Joint Committee to agree upon one Constitution, presented, -..521 Resolution offered by Mr. A. E. Ames, for the appointment of said Com mittee of Conference, -.. 521 Discussion thereon, - - - - - 521-523 Resolution adopted, and Committee appointed, - - - 523 Resolution of instructions to, offered by Mr. Curtis, and adopted, - 524 Resolution of instructions to, offered by Mr. Wait, - - 557 Motion to discharge the Committee, by Mr. Setzer, - - 595 Motion laid upon the table,.- - 596 Report presented, and debate thereon, - - 597-614 Constitution, as reported, finally adopted, - - 614 Commlittee directed to superintend enrollment, - - - 617 Constitution reported enrolled, - (. 628 CONDUCT OF TIHE REPUBLICANS. Resolutions offered by Mr. Flandrau, - - - 17 Debate thereon, - - - - 17-96 Resolutions adopted, - - - - - 96 CONSTITUTION. Finally Adopted, - 614 Order of enrollment. - - - - - - 615 President directed to notify Republican Convention of its adoption, 615 Communication from Republicans, tnnouncing its adoption by that body, 616 'I'ranslations ordered, - 616, 627 Ordered to be printed, - - - - 617, 625, 626 Conference Committee directed to superintend the enrollment thereof, 617 Appropriation for Enrollment on Parchment, - - - 628 Reported enrolled by Conference Committee, - - - 628 Ordered for signature, - - - - 628 Order of Signing, - - 629 CON-STITUTION, AS ADOPTr, - - 651-675 CORPOrnATIONS IIAYING NO ]3ANKING P'.IVILEGS. Standing committee appointed, - - - 119 Report presented and laid upon the table, - - 121 Considered in committee of the whole, and debate thereon, 124-177, 213-224 Reported back with amendments, - - - 224 Considered in Convention, - - - - 224-230 Report as amended adopted, - - - - 230 Referred to Committee on Revision and Phraseology, - - 231 Reported engrossed, -.. 342 Report of Coimmittee on Revision and Phraseology conisidered, 583, 584 COUNTIES AND Towns. Standing committee appointed, - - - - 119 Report presented and laid on the table, - - - 452 Considered in committee of the whole, - 467-480 Reported back with amendments, -. 480 Considered in Convention, - -. 482-488 Adopted with amendment, - -. 489 Ordered engrossed, - - 489 Reported engrossed, - "524 Report of Committee on Revision and Phraseology considered, 584, 585 VIII I N D E X. CREDENTIALS. Committee,ppointed,... 5 Partial report of committee, -. 6 Discussion on Report, -. 11 Report from coimmittee, - - - -. 16 Report ordered -printed, - - - - - - 17 Case of Mr. Armjstrong, submitted to - - - - 97 Petition of citizens of Winona and Wabashaw County, referred to 156 Report on case of Mr. Armstrong, received and adopted, - 397, 398 Report on the credentials of Republican members, with Resolution at tached providing for the payment of their per diem, - - 631 Report and Resolution laid upon the table, - - - 631 CuiRTIs, GOULD T. (member from Washington) 13, 119, 467, 523, 539, 558, 559, 561, 591, 601, 627 Banks and Banking and Finances of the State, remarks on, 386, 387, 393, 402, 407, 416, 418, 581 Boundary Resolutions submitted by Mr. Flandrau, remarks on, 527, 537 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks 80-84 Conference Committee, remarks on the Report of the, 599, 600, 602, 610 Counties and Towns, remarks on - 474 Corporations other than Banks, remarks on - - 215, 216, 220, 584 Elective Franchise, remarks on the - 423, 425, 426, 428, 429, 432-437 Executive Department, remarks on the - - - - 379 Judiciary, remarks on the, - - 498-500, 507, 576, 577, 579 Legislative Department, remarks on - 236, 249-251, 262, 272, 273 Method of proceeding to form a Constitution, remarks on the - 114 Militia, remarks on the, 1-.. 154 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on, - - 544, 546-548, 551, 557 Pay of Republican Memnbers, remarks on Mr. Gorman's Resolution, - 621 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the 209, 278, 280, 284, 287, Printing the Debates, remarks on, -.- 630 312, 313, 315, 325, 341, 348, 572, 574, 575 Resolution of Instructions to Committee of Conference submitted, and remarks thereon, - - - - - 524 Rights of Married Women to hold Property, Resolution submitted by, 540 Schedule, remarks on the, -- 594 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 462 DAVIS, WILLIAM A. (member from Dakota) - - 13, 185, 623, 630 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 452, 460 DAY, JAMEIS C. (member from Houston) - - - 13, 119 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - - 440 DEBATES OF CONVENTION, PUBLICATION or, - - - - 58 Discussion upon, - 58-63 Contract for Reporting, - 118 Instructions to Reporter, - - -184 Committee appointed to ascertain about Printing, - 185, 211 Printing of, Resolutions relating to - - 602, 629 DISTRIBITION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. Standing Committee appointed, - - 119 Report presented and laid upon the table, - - - 155 Considered in Committee of the Whole, and debate thereon. 185-202 Reported back to the Convention without amendment, - 202 IX 'R IN DEX. ReporL ad)pted, - 7 202 Referred to Committee on Revision and Phraseology, - - 293 Report of Enrolling Committee, - 342 DOuG-LAS, STEPIJNN A.-Resolutions complilnentary to, - - 520 Formal Reception of, by Convention, - - - - 520 EDUCATION. See SCI'OOL FUNDS, EDUCATION AND SCIENCE. ELECTIVE FRnANCIlISE. Standing Committee appointed, - - - 119 Report presented and laid upon the table, - - - - 269 Considered in Committee of the Whole, - - - 422-437 Reported to Convention with amendments, - - - 437 Report, with amendments, adopted, -.437 Ordered Engrossed, - 437 IReported Engrossed, - - 480 Report of Committee on Revision and Phraseology considered, 580-583 E3MMETT, LAFAYETTE, (member from Ramsey) 13, 122, 123, 307, 452, 519, 573-575, 591 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 413-416, 581 Boundary of the State, East and West line, remarks on Mr. Flandrau's Resolution, - 532, 533 Corporations other than Banks, remarks on, 137, 147, 177, 222, 584 Counties and Towns, remarks oin, 467, 468, 470, 473, 475, 485, 488, 584 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks 192, 193, 200, 291 Elective Franchise, remarks on - - 423, 425-427, 435, 436 Executive Department, remarks on the - - 376, 377, 380, 383 Impeachments and Removals, remarks on - - 585 Judiciary, remarks on the, - 493-495, 502-504, 511, 513-515, 576, 577 Legislative Department, remarks, 234, 246, 247, 251, 253, 257, 260, 263, 265-269 Method of Proceeding, remarks on - - - - 114, 115 Militia, remarks on the, - - - - 154, 178 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - 547, 548, 554, 556, 557, 586 Name and Boundaries of the State, remarks on - - - 567 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. German's resolution, 621 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks 279-283, 285, 288-291, 334-338, 340, 341, 345, 346, 349, 368, 370-372, 572 Resolutions proposing to accept the Enabling Act, and form a Constitu tion, remarks on 106 Schedule, remarks on 593, 594 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on 447-449, 451, 452, 454-458, 462, 580 ENABLING ACT-Ordered to be printed, - - - See Appendix, - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. Standing Committee appointed, - - - Report of Committee presented and laid upon the table, Taken up and considered in Committee of the Whole, Reported back to Convention with amendments, Considered in Convention, - - - - Report, with amendments, adopted, - - Ordered to be engrossed, - - - Reported engrossed, -- X - 119 - 269 -* 373-381 - 381 382, 383 383 - 383 417 I N E X. e EXPULSION OF MEMBERS-Petition for, - - - 156 FABER, PAUL, (member from Ramsey) - - - 13, 119, 630 FINAL ADJOURNMENT. See ADIJOURNMR,NT. FINANCES OF THE StATE. See BANKS AND BANNI.NCG. FLANDRAU:, CHAB.LES E. (member from Nicollet) - 47 13, 97, 541, 542, 558 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on 391-393 Boundaries of the State, remarks on - 295-297, 300-303, 305, 306 Boundary, East and West line, Resolutions submitted and remarks thereon, - - - - 526, 527, 530, 531, 537-539 Conference Committee, remarks on motion to discharge, - 595, 596 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of - 599, 608, 609, 612 Corporations other than Banks, remarks on, 125, 130, 131, 134, 145, 163, 170, 171,176, 223, 225 Distribution of Powers of Government, remarks on 186, 188, 194, 195 Elective Franchise, remarks on the - - 423-425, 430, 433437 Judiciary, remarks on the - 494, 502, 504, 506, 510-513, 515, 516 Legislative Department, remarks on - 239, 241, 243-245, 247, 249 Method of Proceeding, remarks on the, - - - - 116 Militia, remarks on - - 148, 149, 153, 154, 180, 182, 183 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - 544-549, 554, 555, 557 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. Gorman's resolution, 618, 622 Pay of Republican Members, Resolution offered by for, - - 627 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on 208, 281, 282, 284, 285, 287, 288, 293, 340, 341, 346, 347, 366-368, 571 Printing the Debates and Proceedings, remarks, and Resolution for. 629-631 Resolutions concerning'the Conduct of the Republicans, offered by, 17 remarks on the Resolutions, - - - 18-25 Resolution for Admission into the Union, remarks on - - 101, 104 GILBERT, NEWINGTON, (member from Washington) - - 13, 119 GILMAN, DAVID, (member from Benton) 13, 114, 182, 306, 351, 559, 561, 587 Boundary, East and West line, remarks on Mr. Flandrau's IResolutions, 539 Compromise Resolutions offered by Mr. Sherburne, remarks on - 352 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of - 603, 606, 611 Elective Franchise, remarks on the - - - - 427 Legislative Department, remarks on the - - - 270, 275 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the, - - 280, 292 Resolution for information concerning the Indians, presented by, 560 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, - - 451, 464 GonRAN, WILLIS A. (member from Ramsey) 3-5, 27, 109, 118, 156, 254, 269, 307, 397, 417, 453, 482, 520, 521, 525, 542, 561, 595, 625 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 394, 395, 412 Boundary of the State, remarks on the - - 297-300, 302-304 Case of Mr. Armstrong, remarks on the - - 97 Compromise Resolutions offered by Mr. Sherburne, remarks on, 356, 357 Conference Committee, remarks on Mr. Ames' resolution, - 521-523 Conference Committee, remarks on Report, 597, 598, 600, 602, 603, 613-615 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the - - - 27-58 Corporations other than Banks; remarks on, 122, 140-143, 162-164, 170, 175, 224, 226-230 Counties and Towns, remarks on, 468, 472, 473, 478, 479, 482, 483, 488 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks on, - 199, 200 Enabling Act, remarks on accepting the - - - 107 xi~ IN JDEX. Executive Department, remarks on the - 375, 378, 381 Explanatory and Personal remarks on the difficulty with Mr. Wilson, 587-590 Legislative Department, remarks on the - - - 265 Mode of Proceeding, remarks on the - - - 112, 116 Militia, remarks on - - - - 151 Temporary Organization, remarks on the, - - - 8-10 Temporary Organization, remarks on the, --- 8-10 Pay of Republican Members, Resolution for, offered by, and remarks thereon, - - - - - - - 617, 621 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the, 281, 289-291, 325-332, 338, 342-346, 348, 349, 365-366, 369 Publishing the Debates, remarks on - - - 62, 184, 185 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on 442, 447, 452, 460 HOLco,MBE, WInLLIAM, (member from Washington) 13, 109, 110, 124, 212, 268, 342, 574, 628 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks, 386, 387, 393, 394, 396, 400, 403, 407-411, 414, 419 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks, 133, 135, 136, 147, 166 Enabling Act, remarks on accepting the - - - - 108 Legislative Department, remarks on the 234, 235, 237, 261, 271, 278 Mode of Proceeding, remarks on the - - - - 115 Publishing the Debates of Convention, remarks on - - 60, 62 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks - - 440, 457459 IMPEACHMENTS AND REMOVALS. Committee authorized, - 361 Committee appointed, 382 Report of committee presented and laid upon the table, - - 437 Considered in Committee of the Whole, - - - - 466 Reported back without amendment, - - - - - 467 Adopted and ordered engrossed, - - - - - 467 Reported engrossed, - - - - - - - 520 Report of Committee on Revision and Phraseology considered, 585 INDIAN AFFAIRs-Resolution to obtain Report of Superintentent of, - 560 Report of Superintendent, - 624 INDIAN SUFFRAGE-Melinorial for, - 430 JEROME, J. (member from Pembina) - - - - 13, 119 JOURNAL, DAILY-Ordered printed, -- 7 Secretary authorized to prepare and superintend Printing of, - 629 JUDICIARY. Standing committee appointed, - - - - 119 Report of committee presented and laid upon the table, - 361 Considered in committee of the whole, - - - 489-517 Reported back with amendments, - - -. - 517 Considered in Convention, - - 517-519 Adopted with amendments - 519 Ordered engrossed, - 519 Reported engrossed, - - - - - - 523 Report of Committee on Revision and Phraseology considered, 576-579 KE'GAN, ANDREW, (member from Dakota) - - 13, 110, 342, 391 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, - - - 610 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks on, - - 583 Legislative Department, remarks on, - - - 270 X1l.I INDEX. School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, - - 441, 460 KENEIvDY, ROBERT (member from Scott) - - - 13, 119, 184, 276 KINGSBURY, W. W. (member from St. Louis) 18, 110, 156, 166, 184, 224, 238, 268, 276, 296, 345, 349, 851, 376, 382, 3883, 886, 387, 417, 437, 452, 517, 629 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks on - 226 Judiciary, remarks on the - 509 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - 488, 440, 448 LASHELLE, WILLIAM M. (member from Hennepin) - - - 13, 119 LEGISLATIVE DHPARILTMENT. Standing Committee appointed, - 119 Report presented and laid upon the table, - - - 124 Considered in committee of the whole, and debate thereon, 231-271 Reported to the Convention with amendments, - - 271 Report as amended adopted, - - - - 275 Reported engrossed, - - - - - - 389 MARRIED WOHEM, RIGHT TO HOLD PROPERTY. Resolution offered by Mr. Curtis, and debate thereon, - 539, 540 Adopted, and referred to Committee on Miscellaneous Subjects, - 540 MEEKER, B. B. (member from Hennepin) 6, 14, 19, 110, 212, 361, 542, 558, 559, 580, 586, 601 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 388, 406 Compromise Resolutions offered by Mir. Sherburne, remarks, 352, 353, 355 Conference Committee, remarks on motion to discharge, - 596 remarks on Report of, 606 Counties and Towns, remarks on - - 469, 474, 483, 486 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks on, 127, 129, 132, 133, 146-148, 160, 161, 175, 176, 213-215, 217, 218, 222, 224-230 Distribution of the Powers of Government, - - 186, 188, 191 Elective Franchise, remarks on the, - - - - 424 Enabling Act, remarks on accepting the - - - 104, 197 Executive Department, remarks on the 375 Judiciary, remarks on the - 499-502, 504, 506, 509, 510, 512, 515 Legislative Department, remarks on the, 234, 237, 240, 243, 245, 249, 256, 257, 261-263 Militia, remarks on the 149, 150, 152, 182 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on, - - - 549, 552-554 M1ode of Proceedure, Resolution for a committee on - - 109 remarks thereon, -.114 Name and Boundaries, remarks on. 566-569 Oath, remarks on administering the -98 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. Gorman's resolution for, 625 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the, 205, 206, 209, 278, 284, 285, 298, 294, 317-319, 840-844, 862-864, 872, 571, 574, 575 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, - - 440, 450 MILITIA. Standing committee appointed, 119 Report presented and laid on the table, - - - 123 Considered in committee of the whole, and debate thereon, - 148-183 Reported to Convention with amendments, and debate thereon, 183, 184 Report adopted,.- 184 Referred to Committee on Revision and Phraseology, - - 184 Reported engrossed, -..- 3 c XIII I INDEX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Standing committee appointed, - 119 Report of committee presented and laid on the table, - - 542 Considered in committee of the whole, - - - 542-555 Reported back with amendments, - 555 Considered in Convention, - - - - - 555-557 Report as amended adopted, - 557 Report of Committee on Revision and Phraseology considered, 586, 587 MODE OF PROCEEDING. Committee appointed, - - 109 Report presented, and debate thereon, - - - 111, 112 MCFETRIDGE, JAMES, (member from Pembina) - - - 13, 119 McGrPoaTY, WILLIAM B. (member from Ramsey) - 13, 119, 265, 387 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 388, 402, 418 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of - - 610, 613 Legislative Department, remarks on - - - - 266, 268 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the - 290, 292, 339, 348 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - 461, 463, 464 MCMAHAN, WILLIAM B. (member from Blue Earth) - - 13, 119, 623 Counties and Towns, remarks on - 477 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 438 MU'RRAY, WILLIAM P. (member from Ramsey) 45, 110, 124, 185, 211, 212, 269, 294, 339, 422, 561, 562, 585, 614, 615, 623, 625, 626, 631 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 393, 399, 412, 418-420 Conference Comnmittee, remarks on Report of, - - 597, 598 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks on, 121, 164-166, 223, 224 Elective Franchise, remarks on the - - - 426, 427 Executive Department, remarks on - - 375, 376, 379, 380 Instructions to Joint Committee, remarks on Mr. Wait's Resolution, 558 Legislative Department, remarks on the - - - 265-267 Location of State Capital, Resolution for, submitted by - 540 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - - 553 Mode of Proceeding, remarks on the 113 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. Gorman's resolution for, 620 Preamble and Bill pf Rights, remarks on, 206, 282, 285, 289, 291, 318, 332, 338, 340, 347, 364, 372 Schedule, remarks on the - 592 School Funds, Education and Science, - - - 440, 442 NASIF, PATRICK, (member froni Ramsey) - - - 13, 119, 466 NEWSPAPERS FOtR M/EMBERS-Resolution providing, - - - 123 NOIRRIS, JAMES S. (mnember from Washington) 13, 111, 119, 252, 387, 452 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 454, 459 OATII-formn of to be administered to members, - - - 96 Discussion as to manner of administering, - - 97, 98 Oath of office administered to members, - - - - 98, 99 OATII, UNIFORM-Resolution for, submitted by Mr. Becker, - - 525 Referred to Committee on Miscellaneous Provisions, - - 525 OFFICERS Or Cov'rwNTION-telnporary, elected, - - - - 5, 12 Permanrent, elected, - 99, 307 OFFI.cIAL.$L oTal l oF CONVENTION, - - - 99, 100, 118, 602 XIV I N DEX X. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. By Mr. Sibley, - By Mr. Gorman, - - - PHRASEOLOGY AND REVISION. Standing committee appointed, - - - Report of committee presented and laid upon the tab Considered in committee of the whole, Engrossed articles concurred in, - - - POSTAGE OF MEMBERS. Committee appointed to confer with Postmaster, Report of committee, - - - - PRINCE, JOHN S. (member from Ramsey) - - PRINTING. Committee appointed on printing the debates, - - 185, 211 Constitution ordered printed, -' -617, 626 Debates of Convention ordered printed, - - - 602, 629 Daily Journal ordered printed, - 7 Enabling Act of Congress ordered to be printed, - 98, 124, 184 Journal, printing and superintendency, - - - - 629 Report of Committee on Credentials ordered printed, - - 17 Reports of Standing C-ominitees ordered printed, - - 124, 349 Resolution to print Report of Committee on Credentials, with speeches of Messrs. Gorman and Flandrau, - - - - 121 Standing Rules, Residence of Members, and Standing Committees, to be printed, - - - - - - - 124, 276 The Territorial Printer designated to do the Printing for the Convention, 7 PUBLICATION OF THE DEBATES-Discussion on, - - 58-63, 602, 629 REPORTER, OFFICIAL, OF CONVENTION-Elected, - - - - 99 Committee appointed to contract with, - - - 100 Report of Committee presented and adopted, - - - 118 Additional pay to, - - - - - - 610 REPUBLICANS-Conduct of, Resolutions submitted by Mr. Flandrau, - 17 Discussion on, - - - - - - - 17-96 Resolutions adopted, - 96 Compromise Resolutions from See COMPROMISE Resolutions for pay of, - - - - 617, 626, 627 Report of Committee on Credentials, with Resolution attached pro viding for the payment of their per diem, - - - 631 REVISION AND PHRASEOLOGY. See PIIPRASEOLOGY. ROLETTE, JOSEPH, (member from Pembina) 13, 106, 119, 558, 560, 587, 595, 601 Schedule, remarks on the, - 591, 593 RULES-Of House of Representatives, temporarily adopted, - - 5 Ordered printed, -..- 7 Committee appointed, - 100 Report presented and laid upon the table, - - - - l111 Report of committee adopted, - - - - - 117 Amendment to, - 212 SANDERSON, R. H. (member from Washington) - - - 13, 119 Schedule, remarks on the - - 595 SCIIEDULE. Standing Committee appointed, - - - - - 119 Report presented and laid upon the table, - - - 559 xV - 491-493 587-590 - 119 559, 562 565-572, 574 - 574 - - - 1il - - 120, 155 13, 119, 419, 519, 629 INDEX. Considered in Committee of the Whole, - - - 562-59I Considered in Convention, - - - - 591-595 Laid on the table, - 595 SCHOOL FUNDs, EDUCATION AND SCIENCE. Standing Committee appointed, - - - - - 119 Report of committee presented and laid upon the table, - - 275 Considered in Committee of the Whole, - - 437-452, 454-460 Reported to Convention with amendments, - - - 460 Considered in Convention, 460-466 Report, with amendments, adopted, - - - - 489 Report of Committee on Revision and Phraseology considered, 580, 581 SEAL OF STATE, COAT OF ARMs. Standing Committee appointed, - 119 Report of Committee presented and laid upon the table, - - 454 Considered in Committee of the Whole, - - - - 519 Reported back to the Convention without amendment, - - 519 Adopted and ordered to be engrossed, - - - - 519 Referred to Committee on Miscellaneous Provisions, - - 519 SETZER, HENRY N. (member from Washington) 7, 11, 13, 117, 120, 121, 184, 2 0 2, 203, 21 2, 231,1238, 254, 273, 274, 294, 304, 307, 351, 390, 454, 466, 520, 560, 561, 571-574, 583, 626, 627 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks, 395, 400-402, 406, 408, 410, 411, 414, 418 Compromise Resolutions offered by Mr. Sherburne, remarks, 352, 357, 360 Conference Committee, remarks on Mr. Ames' resolution, - - 521 Conference Committee, motion to discharge, and remarks on, 595, 596 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, - - 598, 600, 604 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the - - - 63-67 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks, 125, 126, 132, 136, 138-140, 144, 148, 159, 161, 164, 173, 176, 213, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 224 Cournties and Towns, remarks on, - - 468, 470, 474, 477, 488 Distribution of Powers of Government, remarks on, - 185-187, 201 Election of permanent officers, Resolution submitted for, - - 99 Executive Department, remarks on the - - - 377, 8379 Judiciary, remarks on the, 495-497, 504, 506, 507, 511, 515, 517, 519 Legislative Department, remarks on the 234, 237, 242, 245, 248, 249, 256, 258, 259, 261, 263, 267, 270 Method of Proceeding, remarks on the, - - - - 115 Militia, remarks on the, - - - - 149, 182, 183 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - - - 556, 586, 587 Name and Boundaries of the State, remarks on - - 566-568 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on 207, 276, 279, 282, 283, 291, 304, 306, 310, 312, 317, 324, 575 Publishing the Debates of Convention, remarks on - - 58-62 Schedule, remairks on the, 565, 592, 594, 595 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, 439, 440, 446, 461, 464, 489 SHEPLEY, J. C. (member from Stearns). 13, 119 Boundary, East and West line, remarks on Mr. Flandrau's resolut'ns, 528, 536 Counties and Towns, remarks on 487, 584 Schedule, remarks on the 593 X~I I N D I X. SHRBUIRNE, MOSES, (member from Ramsey) - - 13, 109, 119, 361 Administering the oath of office, remarks on - - 97, 98 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 385-387, 392, 396, 416, 4i7, 421 Compromise Resolutions submitted by, and remarks thereon, 350, 359, 360 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, 597, 599, 600, 602-604, 610,, 612 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the - - - 76-80 Corporations other than Banks, remarks on, 157-160, 165, 171, 172, 219, 221-224 Counties and Towns, remarks on - - 470, 472, 475-477, 479, 486 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks on the, 189, 193, 194 Executive Department, remarks on the - - - 380, 383 Judiciary, remarks on the - - 493, 497, 504, 512-514, 516 Militia, remarks on 183 Mode of Proceeding, remarks on the - - - 112, 118, 116 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the, 208, 314, 315, 821, 322, 33-, 366, 370-372 Publishing the Debates, remarks on - - - - 63 Publishing the Debates, remarks on...63 Resolutions offered to decide whether it is the wish of the people to be admitted into the Union, and remarks thereon, - 100, 102, 108 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - - 465 STIBLEY, HENRYR H. (President of Convention, and member from Dakota) 13, 348, 887, 574 Elected temporary President, -. 3 Remarks on taking the Chair (temporarily) - - - 4 Elected permanent President, - 99 Address on taking the Chair as permanent President, - - 100 Banks and Ballking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 393, 395, 396, 403, 405, 408, 411, 415 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks - - 91-96 Corporations other than Banks, remarks on, 126, 128, 129, 181, 136, 165, 169, 213, 216, 222, 224 Counties and Towns, remarks on - 468, 470-473, 475, 476, 479 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks on, - 190, 202 Elective Franchise, remarks on the - - - 427-429, 433, 437 Executive Department, remarks on the 3- 876 Judiciary, remarks on the - - 509, 516, 517 Legislative Department, remarks on 241, 244, 246, 249, 255, 256, 263-265, 268 Militia, remarks on the, - - 150, 152, 178, 180, 181 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - 544-548, 550-554 Name and Boundaries, remarks on - - - 567, 568 Pay of Republican Members, remarks on Mr. Gorman's resolution, 619 Personal and Explanatory remarks, - - - 491493 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks 210, 277, 283, 285, 308, 310, 319-321, 324, 325, 327, 330, 333, 3836-338, 862, 364, 865, 367-870 Printing the Debates and Proceedings, remarks on, - - 59 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, 444, 445, 447-449, 45-456, 458, 459 D XvII INDEX. STACEY, EDWIN C. (member from Freeborn) 13, 111, 112, 215, 389, 842, 343, 519, 542, 561, 582, 584,,585, 630 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 392, 399, 401, 403, 421 Compromise Resolutions introduced by Mr. Sherburne, remarks on, 355 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on Executive Department, remarks on the Form of Oath for the members, submitted by, Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on, - Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the, Resolution for final adjournment submitted, - Schedule, remarks on the - - - STANDING COMMITTEES APPOINTED, - - - STANDING RULES. See RULES. STATIONERY FOR MEMBERS, - - - - - 109, 482 STATISTICS-Election, required to be furnished to Committe on Credentials, 6 Indian, - 624 STREETER, O. W. (member from Houston) - 13, 119, 288, 306, 361, 561, 583 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on, 419-421 Compromise Resolutions introduced by Mr. Sherburne, remarks on, 354 Conference Committee, remarks on resolution to discharge, - 595 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the, - - - 63-70 Elective Franchise, remarks on the 580 Judiciary, remarks on the 514, 516, 579 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - - - 547, 548, 550 Pay of Republican Members, Resolution for, offered by - - 626 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - 441, 442, 445 STURPLGIS, WILLIAM, (member from Morrison) - - 13, 119, 139, 555 Banks and Banking and Finances of the State, remarks on, - 395 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, - - 611, 613 Judiciary, remarks on the 578 Miscellaneous PrQvisions, remarks on - - 553 Name and Boundaries, remarks on 570 Schedule, remarks on the - - - - 593-595 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 463, 464 SWAN, J. H. (member from Le Sueur) - 13, 119, 288, 342, 342, 347 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the - - 575 TAYLOR, WILLIAMI H. (member from Ramsey) 13, 119, 561, 573, 585, 627, 629 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on - 581 Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, - - - 604 Counties and Towns, remarks on - 584 Judiciary, remarks on the 578, 579 Miscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - - 557 Schedule, remarks on the 593, 595 TEMPORARY OFFICERS ELECTED, -.11, 12 'l1p,vooRDr, J. W. (member from Stearns) 13, 119, 120, 122, 170, 184, 576, 586, 626 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on - 387 'Conference Committee, remarks on Report of, - - - 608 Counties and Towns, remarks on 487 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on - - 445 XVIII - - 85-91 - 378, 382 96 - - 556 — 575 : - - 523 595, - - 119 I N D B. TMPouAuY ORGizATIoN op CoxvoN, - - 4 Remarks on by Mr. Gorman, - - - - - 8-10 ThANKs To OIFIcs, YoT or. To President, - - - - - - (328 To Official Reporter, - - - - - - (328 To Secretary, - - - - - - - (328 Towxs AND COUNTIm. See Couxri. TRANsLATIoNs OF THE CONSTITUTIOv, - - - - 61(3, 62(3 Appropriation for, - - - - - - 616 'uTTLR, CALvIN A. (member from Hennepin{ - - 14, 119, 895, 896, 627 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks on, - 219 Elective Frnnchise, remarks on the - - - - 424 Legislative Department, remarks on the - - - - 273 1iscellaneous Provisions, remarks on - - - - 554 School Funds, Education and Science, reinarks on - - - 451 VASSEUR, Louis, (member from Pembina) - - - - 18, 119 WAIT, H. C. (member from Stearns) 13, 119,:345, 870, 390, 898, 437, 509, Administers oath of office to certain members, - - - 99 Boundary, East and West line, remarks on Mr. Flandrau's resolutions, 526, 527, 530, 533, 539 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the - - - 71, 72 Corporations having no Banking Priviliges, remarks on - 182, 166 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks on 190, 193, 198 Elective Franchise, remarks on - - - - 5r80 Impeachments and Removals, remarks on 467 Judiciary, remarks on the - - 507, 510, 514, 576, 577. 579 Legislative Department, remarks on the - - - 252, 270 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks on the - - - 304 Resolution of instructions to Conference Committee submitted by, 557 Schedule,lremarks on the - - - - - - 592 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, 439, 445, 446, 463, 465 WARNER, FRANK, (member fromn Scott) - 62, 120, 155, 482, 611, 614, 623 Banks and Banking, and Finances of the State, remarks on - 419 Compromise Resolutions introduced by Mr. Sherburne, remarks on, 354, 355 Conduct of the Republicans, remarks on the - - - 67, 68 Corporations having no Banking Privileges, remarks on -'22, 224 Counties and Towns, remarks on 472 Distribution of the Powers of Government, remarks on - - 190 Judiciary, remarks on the -. 578 Legislative Department, remarks on - - - - 237 Preamble and Bill of Rights, remarks - - - 277, 287 Schedule, remarks on the 565 School Funds, Education and Science, remarks on, 4, 465, 466, 581 WILSoN, J. P. (member from Pembina) - - - 13, 119 XIX I P INDEX TO APPENDIX. ORGANIC ACT OF TiE TERRITORY OF MhINNESOTA, - - - ENABLING ACT OF CONGRESS, - - - TLEGISLATIVE ACT PROVIDING FOlR TIlE EXPENSES OF THE CONSTITUTIONA CONVEN TION,. I - 6 CONSTITUTION OF TIHE STATE OF MIINNESOTA, - - Atrticle I. Bill of Rights, - - - - - 1Z Name and Boundaries, - - - IlA. Distribution of Powers of Government, - IV. Legislative Department, - - - V. ExecutiveDI)epartment, - - - Vf Judiciary, - - - - - Vll. Elective Franchise, - - - - VII. School Funds, Education and Science, Lo. Finances of the State, Banks and Banking I. Corporations having no Banking Privileges, - Aft. Counties and Townships, - - - - AIA Of the Militia, - - - - ~IIA. Impeachments and Removals from Office, ASIV. Amendments to the Constitution, - - XV. Miscellaneous Subjects, - - - - Schedule, - - - - - Vote upon its Adoption, - - - - - Analytical Index to the Constitution, - - - 685-648 645-647 649, 650 651-676 651 (- 5 - 654 654 - 659 - 660 - 663 - 664 - 665 - 668 - 668 -669 - 669 670 - 670 - 671 - 677 679 REPORTER'S PREFACE. The Debates of the Convention which framed the Constitution of Minnesota differ, in some essential particulars, from those of other similar bodies under whose auspices the different States of the Union have commenced their organic existence. From the fact that a portion of the Delegates-elect to the Conventionl, representing one of the great political parties of the Territory, not only refused to co-operate with the-Convention in its proceedings, but constituted for themselves a rival organization, leaving the body composed entirely of Democratic members, many topics usually forming the bone of contention in such assemblies were disposed of with little discussion and almost entire unanimity, while others unknown to its predecessors occupied [much of the time of the Convention. There is also another somewhat peculiar feature of the Debates which might, at first, seem to depreciate their value: the draft of the Constitution finally adopted was the work of a joint committee of the two Conventions, and was acted on with comparatively little discussion; but when it is remembered that the Joint Committee reported almost verbatim et literatie the instrument framed by the Democratic Conventi6n, it is believed that this volume will not only record an important chapter in the history of Minnesota but will furnish an invaluable commentary on the fundamental law of the State. F. H. S. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OFTHE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MINNESOTA. FIRST DAY. MONDAY, July 13, 1857. This being the day fixed by law of Congress, for the meeting of the Convention to form a Constitution and State Government for lthe Territory of Minnesota, preparatory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, the Delegates elect assembled in thie Hall of the House of Representatives in the Capitol at S'Pint PtL]. Mr. C. L. CHASE, Secretary for the Territory, and delegate from the county of Hennepin, called the Convention to order. On motion of Mr. GORMNIAN the Convention adjourned until tomorrow at 12 o'clock, M. SECOND DAY. TUESDAY, July 14, 1857. At twelve M. the Delegates proceeded to the Hall of the HIlouse of Representatives, pursuant to adjournment on Monday. Mr. CHASE met the Delegates at the door of the Hall. Ho PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THEP said-Gentlemen: The Hall to which the Delegates adjourned yes terday, is now occupied by a meeting of the citizens of the Teritory, who refuse to give possession to the Constitutional Conver' tion. Mr. GORMAN. I move the Convention adjourn to the Conncil, Chamber. The motion was carried, and the Delegates accordingly repaired to the Council Chamber in the west wing of the Capitol Building, where Mr. CHASE called the Convention to order. TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION. Mr. J. R. BROWN, of Sibley, nominated Hlon. HENRY IL SIBLEY of Dakota county, as temporary Chairman of the Convention. Mr. MURRAY, of St. Paul, suggested that the Secretary shouldc read the "Enabling act," before a temporary organization wars< effected. Mr. BROWN waived his motion. Mr. GORMAN referred to the fact that in three Territories, nor States, the Constitutional Conventions were called to order by- the Federal office holders; and that the course pursued in this instance, in recognizing the Secretary, was regular and sustained by, precedents. The Secretary had a right to call the Convention tic order, and receive the credentials of members; and he would move that the credentials be handed to the Secretary. Mr. FLANDRAU, of Nicollet, said the proper course to pursuec would be to form a temporary organization, and then appoint a Committee on Credentials on whose report the Convention wouli( take action. Mr. MURRAY withdrew his motion for the reading of the Er-i abling Act, when Mr. BROWN renewed his motion that Hon. RENRY I. SIBLIE-Y, be chosen temporary Chairman of the Convention. The motion was carried by acclamation. The CHAIRMAN, on taking the Chair, addressed the Conventiorn as follows: GETLEMEN:-We have assembled under circumstances of peculiar solemnity. I thank you sincerely for the honor conferred by calling on me to act as temporary presiding officer. I hope all here assembled have a due appreciation of t-:? responsibility of the position they occupy, and that our proceedings will be characterized by that dignity and decorum which will put to shame the imputation thrown upon us as "Border Ruffians." 4 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The following pro tem. officers were then selected: Secretary, R. F. HOUSEWORTH, of St. Paul; Assistant Secretary,- HALL, of Hennepin; Sergeant-at-Arms, F. ORTHWEIN, of Carver; Messenger, HUGH GARROTY, of Dakota. Mr. AMES, of Hennepin, called for the reading of the Enabling Act. The Secretary was instructed to procure a certified copy of the act. A copy was procured from the Executive Office and read to the Convention by the Secretary. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, a Committee of five was appointcd on Credentials. And Me,srs. AMES, J. R. BRowN, NORTH, NORRIS, and THOMPSO~', named as the Committee. Mr. BROWN moved that the Rules of the HIouse of Representatives, so far as applicable, be adopted for the government of the Convention. Mr. MURRAY moved to amend by substituting the Rules of the Council. Mr. GORMAN. I hope the gentleman will not insist on his motion. I need not give my reasons why. (Laughter.) Mr. MURRAY. The reasons why the gentleman wishes not to adopt the Rules of the Council may be the very reasons why I should wish to adopt them. (Laughter.) I however withdraw my amendment. Mr. BROWN'S motion was then adopted. On motion of Mr. FLANDRAU, the roll was called by districts, and the delegates present came forward and deposited their credentials with the Secretary. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the members of the Committee on Credentials were authorized to receive the Credentials of such other members as were in the city, or might arrive before the meeting of the Convention to-morrow. The Convention then, on motion of Mr. MUPRRAY, adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o'clock M. THIRD DAY. WEDNESDAY, July 15, 1857. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. 5 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS. 'Mr. A. E. AMES, from the Committee on Credentials, reported that several of the delegates elect had not yet handed in their Credentials, and that the Committee asked for further time in which to make out their report. Mr. BROWN. I move that the time be extended until Monday next. I will state that if the Committee can get their report ready before that time,of course they will submit it to the Convention. It is well known to gentlemen here that several delegates, who have been legally elected, have not received their certificates of election. It becomes necessary, therefore, to examine the Credentials in such cases, with more care thai would otherwise be re(quisite. The motion was agreed to. STATISTICS. Mr. BECKER submitted the following resolution wIhich was >considered and adopted: REsOLVED, That the Secretary of the Territory be requested to furnish the Committee on Credentials with an abstract of the returns of the elections of Delegates to this body, showing the names of members elected, and the votes cast in each Council district. RULES, The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will take this occasion to suggest that under the order of the Convention yesterday, the Rules of the last HIouse of Representatives were adopted, so far as applicable, for the government of the Convention during its temporary organization, and as there are a large number of delegates who are not conversant with those Rules, and who have no opportunity of obtaining them, it may be well for the Convention to take some action in reference to the matter of placing it within the power of gentlemen to provide themselves with a copy of the Rules, Mr. FLANDRAU. We have a Territorial Printer whose duty it is to perform such printing as may arise for the use of the Territory, in the vacancy between the sessions of the Legislature. I move, therefore, that he be instructed to print one hundred and fifty copies of the Rules of the last House of Representatives for the use of the Convention. Mr. MEEKER. These Rules were made for a different body altogetber, and will have to be changed or modified very'considerably before they will be adapted to our use. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be better to appoint a Committee to revise and ,,16 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. prepare a code of Rules adapted to our wants before we have them printed. Mr. BROWN. The Rules adopted for our government during our temporary organization, are not in the possession of the members of the Convention. It seems absolutely necessary that we should be as conversant with those Rules as possible, The only way we can procure them is through the Territorial Printer. They need not necessarily be published in book form. We may get them in slips, or in any way that will answer our purpose until a permanent organization shall be effected. The motion was agreed to. JOURNAL. Mr. FLANDRAU. I would suggest whether it would not be well to have our Journals printed daily, and placed upon our desks. I make that as a motion. Mr. BECKER. Would it not be well to designate the number? Mr. BROWN. The Rules designate the number. The motion was agreed to. The Convention then, on motion of Mr. FLANDRAU, adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o'clock M. FOURTH DAY. THURsDAY, July 16, 1857. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment at 12 M., and was called to order by the President. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the reading of the Journal of the previous day was dispensed with. In consequence of the room being still in an unfinished state, On motion of MAr. SETZER, the Convention adjourned until to. morrow, at 12 o'clock M. FIFTH DAY. FRIDAY, July 17, 1857. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, at 12 o'clock, m. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. Mr. SETZER moved that the Convention adjourn until to-morrow at 12 o'olock, M. IT PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TI-IE Mr. GORMAN. Before the question is put on that motion, I should like, with the consent of the Convention, to make one or two remarks. I see going the rounds of the press of this Territory, statements in regard to the conduct of the members of the Constitutional Convention which has met in this hall; and I wish, with the permission of gentlemen, to make a distinct statement of facts, for the purpose of placing us right before the country. The members of the Constitutional Convention met in the hall of the House of Representatives, at 12 o'clock, as near as may be, on the 13th day of July, 1857. A motion. was made to the person who called the Convention to order-bhe being a member of the Constitutional Convention, Secretary of the Territory, and Acting Governor-to adjourn by a member of the Convention, whose seat never has been, and perhaps never will be, contested-whic/h motion was il order, and took precedence of all other notions, according to well established parliamentary law. That motion was distinctly put, in the presence of nineteen-twentieths of the members elected to the Constitutional Convention. It was distinctly voted for, by a large and overwhelming majority of that Convention, by the sound. It was distinctly voted against by some fifteen or twenty members of the party not acting with us here, judging fromi the direction in which the sound came. No division was called for-no objection was made to our action. The Convention did, on the 13th of July, at 12 o'clock, adjourn-a fact as incontestible and incontrovertible as any fact can be fixed by a transaction-and the Convention met again in pursuance of that adjournment, at the door of the Hall of the House of Representatives. The person who had called that Convention to order-a member of the Constitutional Convention, the Secretary and acting Governor of the Territory, having charge of the Capitol, and having of right, the keys of that Hall-met the Convention at the door, inside that Hall. He announced that the room to which we had adjourned as lawfully and legally as ever the Congress of the United States or any other deliberative body adjourned, was in possession of a meeting of a body of the citizens of this Territory; whereupon a motion was made to him by the same person by whom the original motion was made to adjourn, that the Convention adjourn to the Council Chamber, in the Capitol, at the Seat of Government of the Territory of Minnesota. That motion was put-it was carried-.and the Convention proceeded to this room. They effected a temporary organization, and they are here now. Why did we thus meet at the door of the Hall of the House of Representatives? The world must know that we met there be 8 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .cause the members of the opposite party had gone into that Hall or Capitol building at 12 o'clock on Sunday night. How many or 'how few, I presume no person here desires to state, because they do not know. The fact that they did thus go there has been distinctly denied by one of the daily Republican papers of this city, and as distinctly admitted by another of the same party. That it is notoriously true that they did meet at 12 o'clock on Sunday night, in that Hall, or in the Capitol, this whole Territory can be, and must be, and will be, satisfied. It is a fair supposit,ion from the tone of the public press, that it was with a view of ,preventing a forcible possession, upon our part, or the part of otherS, or with the view of taking forcible possession themselves, or to put the best face upon it, that it was with a view of being there upon the ground. But, whatever the motives which governed their action, it is a fact that at 12 o'clock on Sunday night, that Hall or the Capitol was taken possession of by a body of citizens of Minnesota, claiming to be, themselves, of the Constitutional Convention, who remained there without organization until 12 o'clock on ,londay. Now to the point: After the Convention had adjourned at 12 o'clock on the 13th instant, there was a body of its members, no doubt properly elected, but not a quorum, who stayed in the Hall when the Convention adjourned, and by force, by usurpation, or by their own volition, without order, without regularity, contrary to that adjournment, assumed to perfect an organization of the Conmention. Sir, if there had been two-thirds of the Convention there, after it had adjourn-ed, they had no right to stay there and organizep. It was, therefore, an act of usurpation, without precedent, -without right, without the sanction of parliamentary usage, con trary to any custom which has ever obtained in this or any other ~.country. Sir, if the scenes which have been transacted in the American nation during the last eighteen months are to go on, deliberative bodies will become mobs, and the world will so regard them. This Constitutional Convention met at the time and place prescribed by latw, and I want it distinctly understood and placed upon record, t:hat' we are now in session in this Hall, in obedience to regular adjournments made in accordance with the forms and rules, and parliamentary customs of all the deliberative bodies upon the American continent. There can be no doubt, there is to be no doubt upon the subject. And if we have to go before the country to defend our organization upon the ground of the reg:,larity of that adjournment, there is but one mind, but one voice, 9 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE among the members present. I give notice to the people of' the Territory that it was a fair, parliamentary, legal adjournment of the Constitutional Convention. They who organize, either temporarily or permanently out of time, out of place, even though they have the majority, are irregular, without authority, without precedent, and unjustifiable before the country. Mr. PRESIDENT, I will not go into the details of our action further. If we have' elected a majority of what are termed Democrats, by the votes of the people, I trust we shall act in accordance with the course we have pursued. Further than this, I do not propose saying to-day. It would be out of time, perhaps out of place, to attempt to go beyond that which we have done in accordance with parliamentary usage and parliamentary custom. Whatever is to be done hereafter, I will close by saying that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Mr. SETZER. I regret that the gentleman from St. Paul has seen fit to notice the attempts made to defend the course of those sitting in the other wing of the Capitol. The falsehoods published in defence of their course are so well understood as to make it unnecessary to speak of them even in private conversation, and I think it is giving them too much consequence, even to allude to them in this Convention. I renew the motion to adjourn. The motion was agreed to, and the Convention adjourned until to-morrow at 12 o'clock, M. SIXTH DAY. SATURDAY, July 18, 185T The Convention met at 12 o'clock M., pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The Hall being still in an unfinished state, On motion of Mr. BECKER, the Convention adjourned until Monday next, at half-past two o'clock, P. M. SEVENTH DAY. MONDAY, July 20, 1857. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment at half past two o'clock, P. M., and was called to order by the PRESIDENT, pro teml. 10 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. On motion of Mr. BECKER the reading of the Journal of Saturday was dispensed with. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the Convention adjourned until two o'clock P. M. to-morrow. EIGHTH DAY. TUESDAY, July 21, 1857. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o'clock, P. M. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The PRESIDENT pro tempore announced the first business in order to be the Report of the Committee on CREDENTIALS. Mr. A. E. AMES. The Committee on Credentials are not fully ready to report at this time. If it is the pleasure of the Convention, they will report as far as they have gone, but there is a matter before them still under consideration, and they would prefer not to report until to-morrow. Mr. BECKER. I think this matter had better not be disposed of until there is a further attendance of members. Gentlemen have not yet come in from their dinners. I move that the Convention take a recess for fifteen minutes. The motion was agreed to. After an interval of fifteen minutes, the Convention was again called to order. The PRESIDENT pro ternpore announced the report of the Committee on Credentials to be the business in order. Mr. A. E. AMES again asked in behalf of the Committee, further time to make up their report. Mr. BECKER. The members of the Committee on Credentials are not all present. I am confident if they were, they would have something to present to the Convention. I hope the matter will not be acted on until they all come in. Mr. SETZER. The Chairman of that Committee-informs us that he has no report to make. Unless the gentleman from St. Paul (Mr. BECKER,) has something to present, I do not see the necessity of waiting. I think the Committee have worked faithfully, and I will move that they be allowed until to-morrow to report. The motion was agreed to. ii. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE ELECTION OF TEMPORARY OFFICERS. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the following temporary officers were elected, those previously elected to the same places having declined to serve: JOSEPH TUSAROW, Sergeant-at-Arms; WILLIAM SABURY, Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms; JOHN BELL and FRANK PEIFNER, Messengers. Mr. MURRAY moved that the Convention adjourn. A Member moved to amend so as to adjourn until to-morrow at 12 o'clock, m. The amendment was disagreed to. The Convention refused to adjourn. Mr. GORMAN moved to send the Sergeant at-Arms after the absentees. The motion was disagreed to. RESOLUTION OF THANKS. Mr. BUTLER. I think there is an acknowledgment due on the part of this Convention to the gentleman who has had charge of the fitting up of this Hall. I therefore move that the thanks of the Convention be tendered to Mr. BECKER for the substantial and elegant manner in which he has fittee up this Iall. Mr. MURRAY. I trust the gentleman will withdraw that motion until the gentleman who has charge of fitting up the Hall has furnished us with chairs. (Laughter.) The resolution was unanimously adopted. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention tihen adjourned until to-morrow, at 12 o'clock, M. NINTH DAY. WEDNESDAY, July 22, 1857. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment at 12 o'clock M. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. CREDENTIALS. Mr. BROWN, from the Committee on Credentials, presented the following report. The Committee appointed to examine the Credentials of members elect to this Convention respectfully report: That the following certificates of election have been presented, to which 12 I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. there are no contests, or no dispute whatever as to the right of the several persons named to take seats as members. FIRST COUNCIL DISTRICT.-Wm. Holcombe, James S. Norris, Henry N. Setzer, Gould T. Curtis, Charles G. Leonard, Newington Gilbert, Charlds E. Butler, R. H. Sanderson. SECOND COUNCIL DISTRICT.-George L. Becker, Moses Sherburne, D. A. J. Baker, Lafayette Emmett, Wm. P. Murray, W. A. Gorman, Wm. H. Taylor, Jno. S. Prince, Patrick Nash, Wm. B. McGrorty, Paul Faber, Michael E. Ames. FOURTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-Edwin C. Stacey. FIrrFTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-Daniel Gilman, H. C. Wait, J. C. Shepley, Wm. Sturgis, Jno. W. Tenvoorde. FIFTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-W. W. Kingsbury, R. H. Barrett. SIXTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-Ht. H. Sibley, Robert Kennedy, Daniel J. Burns, Frank Warner, Win. A. Davis, Josiah Burwell, Henry G. Bailly, Andrew Keegan. SEvENTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-James McFetridge, J. P. Wilson, J. Jerome, Xavier Cantell, Joseph Rolette, Louis Vasseur. EIGHTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-James C. Day. TEN-T COUNCIL DISTRICT.-JOScph R. Brown, C. E. Flandrau, Fralncis Baasen, Wm. B. McMahan, J. H. Swan. ELEVENTH COUNCIL DISTRICT.-Alfred E. Ames. Your Committee would further state that the following certified copy of an abstract of the vote polled in the Third Council District, upon which Messrs. B. B. Meeker, Wm. M. Lashelles, C. A. Tuttle, and C. L. Chase claim to be duly elected, was referred to the Committee for examination, viz: At an election held at the City Council room, in the city of Saint Anthony, in Saint Anthony Precinct, in the county of Hennepin, and Territory of Minnesota, on the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, the following named persons received the number of votes annexed to their respective names, for the following described offices, to wit: B. B. Meeker received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, five hundred and twenty-four votes. Samuel Stanchfield received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, four hulldred and ninety-five votes. Richard Fewer received for Delegate to,the Constitutional Convention, four hundred and ninety-six votes. Wm. M. Lashelles received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, four hundred and ninety seven votes. C, A. Tuttle received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, five hundred and nine votes. C. L. Chase received for Delegate to the Constitational Convention, five hundred and twenty-one votes. J. H. Murphy received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, from the Council District, four hundred and ninety-six votes. S. W. Putnam received for Delegate to the Constitutional Coi,vention, from the Council District, four hundred and ninety-one votes. D. A. Secombe received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the Rep. resentative District, four hundred and seventy two votes.' D. M. Hall received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, from the Representative District, four hundred and eighty-five votes. L. C. Walker received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, from the Representative District, five hundred and three votes. P. Winell received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, frog the Representative District, five hundred and twelve rotes. 13 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Winell received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, from the Representative District, two votes. Lashelles received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, from the Representative District, two votes. C. Chasse received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the Representative District, one vote. F. Fuker received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention from the Representative District, one vote. John Weersinger received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, one vote. I. Winells received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, one vote. Walker received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, one vote. Some White Man received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, one vote. Putnam received for Delegate to the Constitutional Convention, one vote. Certified by us, JAMES B. GILBERT. ) Judges MOSES W. GITCHELL, of STEPHEN COBB,, Election. Attest: H. B. TAYL OR,f Election DAN. M. DENSMORE,} Clerks of Election. OFFICE OF RE(GISTER OF ]DEEDS, Hennepin Co., M. T. - I certify' that the above written, is a full, true and aecurate copy of the original, as it appears on file at this office. GEO. W. CHOWEN, Dep. Reg. Deeds, Hennepin Co., M. T. Minneapolis, June 15, 1857. Thus we find that B. B. Meeker, P. Winell, C. L. Chase, C. A. Tuttle, L. C. Walker, and Wm. M. Lashelles, received the highest number of votes in the District, and because, as your Committee learns, there was no distinction made between delegates for the Council District anid delegates for the Representative District, the certificates of election have been withheld from B. B. Meeker,.'C. L. Chase, C. A. Tuttle, and Win. M. Lashelles. The Enabling Act authorizes each Representative District existing within the limits of the proposed State, to elect two delegates for each Representative to which said District may be entitled, according to the apportionment for Representatives to the Territorial Legislature. The precinct of St. Anthony constitutes the 3d Council District, which elects one member of the Council, and two members of the House of Representatives. It is a Representative District entitled to elect six Delegates to the Convention, without any connection with any other portion of the Territory. There was no election in the District at any other point than at the place designated by law for opening the polls for the St. Anthony precinct, in the city of St. Anthony. What reason could possibly exist for a distinction as to whether the Delegates were to represent members of the Council or of the House of Representatives? All were elected to perform the same duty, and to meet in the same Hall. Neither justice nor propriety required any distinctive difference upon the ballots of voters, and therefore, no doubt can exist of the right of the six persons having the highest number of votes at the election, to take their seats as members of the Constitutional Convention. Even admitting that, as is the case in many of the Districts, several counties, or two or more Districts for the election of Representatives had been included within the 3d Council District, which would make it proper to permit a distinction to be made between Delegates representing the Council District entire, and those representing the several Districts within that Council District, which were 14 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. entitled to elect Delegates-even in that case, the person or persons obtaining the highest number of votes in the Council District would be entitled to represent that Council District in Convention. The only object in making a distinction is, that the voters throughout the Council District may have an opportunity of participating in the choice of all the Delegate that are to represent the District, and every individual is free to select the persons for whom he wishes to vote. It is therefore but right and just to suppose that the person having the highest number of votes in the District, is entitled to a seat, for the simple reason, that the entire District should be supposed to cast more votes than any subdivision within that District. The will of the majority as clearly expressed through the ballot box, should be paramount, and that majority can only be determined by the votes polled. How ridiculous it is to suppose that a man is entitled to represent a Council District by virtue of having received fifty votes, in preference to another who received one hundred votes in a subdivision of the same District. But as there were no subdivisions of the Third Council District, and as there was but one precinct opened within that District, there cannot be the remotest reason for making a distinction between the Representatives of the Councillor and those of the members of the House, and we therefore believe that B. B. Meeker, C. L. Chase, C. A. Tuttle, and Wm. H. Lashelles, are legally elected and entitled to take their seats in this Convention: Mr. O. W. Streeter presented the following abstract of the Houston county vote, upon which he claims a seat in the Constitutional Cnvention. Upon examination of the Poll Lists of the several Precincts of the county of Houston, Minnesota Territory, it was ascertained that C. A. Coe received three hundred and twenty-nine (329) votes. Boyd Phelps received three hundred and six (306) votes. E. Mackintire received one (1)vote. James C. Day received forty-nine (49) votes. J. A. Anderson received thirty-seven (37) votes. T. H. Conniff received two (2) votes. 0. W. Streeter received three (3) votes for Delegate at large. C. W. Thompson received four hundred and forty-four (444) votes. M. G. Thompson received three hundred and forty-seven (347) votes. J. A. Anderson received four hundred and four (404) votes. J. A. McCan received four hundred and forty-nine (449) votes. O.W. Streeter received three hundred and seventy-five (375) votes. T. H.Couniffreceived two hundred and sixtyeight (268) votes. E. MaQkintire received three hundred and forty-one (341) votes. J. C. Day received three hundredsand seventy-seven (377) Votes. J.B. LeBlond received two hundred and two (202) votes. L. D. Seefridge received ninety-one (91) votes for Delegate for Houston county. We, the undersigned, do hereby certify the above to be a correct abstract of the vote in Houston county, M. T., on the first Monday, the 1st day of June, A. D. 1857, for Delegates to the Constitutional Convention to frame a Constitution. JAMES A. MeCAN, Reg. of Deeds. JAcOB WE.BSTE;R } Justices of the Peaoe. JAMES C. DAY, I hereby certify the above to be a true copy of the abstract of the vote in this county for the purpose above specified. JAMES A. MeCAN, Reg. of Deeds, and Clerk of the Board of Co. Cornm. This case is similar to that of the Third Council District, with this difference, that the county of Houston is connected with the county of Mower for the election of Councillors, while each of these counties form a representative sub-division of the Eighth Council District. The Register of Deeds of Houston county, previous to the election, caused notices of the election to be posted in the several precincts, of which the following is a copy: "'Notice is hereby given that on the first Monday, the first day of June next, an 15 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIHE election will be held in the town of Caledonia, in Cale donia precinct, Houston county, to elect five Delegates to the Constitutional Convention to frame a Constitution, which election will be opened at 9 o'clock in the morning, and continue open until 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day. (Signed) JAMES A. McCAN, May 19th, 1857. Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. As the counties of Houston and Mower send one Councillor, and the county of Houston two, and the county of Mower one, members to the House of Repre sentatives, properly the counties of Houston and Mower together had the right to send two, the county of Houston four, and the county of Mower two mem bers to the Constitutional Convention. By the notice above inserted it will be seen that the Register of Deeds direct ed an election in Houston county, for five Delegates, being four for the two Representatives to which the county was entitled, and one of the two Delegates to which the counties of Houston and Mower were entitled in virtue of the Councillor allotted by law to these two counties, leaving one of the Delegates from the Counci] sub-division, and two from the Mower county Representative sub-division to be elected by the county of Mower. Therefore, by the position assumed by the Register of Deeds of Houston countyprevious to the election, there was no distinction necessary between the members elected, because they were all to be elected from the same county, and therefore, the persons having the highest number of votes in the county of Houston to the number of five, were undoubtedly entitled to certificates of election, and yet the same Register of Deeds who directed the election to be held without designating any distinction, having himself by an arrangement with Mower county taken away all necessity for a distinction, refused to grant certificates to the five members having the highest number of votes, and gave a certificate to a person having three hundred and twenty-nine votes, and refusing certificates to two persons having a greater number of votes. Upon these grounds Mr. O. W. Streeter claims a right to a seat in this Convention, he having received 378 votes, as shown by the returns of the election in Houston county, whliile Mr. Coe, the person who received the certificate, received but three hundred and twenty-nine votes in the county. Your Commitmittee being satisfied. of the legality of the election of Mr. O. W. Streeter, would recommend that he be admitted to a seat in this Convention. Your Committee also have unofficial evidence that Mr. Thomas Armstrong has received a majority of from forty to fifty votes for Delegate to this Convention from the county of Mower, but owing to the want of regularity in the evidence of that fact, youir Committee are not at present prepared to report upon the case, but will be prepared to do so as soon as official evidence can be obtained, which will be in a few days. Your Committee having, therefore, unquestionable official evidence laid before them of the legal election of one-half of the members elect to the Constitutional Convention, and having also evidence which is not deemed official of the election of another member, making in all a majority of all the members elected, would at the same time state that from the official returns from all the different Council Districts handed to your Committee by the Secretary of the Territory, it is clear that the members having seats in this Convention represent a majority of 1635, of the popular vote of the Territory. All of which is respectfilly submitted. A. E. AMES, J. S. NORRIS, JOSEPH R BROWN. 16 Committee. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the report was accepted. Mr. SETZER moved that the recommendation of the Committee relative to the Delegates from St. Anthony and Houston, be adopted. Mr. SHERBURNE. If I understand the motion of the gentleman from Washington County, it is that the report be accepted so far as it relates to the Delegates from St. Anthony and Houston. I would suggest to the gentleman that if there are objections to the adoption of the report entire, he should present his motion in a form which will point out the exceptions. Mr. SETZER. The gentleman did not understand my motion. The Committee report the Credentials of the Delegates who have presented them. They also submit certain recommendations relative to the delegates from St. Anthony and Houston. Now I propose to adopt these recommendations, so that when the members of the Convention come to be sworn in, there shall be no question raised with regard to these delegates. Mr. SHERBURNE. I withdraw all opposition to the gentleman's motion. On motion of Mr. BROWN, the Report of the Committee was then adopted, and 15,000 copies ordered to be printed. CONDUCT OF THE REPUBLICANS. Mr. FLANDRAU. I rise to offer to this Convention a resolution and to move its adoption. I shall read the resolution, and propose to make a few comments upon it before making such motion. Mr. F. then read the Resolutioln, as follows WHEREAS,'There is official evidence, from the Report of the Committee on Credentials, that there is a majority of the legally-elected members to the Constitutional Convention who claim and are entitled to seats in this Convention; and WHEREAS, The members ascertained to be legally elected from the official documents before this Convention, represent more than sixteen hundred majority of the popular vote of the Territory; and WHEREAS, There is now a body of men who have taken possession of one of the Halls of this Capitol, and call themselves the Constitutional Convention, without any legal authority or right, although some of those connected with that assemblage may be entitled to seats in this Convention, but who have not seen proper, as yet, to present their credentials or to attend the meetings of this. body, since the regular adjournment of the Convention on Monday, the 13th instant; therefore RESOLVED, That the assemblage of persons now occupying the Representatives' Hall of this Capitol, styling themselves "The Constitutional Convention," is without the authority of law or of parliamentary usage, and revolutionary in its character, and therefore should not be recognized by the electors of this Territory, nor by the officers of the General or Territorial Government. a i'T I'ROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE RESOLVED, That a copy of the above preamble and resolution, together with a copy of the Report of the Committee on Credentials, be forwarded to the Presi dent of the United States, each of the heads of the Departments of the General Government, each of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, and to the Governor, Secretary, Marshal, Librarian, Audi -tor and Treasurer of the Territory of Minnesota. MR. PRESIDENT:-In offering this resolution, and in the remarks I shall make in support of it, my object will be to vindicate before the people of this Territory, the people of the United States, and I may add, the people of the civilized world, the position occupied by this Constitutional Convention. Let it be remembered that the trust which has been reposed in this body is one of peculiar sanc tity and importance; let it be remembered that to the people-the constituency of this Territory-we are responsible for our action. Let it be remembered that there is a deep and abiding interest felt and manifested throughout this whole country in the action that shall be taken by this body, and let it be remembered that the members present in this Convention represent a very large majority of the popular vote in this Territory. With these considerations before us it behooves us to permit nothing to pass in this Convention relative to its organization, the propriety of the conduct of its members, or any other matter which the people have an interest in and a right to be informed upon without supplying them with a full and just account of it through the official medium of this floor. Now, sir, when I say thie people of the United States, as well ,as the people of this Territory, have their eyes upon us, I do not make an assertion which is at all exaggerated. The coming into thle Federal Union of a new State is a matter of such solemn importance, that the deepest solicitude is always manifested .by the whole country upon the character of the institutions that are to be established in that State. The eyes of civilized Europe, also, jealous of the prosperity and progress of this American Confederacy and the triumphant advance of Democratic institutions, will also be fixed, with anxious gaze, upon the addition to its power of another sovereign State. Mr. PRESIDENT: The language of this resolution charges, upon certain refractory members who have been elected to this Convention, serious delinquencies and acts of misconduct; and it be- comes the duty of each member of this Convention to present to his constituents his actions, as contrasted with those of the opposition, to enable them to make up their judgments deliberately, before the hour arrives for them to sit in judgment upon the fruits of our lab!brs 18 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. I charge here, Mr. PRESIDENT, that there has been an unscrupulous and determined combination throughout this Territory, from the passage of the Enabling Act, by those who style themselves the Republican party, to carry this Convention, to obtain a supremacy here, to impress upon the Constitution, that shall be submitted to the people for their ratification and sanction, certain features obnoxious in themselves, repudiated by the people, and peculiar only to that political organizatien; and let me state that in making this assertion that the subsequent conduct and acts of that party fully sustain me, as I shall endeavor to demonstrate to this Convention. It was not my good fortune to be able, during the canvass and election, to be much among the people. But, Sir, with the small opportunities for observation that were allowed me, confined principally to my own district, I do not hesitate in saying that there was, in certain counties, more illegal practices imposed ulpon the people to defeat the election of the Democratic delegates to this Convention, than ever happened within the same area of Territory in the United States, or any other country. Voters were imported into some of these counties in wagon loads, to assist the Republicans in carrying the election. And, I tell you, that gentlemen who are now holding seats on the opposite side of this Capitol, who differ with me in politics, will agree with me in making this assertion. After this election was over it became pretty generally understood that the Democracy had carried a majority of the delegates throughout the Territory. This it was determined by the opposition must be defeated. The will of the people had been expressed by a large majority. In the popular vote they had succeeded in electing delegates to carry out their wishes and to frame a Constitution which would accord with their views c' a proper and wise political government. The opposition finding themselves thwarted in their anticipated success, had to resort to other measures to circumvent and defeat the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. And, sir, what were they? Who, I ask you, are occupying seats on the other side of this Capitol? Men, I answer, who have been repudiated by tho people at the polls. How does it happen that these men assume to come in and deliberate in the Councils of the Constitutional Convention of Minnesota? They have not been sent here by the only principal authorized to depute them-the people. They have been discarded at home, and why then do they assume to sit there? It has been through the trickery and chicanery of certain officials. It will be said that they haveprimafacie the right to take that position, because forsooth, they have received credentials from the officer 2 10 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIlP whose duty it is to certify to the members having the greatest number of votes. I answer, sir, by presenting these facts: In the first place it was so palpably, so manifestly wrong, that the very members of the opposition would delight in the opportunity-by a contest-to relieve themselves of the odium of the position they occupy and have placed their party in, by expelling those members from that house. And, sir, there exists a perfect answer to the primafacie character of right claimed for these credentials, which leaves no apology for the disreputable position that factious body have placed themselves in by admitting them to seats among them. It is this: the people of that District were so outraged when it was made public that their wishes, as expressed through the ballot box, had been attempted to be defeated by an official of their own creation, that they insisted such a man should be removed from office. Charges were preferred against him for misconduct in office, before the proper tribunal; this ilan received a fair and impartial hearing. He made his defence there by his Attorney, and it was finally adjudged against him that he had been guilty of official misconduct; that he had violated his sworn duties as an officer, and had attempted to subvert the will of the people. This judgment, I say, removes fromn these papers styling themselves credentials upon their face, all authority which they might otherwise carry with them. I shall not go into the reasons of the opposition for the course they have pursued, the matter has been fully discussed by the public press. The misconduct of this officer has been generally admitted by all parties and persons, and no one has yet been bold enough to attempt an argument in his favor or palliation except himself. It has been admitted everywhere that the deed was done deliberately and calmly. But, sir, I rejoice to be able to send back word to the people that this design has been frustrated by the integrity and firmness of the delegates, who came here determined that their expressed will should prevail. Again, let us look upon the action of that body, let us scrutinize it, and see whether there is any consistency in their action; let us see whether they have not attempted, by subverting the will of the people, to obtain the ascendency in the Convention at all .hazards. In order to the chapter in their history that I now pro,pose to discuss, I must refer, somewhat in detail, to the facts connected with the election of this St. Anthony delegation. The district was entitled to send six delegates to the Convention; it was composed of one Council District, which elected one Councillor and two Representatives to the Legislature within precisely the same area 20 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. of country, with no political subdivisions, which in any manner made the district represented by the Councillor in any way different from that of the Representatives; they received votes from the same constituency; these votes were polled at one place, and one place only, in the entire district. They were entitled to six delegates to this Convention without the possibility of making a distinction in the manner of their election. Notwithstanding this, the officer making out the credentials created the Necessity of a distirnction for the Fpurpose of awarding certificates to the parties whom he desired should obtain seats. Now, Mr. PPESIDENT, had the party who have received these persons into their body been consistent, they would have adopted the same principle throughout, in the rejection of all members presenting themselves there who had been elected in a similar manner. Had they done this there would have been less to complain of. It would have looked at least as if there was good faith ill the trans. action. It would have removed the argument that it was done to cheat the people. But sir, such has not been the case; there are members sitting in that Convention-and I am told, and believe that the gentleman who presides over that body, is one of themwho were elected in precisely the same manner. Why, sir, the thing is so manifest that it is insulting to the intelligence of the people of this Territory to argue it. If men's motives are to be judged by their actions, it is an insult, I reiterate, to argue before the tribunal who will sit in review upon this Convention. A similar case has occured in another portion of this country in a district in tale Southlern portion of the Territory, a member was elected who uas a Democrat; the officer whose duty it was to give him his eeliit.lte of election, was at first a little more conscientious ti'.t tlc Ie have been critising; he averred a doubt, and deferred action utn. the candidates should arrive at the Capitol, and a proposition was made to allow the matter to be submitted to, and determined by the Convention. But this officer had not been iu St. Paul more than a few hours before, by some mysterious appliances, his scruples were removed and the certificate passed into the hands of the Republicans. Sir, it is not necessary to waste time in the discussion of the motives of men whose acts stand out emblazoned upon the record in such characters. But, sir, the disgusting detail does riot stop here. In the county of iHennepin, the Register of Deeds whom we first had under consideration, to in some way cover up his tracks in the course he had taken towards the St. Anthony delegation, made out and offered to a Democratic delegate, a certificate of election, which 21 PROCEEDINGS AND DEiBATES OF TIHE for some reason, best known to the gentleman he declined to receive. What, sir, I ask, is the inference to be drawn from this act? Why, one would naturally suppose that the Register had decided that the party to whom he offered the certificate had received the highest numb(er of votes, and was duly elected; and that his opponent was duly defeated. But, sir, it would seem that no such thing was the case; that the Register did not deem this delegate elected any more than he did the Republicans, whom he knew were not, and the body in session on the other side agreed with him. For, sir, I am informed, and believe that the delegate to whom he refused the certificate, and at first decided was not elected, is now holding a seat on the other side of the Capitol, under the sanction of that meeting. Whether he is accredited there by this officer or not, I have not felt it necessary to investigate. I do not think such palpably improper conduct endorsed by that body, requires investigation. I merely state the fact, and let it speak for itself. It is plainer and stronger than any argument of mine can make it; it will go to the people of this Territory, carrying conviction on its face, which requires no support. And the party which has committed this outrage will be entirely unable to meet or answer it; its force will crush thernm. Mr. PRESIDENT: Let me ask why all this has been done; these men have found, on coming here, that in order to make out their majority, it was necessary to do these things. They have been instructed from abroad that Minnesota must have a Republican Constitution, and in obedience to the will of their masters, they have, finding it impossible to do it regularly, and having been rebuked through the ballot-box, they have created the material and machinery to carry it over the people. You see the result of their councils and their action. Such was the condition of things as fourni w'Xhen tie meminbers of this Convention met at St. Paul, previo)us to the time of its convening. The usual time for the assembling of these bodies, when no time is fixed by law, is 12 o'clock at noon of the first day. Propositions had passed between members elect of different political bentiments, in which it was ascertained that this was assented to by all. The Democratic Delegates, supposing that this thing was in good faith,, though not caring whether it was or not, so far as their position was concerned; attended to their own concerns, eat their breakfasts, and repaired to the Capitol at the hour designated. They found that the Hall had been in the possession of the opposition delegates. Had it been in possession of only duly elected members, 22 CONSTITUTIONAL CONV'ITION. objectioins would not have had the same force as they now carry. But, sir, when I came into that Hall, I saw men occupying seats with their names on them, and as if they held them by pre-emption. The well known fact of their taking possession of the Hall prior to the time the Convention was to assemble, shows a deterrmination on their part to have a prior possession, a prior organization, and to carry out the views I have already stated, at all hazards. Such we found them when we got there; we entered the Hall in an orderly manner, and took our seats; we were preceded by the Secretary of the Territory, who held the position not only as Secretary of the Territory, but was a legally elected member of the Constitutional Convention. Now, sir, when you discuss the propriety of the Secretary of the Territory calling the Convention to order, and of his being the proper officer to perform that duty, the position is tenable by all precedents and usage; but when you add to it, that he was a member of the Convention, possessed of all the rights and privileges of any other member, it seems to me that his right to call the Convention to order certainly was equal to that of any other member; and, in consideration of his official character as Secretary of the Territory, upon the authority of precedent, we were justified in supposing that he had a superior right. But, sir, leaving all that out of the question, he took the chair first: the fact that he did take it before any other member of the Convention, cannot, and I think will not, be disputed, by any imember who desires to speak the truth. When there, ordinary propriety and ordinary decency, in a body of men who desired to act in a courteous, orderly and parliamentary m-anmier, would have permitted him to have performed the office, imake his remarks or whatever he took the chair for. Well, sir, he called the Convention to order; and when he did itI trust there is no one so recreant to truth as to say that there was not a large majority of the Convention present-a motion to adjourn was made by a member of the Convention, until noon of the next day; that motion was put, and there was a large vote in the affirmative-a very considerable number also voted in the negative, including in the whole vote cast manifestly more than two-thirds of all the members elected. No division was called for, and nothing transpired to prevent the final executionof the order of the Convention to adjourn; the vote was declared by the chair, an the Convention adjourned. Now during this proceeding another member stepped into the chair from a position where he was posted for that purpose. Hlad not Mr. Chase had the chair, this gentleman would have had as 23 0 PRIOCEEDINGS AID DEBATES OF THE good a right there as any one else, but with the chair already occupied by a person entitled to all the privileges that he possessed, it was indecorous to attempt to obtrude himself upon the Convention. But he did, in disregard of decorum, and put a motion that some other member be elected temporary chairman. Now, sir, that proceeding was out of order, for the reason that he had no right to the position, it being already occupied, besides the motion was made during the pendency of another motion which was properly made, and properly in the possession of the House. I therefore insist that this action, being irregular, was void; the motion to adjourn was regularly acted upon then by the Convention, and the same adjourned. I contend, sir, that when there are a sufficient number of persons present, any motion that is put from the chair, if it receives the vote of only one member, no one voting in the negative, and no division being called for, is as fully carried as if the roll had been called. and the vote of the majority recorded. More than half the legislation of the country is done by the votes of some one or two members, who are interested in the subject matter under consideration, while other menmbers are attending to their own affairs. Now, sir, for the effect of that adjournment: When it had taken place there was no Constitutional Convention in session, and I say that no members of that body had the right to attempt, or presume to do any business belonging to the Convention until its assembling at the proper time. The act would be revolutionary, improper, irregular, indecent, and in every way reprehensible by all order loving persons; but such was their action; they carried out the programme they had originally matured to a very disreputable extent; they retained possession of the Hall, and went on with a pretended organization. They maintained it day after day, and night after night, with the determination of fulfilling their mission, right or wrong, and by violence if necessary. At the proper hour, the Constitutional Convention, pursuant to adjournment, repaired to the door of the Hall, with the intention of proceeding with the business of that body; but were met by the Secretary of the Territory, and were informed by him that the Hall was in the possession of men who evinced a determination to hold it at all hazards. Very prudently, and desiring that no act should be committed by the Democratic Party, if I may so term it, which should reflect upon them as men of order, as gentlemen, and as men who understood the execution of the duties assigned to them by their constituents, a motion was made that the Convention adjourn to re-assemble in the opposite end of the Capitol. The motion was 24 CONSTITrUTIONAL CO~NVENTION. carried, and the Convention has been in session iA this Hall fromi day to day since that hour until the present. What is going on in the other side of the Capitol, is in contravention of all regularity and propriety, governing deliberative bodies of that character. Now, sir, with the remarks I have made I am entirely satisfied that the Comminttee on Credentials have been diligent in inivestigating the subject that was committed to them; they have reported here that fifty-four delegates have been duly elected by the people, who claim seats here; that they represent over sixteen hundred majority of the popular vote of this Territory; and that there is one other delegate who they have unofficial evidence has received a majority of the votes of his district, giving us half the delegates elect to this Convention, and a majority, if it shall be ascertained by the future investigations of that Committee that the evidence they have received is well authenticated. With these facts before us and before the people, and with the conduct of that body brought in contrast with that pursued by us, I ask you, Mr. PRESIDENT, if there is a man within the sound of my voice who does not admit that we have done our duty to our constituents, and that they will do their duty towards us. It cannot and will not be doubted that the Democratic party of Minnesota, through the action of their Representatives in this body, have planted themselves upon a platform on which they will be surrounded by a larger number of the people of Minnesota than has ever been seen enlisted in any cause which has excited the public mind. And let me tell you there never has been an election in this Territory in which the Democratic party have not triumphed; they have sent men here, this time, who will carry out their wishes, and who will return to them the result of their labors in such a manner as will, of right, demand ratification at their hands. And, sir, I feel that that demand will be responded to from all quarters of the country with cordiality and cheerfulness. With these comments I move the adoption of the resolution. JMlr. SETZER. Previous to the vote being taken on the question, I desire in brief to state my views upon the subject of this resolution. As the gentleman from Nicollet (Mr. FLANI)RAU) has said, the Republican party have from the beginning made their boasts that they would carry this Convention, by fair means if they could, by foul means if they must. Their acts fully bear out the assertion. The gentleman who preceded me has stated several instances of the recklessness of the Republicans in the accomplishment of their object, and I will add one or two more. Previous to the election, they brought here from abroad abolition speakers, to induce the 25,-, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE people to elect their candidates, but having failed in their purpose, they then determined to resort to foul means to obtain the ascendency in the Convention. In order to get their men all together before the meeting of the Convention, they resorted to the publication of falsehoods. The Republican paper in this city having the largest circulation amongst its class, stated it had learned by credible information that the Democratic Central Committee had issued a circular to the Democratic delegates elect, requesting them to meet in St. Paul previous to the time of the meeting of the Convention, for the purpose of taking measures for defeating the objects of the Republicans. This was false, every word of it. It was a lie, concocted by the Republicans, and in entire conformity with their whole action from the beginning. Finding this was not quite enough, they brought their influence to bear upon some wicked tools of the party, and induced them, in St. Anthony and Houston county, to issue certificates to delegates who were not elected by a majority of votes. Yes, sir, they induced certain persons to commit perjury for the purpose of assisting the aims of this party, by violating their official oaths. One of these parties was brought to trial, and after an impartial hearing, was duly convicted. Now sir, the question arises, call an individual, or can a party, take advantage of its own crimes for the purpose of carrying out its own views? The Republican party, in their Caucus, identified themselves with the crime committed. They cannot shift the responsibility from their own shoulders; for, sir,they desired to take advantage of that crimrne, and they endorsed the crime by admitting to seats in their Convention the men whose certificates were obtained by these means. Well, sir, they then commenced quibbling at our action-legal, proper action. They said the Secretary of the Territory had no right to take the Chair of the Convention. They were driven from that position, and they now state we had no right to adjourn until organized. Such is their talk through their papers and their public speakers. It is almost foolish to argue the point when we find before us evidence that every parliamentary body in the land has recognized the right of adjournment previous to organization. Look, sir, at the election of a Republican Speaker of the last House of Representatives in Congress, when they adjourned from day to day for thirty Qr forty days previous to their organization. But, sir, it is necessary that the transactions of this party should be made public, and for that reason I shall support the resolution of the gentleman from Nicollet. 26 CONSTITUTIONAL CO'NTiEN'I/O. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the use of the Hall was granted for this evening to Mr. COULDOCK for the purpose of Dramatic representation. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, at ten minutes past one, the Convention adjourned until to-morrow at 10 o'clock A. M. TENTHI DAY. TIIURSDAY, July 23, 1857. The Convention m.et at 10 o'clock,. iM. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. CONDUCT OF THE REPUBLICANS. The question before the Convention being on the adoption of the allowing preamble and resolutions WHEREAs, There is official evidence, from the report of the Committee on Credentials, that there is a majority of the legally-elected members to the Constitutional Convention who claim and are entitled to seats in this Convention; and, WHEREAS, The members ascertained to be legally elected, from the official documents before this Convention, represent more than sixteen hundred majority of the popular vote of the Territory; and, WHEREAS, There is a body of men who have taken possession of one of the halls of this Capitol, and call themselves the Constitutional Convention, without any legal authority or right, although some of those connected with that assemblage may be entitled to seats in this Convention, but who have not seen proper, as yet, to present their credentials, or to attend the meetings of this body, since the regular adjournment of the Convention, on Monday, the 13th inst.; therefore, RESOLVED, That the assemblage of persons niow occupying the Representatives' Hiall of this Capitol, styling themselves "the Constitutional Convention," is without the authority of law or of Parliamentary usage, and revolutionary in its character, and, therefore, should not be recognized by the electors of this Territory, nor by the officers of the General or Territorial Government. RESOLVED, That a copy of the above preamble and resolution, together with a copy of the report of the Committee on Credentials, be forwarded to the President of the United States, each of the heads of the Departments of the General Government, each of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, and to the Governor, Secretary, Marshal, Librarian, Auditor and Treasurer of the Territory of Minnesota. Mr. GORMAN said: I have something to say upon the subject of these resolutions before the question is taken on their adoption. I had hoped to have had a little more time to hunt up an authority which I was very desirous to have before I proceeded with an 27 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TilE exposition of the position of this Convention, and of the Democratic party, and to discuss somewhat the right of this Convention, as a legal and parliamentary body, to form a Constitution for the Territory of Minnesota. The American people will undoubtedly look with great interest to the action of this Convention, and to the action of the people of the Territory of Minnesota in forming a Constitution preparatoryto their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. The scenes which have transpired in the Territories of this Union within the last eighteen months or two years, have given causeI think just cause-of alarm for the perpetuity of the institutions of our country. My object, in the remarks I shall submit to-day, will be to place before the country the reasons for our action thus far, and to show, so far as I have a knowledge of the facts and the ability, distinctly and plainly, why it is that we occupy our present position. First-The Congress of the United States passed an act, authorizing the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Government, preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State. To carry out that act, the Legislature, at its special session, called in part for that purpose,passed an act, in aid of of the Enabling Act ofCongress,prescribing howmanypersons should be elected as Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. That act: prescribed that there should be elected two persons for each Councillor and two for each Representative. The Enabling Act provided that there should be elected two Delegates for each member of the Territorial Legislature. It has been contended that under that provision, we had the right to elect only two for each Representative, which, doubling the number of thirty-nine, would make seventyeight in all. The Legislature, at its extra session in May, however, took a different view of the Enabling Act, and construed it, as I have said, to give us two Delegates for each Representative, and two for each Councillor. That either the Enabling Act of Congress or the act of the Territorial Legislature is binding absolutely upon the people in their sovereign capacity, no American Statesman has, tD my knowledge, attempted to assume. On the contrary, the authorities all go to show that the Enabling Act of Congress is passed to give conformity and regularity to the proceeding-to indicate the mode of procedure. The act of the Legislature is to give conformity and regularity to the elections, and to avoid anything like revolutionary action upon the part of the people. Therefore the actofCongressand 28 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the act of the Te rr-itorial Legislature,arc mere forms-in thie language of iCr. BUCIIANAN, a mere scaffolding, which, when the edifice is completed, is of no further use. It is necessary, says Mr. BUCiTANANl, in his MAichigan debate, perhaps to have forms, to avoid irregularity, to avoid difficulty in the returns, and to avoid that conflict which would be likely to arise, were there no forms prescribed by the Legislative authority. The Enabling Act is a mere proposition upon the part of the Government of the United States. The act of the Legislature is a mere recommendation on the part of the people's representatives. The Enabling Act proposes to admit the people of the Territory into the Union as a State, upon certain terms and conditions, one of which is that we shlall not tax their property-the public lands. Another is, that in consideration of such exemption from taxes, they agree to give us the 16th and 36th sections in every township for school purposes, that they will give us certain sections of land for University purposes, that they will give us certain sections of land to build our Capitol, that they will give us Salt Springs, and they propose to give us five per cent upon the nett proceeds of the sales of public lands. Sothe Enabling Act goes on to enumerate what rights they propose to give up to us, provided we will give up our original right to tax their property. Thus, when both parties concur, it becomes a compact binding upon each. No, sir, in conformity to the act of Congress, and in conformity to the act of the Legislature passed in aid of that act, on the first day of June, the people elected and sent, to meet here on the 13th of July, two Delegates for each Representative, and two for each Councillor, making in all 108. But when we appeared on that day in the Hall of the House of Representatives, it is hardly necessary for me to say that we were astonished to find there had been a feeling engendered among the Delegates ahlready there, for the purpose of getting some advantage. Now, sir, to follow this up, I propose to show that our opponents gave the note of alarm, through the medium of their presses, that some great, highhanded outrage was about to be committed upon their rights by the Democratic party. The first thing we see, in the preparation note, is from the ]kfinnesotian, during the past spring. Here it is: TiE OrENINGc OF TIIE CAMPAIG IN I ST. PAUL.-The Republicans had a glorious meeting at the Court House last night, which was addressed by Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, and Mr. Baker, Secretary of State of that good old Republican StateOhio. The TRUE issue was presented by both gentlemen in a most convincing and able manner, and in that argumentative and eloquent style which is calculated to make the Buck African Democracy tremble in their boots. The St. Paul Republicans are at work, and will give a good account of them 29 POOCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF T'HE selves on the day of the Delegate election. Saturday evening next we hope to have another rally to hear Trumbull, of Illinois, and other distinguished men from abroad. This was the first note. Then come the papers following; and there appears in the Territcry Mr. GALUSHA A. Guow, the Chairman of the Committee on the Territories in the last Congress, and a promi nent Republican from the State of Pennsylvania. Next follows the announcement in the Minnesotian, of the Hon. Mr. TRUMBULL, a United States Senator from the State of Illinois, representing the same political sentiment. Each of these gentlemen came into the Territory, was taken round, and made speeches at different points to the people, upon the subject of Republican principles. Well, sir, what next? The next thing, we find that Mr. TRUM BULL remains in the Territory until after the election, and we find that he makes himself useful to his political friends in the canvass. We find that his voice and that of his political associates, is becom ing quite soft and quiet in "shrieking for bleeding Kansas," that that bone of contention is about to depart, that Othello's occupation is almost gone; some new issue must be raised; some new alarm gun must be fired; some new theatre must be selected for their shrieking, and where is the theatre they have selected? Why, sir, they discover that Minnesota is about to form a Constitution preparatory to being admitted into the Union as a State, and the best theatre for their action is Minnesota. They come here. I do not deny their right to come, but I do insist upon our right to judge of their intentions by their actions. Well, sir, these speakers are introduced into Minnesota. The alarm gun is fired-the prestige of shrieking for bleeding Kansas is over. WAIKER is assuming the position there that the people shall have a fair vote; he is taking an independent, just, fair, and equitable course; their shrieks are falling very feebly upon the country. Kansas is about to become a free State; the certainty is daily becoming greater and greater. The alarm must be sounded If Kansas is to become a free State, the Democratic party is triumphant, popular sovereignty is vindicated, the right of the people to self-government is secured, and their capacity for self government vindicated. And DOUGLASS is sustained-a bitterer pill than all to the Republican party. If Kansas comes into the Union a free State, say they, all our shrieking has been in vain; we must disband, and we must get up a new organization for the purpose of holding on to the last shred of political power. Let us raise a storm, and fire the alarm gun in Minnesota. Let us gird on our armor and rally the Republican party in every portion of the Ter ritory where they have a Register of Deeds. It must be done. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Our shrieking for freedom in Kansas is done, and we must have a new theatre of action. No matter'if the majority is against the Republican candidate; let the Register of Deeds give certificatesof election to A, B and C, it will give them prima facie evidence of being entitled to seats, and thus the organization of the Convention will be secured to the Republicans. If Kansas comes into the Union a free State, under Democratic auspices, and we are defeated there, we must force ourselves into some new position to give us the material for shrieking. Let us put a magazine of powder in Minnesota, where some crazy man maycome along and fire it with his torch, so that there may be an explosion. That will give us food for oursmaniac ravings about freedom. If we cannot shriek longer for bleeding Kansas, we may shriek for bleeding Minnesota perhaps. That will make a field for our abolition emissaries. Letthe Republicans secure the organization of the Constitutional Convention; let them once get the start which that will give them and our Emigration Aid Societies will flood the Territory with emigrants who shall overwhelm these border ruffians. Yes, sir, these Republicans have acted in obedience to mandates issued by a power standing behind the throne, which is greater than the throne itself. Who does not see in the policy pursued by the Republican party in this Territory, the work of the great abolition party of the North to create a new theatre of action for their emissaries? This is but one step in their march to overthrow the institutions of the country. They are disunionists at heart, and I do not now utter that sentiment for the first time. In 1850, standiIg in the Hlall of the House of Representatives in Congress, I dedclared that the great purpose of WM. H. SEWARD was to dissolve this Union if he possibly could. ie had no hope, of becoming President of this United Republic-the highest reach of his ambitionunless he could sever the sixteen Northern from the fifteen Southern States, thereby securing a Northern Confederacy for himself, for his own aggrandizement, for the formation of his own power. I believe as conscientiously as I am standing here, that one-half the men who are sitting in the other end of this Capitol, would never shed a tear, would never wink an eye, nor raise an arm to, avert the catastrophe, if this glorious Union were severed in twain. They are men who repudiate the Constitution of the country which has cemented us together for the last seventy odd years; men who would trample and spit upon it; men who hold up their hands with holy horror at the idea of complying with its commands; men who openly and avowedly declare it is better to have no more union with slaveholders; men who say that the people's voice ought not 31 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TH'FE to rule upon the subtject of slavery; a party which refuse to allow the voice of the people to control under the Constitution. Mr. PRESIDSNT, Lhey do not love the Union. They belong to a party that, when war comes, are eternally on the other side of their coun try's interest, and their country's right; they belong to a party which, when war has come, have mourned and groaned over the calamities of that war; they belong to a party which has no sym pathy for the institutions of the South as they view them; they belong to a party which would to-day sever the bonds which bind us together, who would fire the magazine, if they could do it without incurring the responsibility themselves. Who are they, sir? 'Who are their leaders? and what are the doctrines of their leaders? They have announced, for the purpose of taking hold of the religious senitiments of the country, that there is a higher law than the Constitution of the country, indicating that if the mandates of the Constitution conflict with their notions of religious duty, they will disobey the Constitution of the country, making that doctrine one of the texts of their church and party. Where, sir, have you ever heard one of their statesmen talk about preserving this Union? Where have you heard them talk about preserving, intact, the integrity of our institutions? The shorter reply of these men usually is: "If we are freedom shriekers, you are Union shriekers." Where, sir, have you ever seen them show any zeal for the perpetuity of our institutions? No, sir, go where you will, and these men will tell you that, whatsoever calamities may befall this Union, the institution of slavery shall not ever extend one inch beyond where it is now. But suppose it does, what do they propose to do about it? Does the Democratic party propose to extend the institution of slavery? Not a single member sitting in this Constitutional Convention but that would rejoice to see the voice of the people stop the progress of slavery where it is. The Democratic party is not a pro-slavery party, in the Northern States. They are in favor of having free Territory wherever it can be done by the legitimate and constitutionally expressed voice of the people. Our doctrine here now is, and we will embrace it by a unanimous vote of this Convention, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the limits of MAinnesota, except for crime whereof the party has been duly convicted by a jury of his countrymen. We will give the falsehood to the declaration, promulgated by their presses and their speakers all over the country, that we are a pro-slavery party, by putting the seal of condemnation on their brow, in the Constitution that will be framed by this Convention. 32 CONSTITUTIONAL CONIVENTION. Well sir, what further did we do? We came into the Hall of the House of Representatives, on the 13th of July, at 12 o'clock, M. There was no particular order that we should meet in that room. or that we should meet in this; but a large majority of the delegates elected by the people did meet in that hall. After the Democratic delegates came into the Hall., what did they propose to do? I intend to tell the country what their caucus said they should do. I intend to tell the country everything that was done in caucus by this Democratic party which is sitting here to-day. In reading the Statutes of the Territory, we found that the returns of election should be made to the Secretary of the Territory, and that the Secretary of the Territory was, perhaps, the only proper custodian of those returns. My reading of the Statutes expressly requires that at a given tl,me these returns shall be made to that officer,-of course this applies to the election of Councillors and Delegates to the Legislature and of Delegate to Congress. That officer has now the returns of the election of all the members of this Convention; he had them mostly then. Well sir, what did our caucus determine to do? We passed a vote that the Secretary of the Territory should go into the Hall of the ilouse of Represent-Atives at the proper hour, and call the Convention to order —not call any member to the Chair, nor by any trick, try to take advantage of the adversary, but proceed, and call the Council Districts in the order in which they stand. Every man before me will bear me out in saying that this was tihe course which the party I am now addressing expected to pursute whene we ,ame into that hall. When we had called tihe Convention to order, and the Council Districts had been called, it was supposed that in the ordinary course of parliamenitary proceedings, he would, like the Clerk of the House of Representatives in Congress, have a list of members made out. And wvhy should he have a list? Because the returns were made to him; and who else should have the list? Certainly not Mr. NORTO, a delegate from Rice county. It was perfectly proper and regular that the Secretary should have such a list. We therefore expected when we came into the hall, without violence, without pistols in our pockets, without sending for our neighbors to keep us from being whipped by the border ruffians, (laughter,) that in pursuance of the most usual and regular course of proceeding, the Secretary would call the first Council District and allow the members to come forward and present their credentials, then the second, the third, fourth' fifth, sixth, seventh, yes sir, call the seventh Council District too,-and I shall have something to say 33 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIHE of the rights of the delegates from that district presently. We intended to proceed thus with the districts until they had all been called, when, if a quorum appeared, the Convention would be ready to transact business. Having proceeded to this point, the intention expressed in our caucus was- inasmuch as several of our members had not come in, knowing that in consequence of this alarm, which had been sounded throughout the Territory, calling on the Republican delegates to be here; they were here, armed cap-a-pie, aud that having slept upon their arms they were expecting some great development-'if, on calling the roll, it resulted as we expected, that the Republicans had the majority, we intended to appeal to their justice to adjourn, and not organize until our men should have had time to come in, although we had reason to believe the appeal would be like the appeal mnade to sinners a thousand times, and with about the same effect. (Laughter.) This was the course marked by the Democrats in caucus to pursue, as forty-four of the men here present will bear me witness. We had no arms, no pistols, no bowie-knives, no border ruffian revolver party to take possession of the Capitol at midnight. We had no scenes in contemplation such as have furnished food for the Republican party during the last eighteen months. Nothing of the kind, we were resolved, should emanate from us; but the course we proposed to pursue was precisely what would have been pursued by any deliberative parliamentary body in the country, Every man before me knows this was our intention. If we could secure an adjournment until our men could come in, of course we should have been glad to do so. Well, sir, Mr. CHASE, the Secretary of the Territory, walked up to the chair first and called the Convention to order; then Mr. NORTH —precisely in keeping with the position of that body of men who had remained in that hall from midnight until day, and from day until 12 o'clock at noon, to prevent the border ruffians from forestalling them and performing any act by which they should get the advantage-also came into the desk, and made some motion, which he himself put to the Convention. Sir, the motion to adjourn was made first, and had precedence of right, in point of time; but even if it had not, a simple motion to adjourn takes precedence of all other motions. Upon this point I will quote JEFFERSON'S Manual against that of a Clerk of the Iouse of Representatives in the Massachusetts Legislature, Mr. CUsuING: "It is a general rule that the question- first moved and seconded shall be first put." Who made the first motion? Now for the question of fact. I made the motion to adjourni, before any other motion was made. 34 CONSTi'TlUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. NOR.TH called the body to order, and then made his motion himself, he acting as Chairman. Now, sir, it is the business of a Chairman to put motions made by other members; but Mr. NORTH, fearing his friends would not be quick enough to trick us, made his own motion and put it himself. Mr. CHASE put the motion to adjourn and two-thirds of the members present, by the sound, voted to adjourn. Perhaps one-third composing a portion of the opposition party, or those I supposed to belong to the opposition party, voted no. But some of them say they did not know what they were voting for-they thought they were voting on Mr. NoRTH's motion. Well, sir, we can give them some parliamentary tactics, but we cannot put brains into their heads. (Laughter.) It is their business to see what is going on. Now, sir, am I not right in saying that a motion to adjourn takes precedence of all others? I read again from JEFrrFERSON'S Manual: "The motion to adjourn simply, takes precedence of all others; for otherwise the House might be kept sitting against its will and indefinitely." But supposing there were two motions made at the same time, and suppose one was put by Mr. NORTH, and the other by our chairman. I again read from the Manual: CO-EXISTING QUESTIONS.-It may be asked whether the House may be in possession of two questions at the same time; so that one of them being decided the other goes to question without being moved anew? The answer must be special, when a question is interrupted by a vote of adjournment, it is thereby removed from the House, and does not stand, ipso facto, before them at their next meeting, but must come forward in the usual way. The motion to adjourn, says JEFFERSON'S Manual, takes precedence of all other motions, and when there are co-existing questions before the House, the motion to adjourn, if it is made, must take precedence. Now, sir, the motion to adjourn was first made, and if it had not been, any other motion must have been interrupted by a motion to adjourn. The motion was carried by a majority, and so announced from the Chair; it was in every respect, legally, a proper adjournment; and the body of men who have assumed to disregard that adjournment, act at their peril. But, they say they were so confused; they did not call for a division, there was so much confusion in the Hall. Well, sir, we are not responsible for the confusion; it was not made by us; they called for no division; they called for no count; they made no protest; and if they were confused it was not our fault. Menr should know what they are about; and men who sleep upon their arms in this Capitol from midnight until day, and steal out, one at a time, to get their break fast, aid return to watch their opponents, should not complain that advantage was taken of them because they were confused. When 3 35 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIlE this question comes before that tribunal which will sift it to the bottom, they will decide that the only manner in which they could have prevented an adjournment, was to have called for a division before the vote was announced. Failing to do that, American statesmen, of all parties, will say to them: If you have allowed the opportunity to pass without calling for a division upon the motion, you may sleep upon the bed you have prepared for yourselves. But, say our opponents, there was no roll called, there is nothing to show who were present; and suppose the motion to adjourn was carried, what did you adjourn? There was nothing to adjourn! Well sir, I place the naked facts against a thousand such ad captandum dictums. The law provided that we should assemble in this building, on the 13th of July. We met at the hour of 12 o'clock, M.; we notified our opponents that we were going to meet at that hour; they met us there at that hour, and they' knew that we went there for the purpose of having the Constitutionlal Convention convene and organise. We could have met there for no other purpose. The law stated that we should be there, and two-thirds, at least, of the elected members of the Constitutional Convention were present in the Hlall, as subsequent developments have proven, They were there by law and appointment. They knew it then they know it now, and the mere newspaper quibble, this ad captandbm argument, therefore, amounts to nothing. But suppose the Convention had not adjourned, and a controversy had arisen, a debate sprang up-one chairman might have put the motion of one party, and the other the motion of another as happened in Ohio and in Indiana-would the Convention have been any more organized? WVe might have continued in the same condition for days and days; or suppose the law had provided for a Clerk and the body had failed to organize, would it have no power to adjourn? Must they sit there without being able to eat, drink or sleep until an organization is effected? Sir, it's not expected that a body of men, legally called together, shall not have the power within themselves, of relief when they get into difficulty. It is one of the inherent rights of an assembly of the people under the Constitution of the country, when they assemble for peaceful purposes, to meet and adjourn or disperse by their own volition. Otherwise there might be some cohesive principle which, in certain contingencies, would compel themn to remain there and starve to death. The'quibble, therefore, that there was no body which could adjourn before organization, proves too much; it proves its own fallacy by carrying it out until it would starve the members. Does anybody believe the people 36 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -will hold that this body had no, right to adjourn prior to its organization? I have before me the Cogressional Globe, referring to the case of the New Jersey contested election in 1839. In that case, when the House met, the Clerk commenced calling the roll-for somebody must be presumed to have a roll-as is the usual parliamentary usage in that body. But when he had reached as far as the State of New Jersey, the question arose as to whether the members from that State, whose seats were contested should vote or not. The question was raised whether the delegates presenting the prima fae evidence of the certificates of the Governor, under the broad seal of the State of New Jersey should be recognized, or whether other than prima facie evidence should be recognized. In that condition the House adjourned from day to day, and took all manner of Tecesses, although, according to the theory now advanced in the other end of this Capitol, they were compelled to sit there without adjourning until they had completed their organization. But I have disposed of that quibble beyond any further question. The next day at 12 o'clock, this Convention, composed mostly of the persons now here, repaired to that Hall to which we had adjourned. The same Secretary, with the same returns in his possession, went inside the door, and saw the Hall in the'possession of a body of the citizens of the Territory, seemingly very quiet, not doing much of anything, but apparently waiting for something to turn up. He announced the fact that the Hall was in the posses.sion of this body of men. At that moment, why did we then and lhere adjourn to another place? I want the country to know why we did it. If we had gone' into that Hall then, it would have been The section will then stand, leaving the Legislature without power to pass special laws, and without the power of changing their general laws, within, perhaps, a period of ten years. Now then, the question arises, when new wants arise, when necessities appear for changes in the general laws, what resource will be left? None but for the people to call another Convention for the revision of the Constitution. I think it is proper and necessary that the Legislature should have the power at each successive session to change their laws and adapt them to the new wants of the people as they may arise. The object of any Constitutional provision on this subject is to guide and restrain future legislation. We are here without that persuasive influence which is said to be brought to bear upon members of the Legislature. We are here with no other purpose than our sense of what is right and what is wrong and what will be the best for the future of our State. No man will apply to us here for banks, none for any corporation or party whatever. There is nothing to induce any one to act upon this Convention. Not so, however, during the meeting of the Legislature. Men are here from every portion of the Territory, representing the interests of every description of company and interest. Members are applied to by their friends, by their constituents, by the men who elected 158 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. them.'It is said there are men applied to by means of money. They are applied to in all ways and by the means that are used, measures are made to pass, which, very few of the members would, in their sober senses, vote for. We have none of these pressures here; we can act calmly and coolly upon the matter and can give such direction to the future Legislatures, as we may think in our best judgment to be proper. The people will judge whether we have acted wisely. Now, sir, I am opposed to this Section as it stands, taking it as a whole, because it does not furnish any guide for future legislation at all. I undertake to say the result of this whole provision is a cypher, is a nullity. You might as well write an "0"7 in its place, as to adopt this proposition as it is proposed. What is it? Corporations may be formed under general laws, and shall not be created under special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects cannot be attained under general laws. Why, sir, suppose there should be no general laws upon the Statute Books, or suppose the Legislature should repeal them. We are looking to future Legislatures, which may be over-persuaded to do wrong actions, which may be actuated from erroneous motives: what is there in this Article to hold them in check? Suppose the Legislature shall, instead of going on and passing general laws, cover the whole Territory over with new corporations, with extraordinary powers and privileges, what remedy will there be? Suppose they pass general laws upon the subject of Banks and none upon the subject of other corporations, it might not be exactly within the spirit of the provision the gentleman has reported, but it would not be in violation of its letter, and what remedy should we have? I am not prepared, as I proposed to do, to offer anything as a substitute. My colleague from Ramsey, (Mr. GORMAN,).proposed a substitute which is much preferable to anything before us. I am satisfied that by following out the effect of this provision, the Committee themselves who reported it, will be satisfied that it will not answer the purpose for which it was intended. Mr. SETZER. I have but a word to say. There is no reason why we should not act understandingly upon the matter, with our eyes open. If we are satisfied that the people of this Territory wish no more internal improvements, then it may be well to adopt the proposed amendment, but if we wish to have any more railroads, canals, or other internal improvements, we certainly shall not get them with the powers of the Legislature restricted as it is proposed to restrict them, for no capitalist is going to invest money in corporations under general laws with such regulations for repeal and amendment as you propose to make. 159 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. SHERBURNE. Gentlemen do not seem to understand the effect of general laws. Why, sir, if men come to the Legislature and ask to have a law passed by which they can incorporate a com pany with certain privileges and immunities, it is just as easy to pass a general law which shall confer all the privileges that could be given by a special law and at the same time, make the law applicable to all other cases coming within the same class. It can be done. Experience in other States shows that it has been done and is being continually done that general laws may be passed to meet every emergency that mnay be met by a special law; I for one, much prefer that it should be done by general law, and that the Legislature should have power conferred upon them only to grant charters under general laws. All experience shows that it is not safe to trust these matters unrestrained in the hands of the Legislature. Influences are brought to bear npon the members, they do not know how. The men who ask the privileges are their friends or their constituents. These relations of friendship will control some members. Influences pecuniary in their nature will control others, and measures which ought not to pass, will be carried through. It has been so in this Territorory, it has been so in other States, and all experience shows that it will be so. This principle of general legislation is being carried out in the Eastern States, even in the old fogy States as they are called, and I am satisfied it is the practice which we ought to adopt. Mr. MEEKER. I really feel a little delicacy in troubling the Convention with any remarks on this subject, but it is one of so vital interest, when -I look upon the effect it is inevitably to have in developing the resources of the State, that I cannot refrain from adding one remark more. I do not say that the section as originally reported, is perfect. There should be some amendments in the latter clause of the section, which, if no one else offers, I propose to offer myself. Gentlemen have been speaking against this second section, and it has seemed to me the entire effort has been to pull down without any effort to re-construct what all admit to be necessary, to some extent. "Corporations may be formed under general laws, "but shall not be created by special acts except for municipal pur"poses, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot be "attained under general laws." Now, sir, the gentleman from Ramsey supposes what I think a supposable case, that the Legislature, under this section, may fail altogether to pass any general laws upon the subject of internal improvements, in respect to which, other States have passed general laws. He supposes also, that 160 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENION. the Legislature may fail to pass any general laws upon the subject of banks, upon which other States, too, have general laws; and, therefore, would be at liberty to pass special acts in each case creating corporations. Sir, I cannot believe that Western as we are, and new as we are, and going ahead as we are, our Legisla tors are going to be so lost to a sense of duty and propriety. I cannot believe that they will not have a spark of honesty, or re gard to the prosperity or wants of this State. No sir. One of the first acts of a Legislature called under the new State, I have no doubt, would be to pass a general law upon the subject of internal improvements, and another upon the subject of banks. But, sir, there are a thousand instances, and the very fact that gentlemen could not enumerate them here this morning, proves the necessity of the exceptions which are contained in that second section. Why, sir, we have Colleges, Universities, Churches-and need them too and there is your Historical Society. You have salt mines and copper mines, and various interests which could not be legislated for under general laws, as well as by particular laws, embracing particular objects. My friend here on my left, (Mr. BECKER,) stands ready to offer another amendment. I hate to anticipate him, but the effect is really to make all laws for the creation of corporations for internal improvements, or anything else, a mere cipher. You might, as the gentleman from St. Paul, (Mr. SHERBURNE,) says, just as well insert a cipher in the place of the whole section at once. A general law authorizing persons to associate together for internal improvement, and to carry out various enterprises under rules and regulations which it is in the power of the Legislature, at any moment, to modify or repeal, would have the effect to prevent men from forming corporations at all. The latter part of this section as it stands, however, I should like to see amended. It now reads, All general laws and special acts passed in pursuance of this section, shall be subject to amendment or repeal by the Legislative Assembly, after a certain specified time, and such law and such time shall not exeeed the time of ten years, unless the corporation be formed for the construction of a Railway or Canal, when the Legislature may, in its discretion, grant additional time. Mr. SETZER. I call the gentleman to order; he is not discussing the question before the House. Mr. MEEKER. I do not intend to trouble the Convention again on this subject, and therefore, I am desirous of saying what I have to say. There are other internal improvements beside Railways and Canals, which should be included in the exception contained in the latter clause of the section. 161 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF IHE Mr. GORMAN. It really does seem strange to me, that some of my friends here should not be able to see that there are no advantages resulting to corporations from special laws, which cannot be equally well attained under general laws. Gentlemen are not able to see how somethings which are put into special laws could ever be covered by general laws. Why is it that gentlemen cannot see that general laws can be formed to cover every case which special laws can possibly reach? The intention is to have our general laws so framed as to cover every possible contingency. If in the developments that will take place, circumstances shall make it necessary to give to a particular company additional powers or privileges, why give them to all. If you want to enlarge the privileges, franchises and immunities for internal improvement company, why enlarge it in your general law and give others the advantage of it. If you want to restrain or restrict any company, restrict all alike. There can be no difficulty in making provisions for associations, whether for internal improvements or banks, whether for railroads, canals or any other internal improvement, whether it be a corporation for a Medical Society, for a University, for general educational purposes, for a Church, for navigation purposes, for Historical Societies, or for whatever purpose you desire to associate capital. It seems to me it can be done as well under general as special laws. I must be pardoned for replying to a single remark of my friend from Washington county, the Chairman of this Committee, (Mr. SETZER.) He says if we wish to stop the progress of the country in internal improvements, if we wish to have no more railroads, &c., adopt the general law principle. Why, sir, surely it is not the design to stop the progress of any of these improvements. In looking into the provisions made in three of the States which have recently remodeled their Constitutions, I find they have all adopted precisely the principle which I proposed yesterday to adopt. They have provided that corporations shall be formed under general laws, and that the stockholders shall each be liable to the amount of his stock. That is taking the medium ground which has een taken in Ohio; Iowa, and Wisconsin. Yet, sir, in these States, the progress of internal improvements is certainly keeping pace with the progress of the age. With these facts before us, is it possible that my friend will still insist that the adoption of such a provision into our Constitution is to retard the internal improvements of the State we are about to bring into existence? The gentleman means to say, and means to impress upon the members of this Convention, that men 162 OONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. of means would not invest their capital in companies where the stockholders were individually liable for the amount of stock taken. Sir, they are individually liable in old Massachusetts, and ,they are individually liable in old Virginia, the mother of the North and the mother of the South. They are individually liable, so far as I know, in every State which has framed or remodeled her Constitution within the last fifteen years, to the amount of their stock. And it is right that they should be so individually liable for the debts they contract. There is no improper or unnecessary restriction upon capital therefore, in that respect, and if you will pardon ,me, I will show you why capital loves to invest in just such corporations. When you see corporations desiring to leave that out, it is almost always the case that there is really very little capital invested. The thing is gotten up purely as a matter of specula-tion, and of course the stockholders do not like to become individually responsible. But when there is something substantial about a corporation, the stockholders will not object to a mutual responsibility for the debts of the concern to the amount of the stock taken. In the several Western States where this policy has been engrafted into their general laws, it has not had the effect of arresting the progress of internal improvements, and the policy has become a settled one in the public mind. Otherwise, there is no security for that great class of people to which the country has to appeal in case of emergency. The great foundation for popular government lies in that class of people which produces something which was never produced before. And it is necessary for the prosperity of our government that the class of people which are less able to stand the effects of the various changes in the financial world should be pr )teol,d. But whenever you protect them, it gives confidence to capital because it gives confidence to labor and invariablyproduces a better state of things in the commercial world. I need not say, that I apprehend there will be no difficulty in -striking out these words, "and in cases where the objects of the 4' corporation cannot be attained under general laws." I trust that we shall send forth to the world, a Constitution based upon nothing but the eternal truths of freedom and political economy. I trust we shall leave out every word of legislation, where it can be done consistent with keeping progress with the age. No word ought to be used that can safely be left out of that Constitution. No dictum ought to be put in there that can be safely left out. The great fundamental principles of government should be laid 11 .1163 PROCEIEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIlHE down. What you desire to forbid on the part of your Legislatures, and what the people desire to forbid to their representatives, what they are willing to give up for the public good, we should forbid. But sir, let us make no provision for one class of the people at the expense of another class. That is Democratic doctrine, and the Democrats of the country ill sustain us in it. Let us provide general laws for all, and special laws giving exclusive privileges to none. Mr. SETZER. As the gentleman from St. Paul alluded to me, I will merely say that I was not understood, if he understood me to express the opinion that Capitalists would not invest their money under general laws. Mr. GORMAN. Under general laws which made the stockholders individually liable for the debts of the Corporation. Mr. SETZER. I did not say that either. I said that under laws which could be amended or repealed from year to year, capital would.not be invested. It was intimated by more than one gentleman yesterday, that these laws should so be framed as to be amended or repealed from year to year. I said that with such a provision, capital would not be invested because there would be no security that the Very next year, the law under which the Charter was formed would not be repealed, or so amended as to make the Charter worthless. The gentleman further es, that all cases which can be covered by special acts can as well b included under general law. Now, sir, I do not know but I am wrong, but I am convinced that they cannot. I am not well acquainted with the larger improvements, such as railroads and canals, having always lived upon the frontiers, but I am somewhat acquainted with the class of improvements which have been carried on in our frontier lumbering country upon the rivers, such as ferries and booms. Now, sir, the gentleman will agree with me that sit is necessary in chartering these boom companies to'fix a certain rate of toll. But in one locality, where the water was slack, the outlay required would be much less than in another locality: and, for the benefit of lumbermen, it would require that the rate of toll fixed should not be as large. Now, if these companies are to be organized under general law, it must be done by a single enactment no part must be left for special legislation, and I do not see how it would be possi ble to frame a general law which should so regulate such charters as to do justice to all. Mr. MURRAY. I move that the Committee rise and report this article back to the Convention with the recommendation that it be 16i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. committed to a special committee with instructions to examine the subject, and if there are subjects which cannot be included under general law let them be expressly mentioned. My colleague here yesterday expressed the opinion that there were no instances where the objects could not be attained by general law. I am unable to determine whether such is the fact or not, but if there are such cases I want them specified in this article. This is too important a matter to be disposed of here in this way by amendments drawn up at our desks. I for one am not'willing to vote for giving the Legislature power to grant special privileges unless there is some necessity for it. I therefore hope the matter will be referred to a select committee to examine the subject. Mr. SHERBURNE. If the gentleman wishes to have the article recommitted I would inquire, why not send it back to the same committee? Mr. MURRAY. Because all the members of that committee have expressed themselves in favor of the article as reported by them, and they would report it back immediately without amendment or suggestion. I do not wish to be upon such a committee, but I think it would be better to refer it to a select committce, on which I should be glad to see my colleagues, Mr. BEcKER and Judge SnERBURNE, and several other gentlemen I could name, so that we may have the benefit of some new suggestions on the subject. Mr. SIBLEY. It strikes me that the gentleman's motion is not very courteous to the standing committee upon this subject., If he is unwilling that that committee should have the matter re-referred to them let us continue the debate upon it and dispose of it here in committee of the whole. I shall certainly vote against any motion to raise a select committee upon this article. The standing committee upon the subject was appointed with especial reference to its consideration. They have considered it, and have brought' in a report here which deserves to be thoroughly canvassed before we decide not to adopt it. Mr. MURRAY. I certainly would not be discourteous to that committee, but their Chairman insists that the article as reported by them is correct. Other members of the committee are of the same opinion. Now, sir, in my opinion, that report is not such a one as we should adopt: hence, I made the motion that the subject be referred to a new committee. Let us see if they cannot arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. Mr. SIBLEY. I did not intend to favor the reference of this subject to any committee. We have the matter now fairly before us. If it undergoes examination before any other committee we shall 1'65 'I. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE have the debate all to go over again in this committee of the whole, and I think it would be much better to go on and dispose of the subject. Mr. BROWN. I think this subject is now before the proper committee. It has to be discussed before this Convention at some time, and I can see no necessity or propriety in re-committing it to the standing committee upon the subject, or in referring it to any other committee. I think the subject is now fairly before us, and it can be as well disposed of now as ten days hence, after it has undergone the examination of a committee or the examination of every three persons in the Convention. Mr. MURRAY. I will withdraw the motion for the present. The amendment offered by Mr. STURGIS was not agreed to. Tie question then recurred upon the amendment of Mr. BECKER. Mr. KINGSBURY moved to amend the amendment by striking out all after the word "purposes" and inserting in lieu thereof the words: The General Assembly shall have power to amend or repeal all laws for the organization or creation of corporations granting special or exclusive privileges or immunities, by a majority of both branches of the General Assembly; and no exclusive privileges, except as in this Article provided, shall ever be granted. Which motion was decided in the negative. Mr. WAIT moved to amend the first amendment by striking out all after the word "laws" in the first line and adding in lieu thereof the word "only." Which motion was decided in the negative. The question recurring on Mr. BECK1R'S amendment, it was decided in the affirmative. Mr. HOLCOMBE offered the following substitute for the second section: The Legislature shall provide for all corporations by general laws, and where the objects cannot be attained by the existing general lows they shall be so amended that they can; but the Legislature shall not pass any special law authorizing corporations. Mr. HOLCO MBE. In the remarks to which I have listened this morning one gentleman supposes a case in which, after the adoption of this Constitution with this section proposed by the Committee, the Legislature should pass no general law, he wants to know what remedy there would be: for the section does not make it imperative upon them to pass general laws; it only says they way pass them. I propose therefore to make it obligatory upon the Legislature to pass general laws. The substitute I have offered says in so many words, The Legislature shall pass general laws. I have offered this substitute believing that it may meet the diffi 166 k CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. culties which we have been discussing for the last two days, for which no gentleman has presented a remedy. -All, or nearly all, have admitted that cases may possibly arise where special legislation would be proper. There must be a remedy. These cases may be reached by special legislation: or they may be reached by adapting the general law to them. All have agreed that there must be a dividing line somewhere. Gentlemen are not certain that if we permit the Legislature'to pass special laws at all the public will not be able to get corporations in any other way. Now, sir, I want provision made which shall invite capital from every part of the world; and, as there is such a Democratic objection to the passage of special laws under any circumstances, it strikes me that the substitute I have offered will just meet the views of the Convention. It is very simple. There is the distinction between it and the section as it is amended that it makes it obligatory upon the Legislature to pass general laws for these purposes. If the laws when first passed do not meet every case they can be amended, and we can keep amending them until in the course of time they will be sufficient to meet every case. Mr. BECKER offered the following amendment to the substitute: SEC. 2. Corporations shall be formed under general law, and shall not be created by special act, except for muncipal purposes. All laws passed pursuant to this section may be altered, amended or repealed. Which amendment prevailed. The question recurring on the substitute as amended, it was de cided in the negative. Mr. BROWN. Having been somewhat extensively engaged in special legislation heretofore, I will endeavor not to take a very conspicuous part in this debate; but as the business before us is the formation of rules for the government of the Legislature of the future State, in which I shall in all probability be as much en gaged as I have been heretofore in our Territorial Legislature, I beg leave to offer a substitute for the Section as it now stands. I move to strike out the section as amended, and to insert: Sec. 2. No corporations, except for municipal purposes, shall be formed un der special acts. I think that will cover the whole ground. It leaves it entirely with the Legislature whether they shall pass a general act or not; it leaves it to the Legislature, and to the people through the Leg islature to say by the passage of, or the refusal to pass general laws, whether it is their will that corporations shall exist or not. If the people wish that corporations shall exist they will send represen tatives here who will pass proper laws. 16'7 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. FLANDRAU. If these gentlemen in the Convention who are afraid that the Legislature shall pass special laws upon any subject-these sticklers for general laws, are serious in their pro fessions-why not strike out those words, "except for muncipal "purposes." Why not go the whole figure and tie up the hands of the Legislature, and give us corporations for muncipal purposes, railroads, and improvements of every kind under general laws, or not at all? Now, sir, I am willing to trust the Legislature, with the restric tions originally introduced by the Committee. There has been a vast amount of ingenuity expended in attempting to improve the language of that section, and it has been a signal failure. It has not been improved at all. That section as reported, stands now, as a temperate view of the question; it presents an intermediate point between the two extremes, and leaves the Legislature in a position where they are expressly prohibited from the passage of any special act relative to corporations, when the object can be attained under general law. It is undoubtedly the Democratic view of the subject, where the object can be attained by general law for every one to stand upon the same basis, and enjoy the same rights and privileges. But gentlemen seem to admit by making this exception, that special legislation may be necessary for municipal purposes. Now, sir, I think it is no more necessary that there should be special acts for these than other purposes. General laws may be passed for the incorporation of villages. Such laws have been passed and villages have been incorporated under them. Such acts may be found upon our statute books; but it is nevertheless true that in relation to towns, cities and villages, it is often absolutely necessary that there should be special legislation in order to do justice to the inhabitants of those towns, cities and villages, just as it is in reference to any other species of corporations-just as the gentleman from Washington remarked about the tolls for booms. But, sir, according to the arguments which have all along been used here, I say, why should there be special legislation for St. Paul and not for Traverse des Sioux? Simply because the wants of the two towns are not the same, and the same charters are not required. Mfr. CHAIRMAN, does not the same principle pervade every class of corporations? It may be true, and is true, that for large classes of corporations, the same general class of wants may be provided for by general laws, but I say it is dangerous to prohibit the Legislature absolutely from special legislation; whatever may-be.the 168 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. emergency. But if we are to do it in nearly every instance, let us do it in all. Strike out these words, "except for municipal pur"poses," and let us have consistency. It is not more absolutely necessary for municipal purposes than it may be in others. Mr. SIBLEY. The gentleman refers to sticklers for general law, of which I am one. I acknowledge the fact. In regard to the exception for municipal purposes, which is made in this section, as amended, I can, very easily, see why it is proper and right that the exception should be made; because there are peculiar circumstances relating to the boundaries of towns and villages which takes this out of the general class of cases. But the gentleman says that not one of these sticklers for general law has been able to show why the section as originally reported, should be modified in any respect. I think the gentleman is essentially wrong in that statement. We have challenged these gentlemen who are in favor of special law to produce one single case where the object to be attained under a special law, could not be attained under general law. I am opposed to taking any step backward. So strong are my convictions on the subject that if this were merely an experiment, I should be in favor of trying it; but it is no new thing. Instances have been cited here over and over again, where the experiment has been tried, and I defy any gentleman to point to a single instance where it has been tried and has not been found to work for the public interest. No sir, these general laws have never been found wanting in any element for developing, in full, the resources of the State in which they have existed. I, for one, am opposed to going back to my constituents with any thing, except a Democratic Constitution in my hand to present for their adoption. I would not, on any consideration, do any act that would deprive capital of its just reward. I would not, by any regulation we may make, stand in the way of any public enter prise; but at the same time, I have had experience, and other gentlemen here have had experience enough to know that it will not do to trust the Legislature with unlimited powers on this sub ject. It is true, I have very great respect for the opinion of the Chair man of the Committee, which reported this Article. Hie has had the experience of several sessions of the Legislature, while I have but once been a member of that body. But in that session I saw enough to determine me that if ever I had any thing to do with the formation of the Constitution of a new State, I would place it ?beyond the power of the Legislature to pave the whole country, as 169 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBALES OF THE ours has already done, with charters, conferring special privileges I say that inasmuch as we are here in an unsettled community, the arguments in favor of general laws are stronger than they would be in an older State, where the people understand each other. It is doubly our duty to tie up the Legislature from the power of im posing upon the people of our future State, these charter privileges which have been the curse and bane of all the States. Now sir, I am in favor of the section as offered by the gentleman from Ramsey. I think it is a little more comprehensive than the language contained in the original section, and I am for this reason, in favor of embodying it in the bill. I am not in the least, particular in reference to the exception which it makes in favor of. municipal purposes. I think it would be very practicable to frame general laws which should cover such cases, and rather than give the Legislature the latitude which is proposed in the original section, I would consent to see even this exception stricken out and the whole business done under general laws. Mr. TENVOORDE. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the words, "except for municipal purposes." The substitute will then read: No Corporations shall be formed under special acts. Mr. FLANDRAU. I rise for the purpose of explanation merely. I have been referred to as in favor of special legislation. I deny that I am in favor of special legislation, and I am only in favor of this section as reported, because it prohibits all special legislation except where the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general law. Mr. GORMAN. When are they not attainable under general law? Mr. FLANDRAU. It seems to be admitted on all sides that they are not attainable under general laws for municipal purposes. Mr. SIHERBURNE. It is not admitted. Mr. GORMAN. Certainly not. This is the first time in this debate that I have heard of such an admission. Mr. FLANDRAU. I thought the gentleman himself admitted it. Mr. GORMAN. I beg the gentleman's pardon, I challenged him to produce one instance where special law was necessary. Mr. FLANDRAU. When I asked that there should be no distinction in favor of legislation for municipal purposes, I merely did it by way of argument to show where the carrying out of the principle for which gentlemen are contending would lead us. Now sir, to those gentlemen who are all the time crying out against ITIO 0ONS'ITUTIONAL C)ONVENTION. special legislation, who say.the Territory will be flooded with special legislation, and that those who favor the report of this Committee, are in favor of special legislation, I wish to deny, again, that this report does favor special legislation. I call attention again to the language and ask if any thing can be more imperative upon the Legislature against special legislation. Corporations may be formed under general laws; but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws. Can any thing be plainer or more imperative? Does the argument of gentlemen on the other side need comment, when they challenge us to produce a single case where the objects of a corporation cannot be attained under general laws, and yet say the country will be flooded with special legislation, although according to their own views itwill be impossible under this section, for the Legislature to pass a single special act. They are imperatively commanded not to do it! The argument is inconsistent, utterly inconsistent, and although I said, for the purpose of argument, that you should strike out the words "except for municipal purposes," and make a clean thing of it-make everything subject to general legislation,-yet I do not believe it would be wise to do it. I believe that the wants of certain cities require special legislation. Our progress will require it; for I do not believe our country has' done growing yet. I do not think this city of St. Paul has done growing. I trust it will expand and require new charters and much special legislation to develope its resources and meet the wants of its inhabitants. And so it will be with other cities in the Territory. I should dislike exceedingly to see the wants of this country disregarded, because the Legislature is so trammelled as to be unable to act. Mr. SHERBURNE. I rise to correct the impression which the gentleman who has just taken his seat seems to have gotten, that those who are in favor of general laws are all in favor of excepting municipal corporations from their operation. Now, Mr. CHAIRMAN, I am not opposed to excluding them also from special legislation, and yet there is such a distinction between corporations for business purposes, and corporations for municipal purposes, that no gentleman can well fail to perceive it. A municipal corporation is adopted by the people and always subject to their control. I ,know of no instance in which a town or city corporation is imposed upon the inhabitants unless it is first adopted by the people over which it is to have control. It is not framed for purposes of busi ness, but simply for the purpose of carrying on government. Mr. FLANDRAU. I ask the gentleman to point out a single in 171 'kz PROCEEDINGS- AND DEBATES OF THE stance where the charter of a city has been adopted by the people of that city. Mr. SHERBURNE. I dly speak from recollection, for the short time I have been in the Territory. I know that such is usually the case, and if it is not always, I can only say that when the Legis lature undertakes to impose a charter upon a city in opposition to the wishes of the people, they are not in the way of their duty. It is true, the Legislature is bound in the discharge of their obliga tions to lay off towns and counties, and to see that there is some form of government by which the public expenses shall be sus tained. There must be boundaries laid down, but so far as my knowledge extends, I have never known a single instance where a charter was imposed upon the people, without first submitting it to them for their adoption or rejection. The great difference between these municipal and other corporations is, that the municipal corporations are not for the purpose of making money. I apprehend there would be no danger of future legislation in reference to these corporations, for there is no pecuniary interest involved. In any regulations they make, no advantage can be taken by one man of another man, no obligation is imposed upon one man more than another man, unless he is an abler man. All have votes equally in the regulation of their affairs. They have their Mayor, their Common Council, their Treasurer, and their regular qtota of city officers. It is purely a matter of the people, and totally distinct in every possible manner from a business or pecuniary transaction. But at the same time, I can see very well how municipal corporations may be formed under general laws which shall apply to all alike. I think this class of corporations is totally distinct from corporations for business purposes, but if it is proposed to strike even these out as exceptions, and make a clean thing of it, I can see no very strong objection. Mr. BROWN. I made the exception in deference both to the Committee which reported the original section, and to every gentleman who has offered an amendment upon this subject-for it has been made in every instance-and not because I believed it absolutely necessary that the exception should be made. The exception, too, I:believe, is made in nearly all the Constitutions of the several States. But, sir, as the section stands, I do not think it covers all we want to cover. It reads SEc. 2. Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special acts, except for municipal purposes. All general laws and special acts passed, in pursuance of this section, shall be subject to amendment l2 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVEBITION. or repeal by the. Legislative Assembly after a certain time specified in such law, and such time shall not exceed the term of ten years, unless the corporation-be formed for the construction of a railway or canal, when the Legislature may, at its discretion, grant additional time. Now, sir, admitting that the Legislature should, at its first session, pass a general law for the formation of corporations for the construction of railroads, and should fix the term the full extent provided for in this section, that law must remain in full force, unchanged and unaltered for ten years. The Legislature would have no power to pass any act to mdeet any emergency that might arise on the subject within ten years. I can see no necessity for such a provision as that. I conceive that the Legislature should have full power to change and alter the laws from session to session to meet the progress which maybe made, creating new wants and demanding new legislation. At the same time let all these changes and alterations be general in their nature, applicable to all, and let there be no special acts, conferring special privileges upon particular individuals. Mr. SETZER. There is no special reason that I can discover, why there should be an exception made in this article in favor of municipal corporations. There is already a general law upon our Statute Books for the incorporation of towns and villages,' which provides that any man having one hundred and sixty acres of land could apply to a Register of Deeds, and have his tract of land incorporated into a town; and the only reason why any special legislation has been had upon the subject within the last three or four years, was because some gentlemen did not think it worth while to avail themselves of the provisions of the general law, and came and petitioned the Legislature for special charters. Now, sir, a great deal has been said about the action of the Legislature of this Territory for the last three or four years, in flooding the country with special laws. It is true they have passed charters covering almost every mile of river country in the Territory, but has anybody suffered by the passage of those acts? It is true, they have chartered turnpike companies, and laid out plank roads which have never been built, but has any citizen of this Territory suffered in consequence? Not that I am aware of. They had nothing else specially to do, and they could just as well be employed in this way as any other. They have granted no special privileges to any particular set of persons to the detriment of the interests of others. They have in every instance granted these privileges where they could do no harm, and wherever in their opinion, the granting of a charter would be detrimental to the interests of others, they have 0 173 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE refused to grant it, and have not allowed themselves to be persuaded even by their most intimate friends. But wherever a special charter could be given without danger to the interests of the people, and it was applied for, we said let it be given. It seems that we are appropriating to ourselves all the virtue and honor there is in the Territory. We are not willing to trust the representatives of the people, who are amenable to the people every year for their action in any matter whatever. Everything is to be taken care of by us. It is certainlystrange that gentlemen here who profess to be Democrats, are not willing to trust the representatives of the people in any matter which concerns the welfare of the people. It is impossible for us to anticipate the emergencies which may arise in the West twentyor thirty years hence; and it is no good argument to say that because gentlemen here cannot refer them to every contingency which may arise in the progress of events, therefore no events will arise which may need special action upon the part of the Legislature. I am for giving the representatives of the people full power to provide for any emergency which may arise to meet the wants of the country. I say that it is not good Democratic doctrine to deprive them of all power. Mr. BROWN. I will correct the gentleman in one position he has taken in regard to the laws upon the subject of municipal corporations. The gentleman says there are more laws upon that subject upon our statute books than any other. That is, probably, true, but it is the fault of the Legislature. The general law for the incorporation of towns requires a population of 300 before any preliminary arrangements for incorporation can be made; while under special acts, in a large proportion of the instances, towns have been incorporated with not more than fifteen or twenty inhabitants. It is because the general law has not been framed to meet the wants of the Territory that so many special acts have been asked for and passed. I think that general laws for municipal purposes may be framed to meet all the objects for such incorporations just as well as for other corporations. Why, sir, bills passed the Legislature last winter, incorporating as many as fifty towns in one bill, and why could not these towns have been as well incorportaed under a general law granting the same privileges and immunities which they received under this special act? There is no difficulty at all upon the subject. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to, and the question recurred on the substitute as amended. qp 174 OON5TITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. MEEKER. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the first paragraph and inserting as follows: Corporations shall be formed under general law and shall not be created by special acts, except where the objects of the corporation cannot be attained by a general law upon the subject. Some gentlemen have argued that under the Section as reported by the Committee, the Legislature might refuse to pass any gen eral law upon the subject of corporations, and thus leave the whole matter open to special legislation. It will be seen that by the amendment I have introduced I have made it imperative upon the Legislature to pass a general law upon the subject of corporations, and have only given them power to act specially only in cases there a general law to meet the exigency would not be proper. That, of course, covers municipal corporations, and any other corporations where the objects cannot be attained under general laws. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The substitute, as amended, was then adopted. Section 3 was then taken up for consideration. The Section is as follows: SEC. 3. Dues from corporations shall be secured by such individual liability of the corporators or other means as may be prescribed by law. Mr. Gorman moved to strike out the 3d Section entirely, and to substitute theref6r the following: Ample provision shall be made, making each stockholder individually liable to the amount of stock held or owned by him. Mr. GORMAN said: I would not care if the provision made the stockholders liable for three times the amount of stock taken by them. I would cheerfully vote for it then. I will "read from the Constitution of the State of Ohio a provision upon this subject which was adopted after a discussion'of very great ability: Dues from corporations shall be secured by such individual.'liability of the stockholders and other means as may be prescribed by law; but in all cases, each stockholder shall be liable over and above the amount of stock by him or her owned, and any amount unpaid thereon, to a further sum at least equal in amount to such stock. This provision, I believe, is as good as it'can be, and I will not willingly consent to anything less guarded. A MEMBER. Has any railroad ever been built under that pro vision? Mr. GORMAN. Nearly all the railroads in the State have been built under it. Mr. BROWN. I move to amend the substitute by striking out the word "ample." Mr. GORMAN. I will accept the amendment. t 176 I PPROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The substitute as modified was adopted. Section 4 was then taken up for consideration, as follows: SEc. 4. Lands maY be taken for public way, for the purpose of granting to any corporation the franchise of way for public use. In all cases, however, a fair and equitable compensation shall be paid for such land and the damages arising from the taking of the same. Any attempt on the part of the corpora tion, enjoying the right of way, in pursuance of the provisions of this section, to pervert its privileges from their legitimate construction, and for the purposes of private' speculation shall vitiate such right of way, and the lands shall revert to their original owner. Mr. FLANDRAU. I move to strike out that Section and to sub stitute for it simply tho'words, Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensationD Mr. MEEKER. I would suggest that that provision is in another Article where it appears, it seems to me, more appropriately than here. Mr. FLANDRAU. I understand that it is not in the Bill of Rights. Mr. BROWN. The same words moved by the gentleman from Nicollet, occurs in the Bill of Rights, and I think they had better not be inserted here. There was another object sought; to be attained by the Committee which reported the section. It is to prevent Railroads which have obtained the right of way, from taking a particular business into their own hands to the exclusion of the public. I am told that there is at least one instance of a Railroad Corporation which has refused to carry a certain article'for any one but themselves, and has thus established a monopoly against the general interest of the public. It is to provide against the possibility of such an- occurrence under our laws, that the Commit 'tee have inserted the latter clause of this section, as I understand. Mr. SETZER. I will state that the Pacific Railroad, running from St. Louis, Missouri, has undertaken to carry out that polieoy in reference to one article of transportation. Mr. MEEKER. Whenever they undertake that in this State, we will punish them so that they will not make the second attempt. The matter is entirely under the control of the Legislature, to pro vide a remedy. I hardly see the necessity of providing for it in the Constitution. Mr. SETZER. The gentleman forgets that the Legislatures are very corrupt, and that hereafter there is to be no power placed in their hands. [Laughter.] Mr. FLANDRAU. I think, Mr. CHAIRmAN, that these things which we are endeavoring to guard against, are an invasion of legisla 176 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. tive rights. If we are to assume that the Legislature does not know enough to form a Railroad act which will protect the rights of the public, we might as well go through all the formula of leg-' islation in the Convention. Sir, it is provided that private property shall not be taken for public uses, without paying a just compensation in the Constitution of the United States. Railroads have been decided to be public corporations; and now, sir, I think when we have provided in the Bill of Rights that private property shall not be taken for public uses without a just compensation being paid; therefore, we have provided all the guards which are necessary. But when we undertake here in the Constitution, to restrict the powas of a Railroad corporation-which certainly ought to be confined by the Legislature to the carrying trade-we are invading the rights of the Legislature. There is no doubt that the charters of these companies should require the companies to confine themselves to the legitimate business for which they were incorporated. As I find the words I proposed to substitute, are in the Bill of Rights, I will simply move to strike out this section. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT. For the purpose of giving gentlemen an opportunity of considering this subject, and expressing their views upon it in future, I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to. The Committee accordingly rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. THE MILITIA. On motion of Mr. BAASEN, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, on the report of the Committee on the Militia, Mr. BROWN in the Chair, the question pending, being on the motion of Mr. M. E. AMES, to insert the word "white" after the words, "able-bodied," and to strike out the words, "negroes and mu_ "lattoes." Mr. M. E. AMES. I offered that amendment originally, and I hope it will prevail, for three reasons: I do not conceive that the objections urged against it yesterday were very weighty, or tliat they really exist; and I think the gentleman who urged them, upon reflection, will come to the same conclusion himself. I offered'the amendment because the phraseology used in it is similar to' that used in nearly all the Constitutions of the different States upon the. subject, and I hope it will prevail. I disclaim entirely, as I disclaimed yesterday, any intention of in PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE excluding that respectable and valuable class of citizens, of mixed White and Indian blood, who have adopted the customs of civiliza tion. I want them to be entitled to the same rights of citizenship, and to enjoy the same rights and privilegs in every respect that we accord to all the citizens of the State. But, sir, I foresee that this word "white," will become necessary to be used in the Article on the Riglit of Suffrage, and in other portions of the Constitution. And to prevent all misconstruction upon the subject, I would suggest that it will become necessary to insert a clause in the mis cellaneous provisions, or some where, defining the word so that there cannot be a possibility of misconstruction. Mr. SIBLEY. - I am opposed, as I said yesterday, to the amendment offered by the gentleman, who has just taken his seat. As I have before remarked, if it is intended that these persons of mixed White and Indian blood shall be permitted to exercise the rights and privileges of citizens, I want that they shall be categorically designated in the Constitution, so that there shall be no recourse to the Courts hereafter, or misconstruction on the subject. Now sir, if the decisions of the courts had all been uniform upon the construction of this word, and that construction had been as the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. M. E. AMEs,) says it has, I would more willingly consent to see his amendment incorporated into this section; but as I know that different constructions have been given on different occasions, and as I have every reason to believe that such will be the case in future, if we have the matter in the shape in which the gentleman proposes to place it, I say again, I hope the amendment will not be adopted. Mr. EMMETT. Will the gentleman allow me to give an instance -in addition to the one he gave yesterday, that half breeds have ,not been construed to be included under the word white? It has lately been decided by the Attorney General of the United Statss, that half breeds were not citizens of the United States, and were not entitled to the rights of pre-emption. Mr. SIBLEY. I propose to offer an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Ramsey, by adding, "provided the "word white where it occurs ill this section, shall be construed to "include those persons of pure and mixed Indian and white blood "who have adopted the customs and manners of the whites." Now Mr. CIAIrMAN, I take this broad ground; that when even a pure blood Indian has adopted the manners and customs of the whites, and has become qualified by education, or othlerwise, he shall have the right to vote and shall enjoy all the rights and immunities of a white man. We have got to do either one thing or 178 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the other, we have got to adopt the principle of allowing a full blood Indian to be admitted to all the rights of citizenship, when he adopts the habits and customs of civilization, or else we must exclude the whole class. It will not do to undertake to include those who are a third or a quarter Indian blood, and exclude those of a larger portion. Let us adopt some principle in the matter one way or the other. For myself I think an Indian is just as much entitled to the privileges of citizenship when he has become civilized, and has become able to appreciate his position as a member of the community, as a white man. When I was in Congress I brought forward a provision to the same effect; that Indians should be acknowledged as citizens of the United States, whenever they should relinquish there savage habits and customs. The proposition was endorsed by some of the ablest minds in the country at that time, and I have no doubt would have passed Congress if it could have been acted on; bnt it was so low down on the Calendar that it was not reached in its course before the close of the session, and has not been brought up there since. I believe such a provision would have more influence than anyother in seconding the effort of those who are laboring to reclaim the Indians from their savage habits, and to prevent their final extinction. I hope we shall be willing to incorporate this principle into our Constitution. Mr. M. E. AMES. It seems from the remarks of the gentleman from Dakota, that he does not understand the position which I assume. I agree perfectly with him, and I believe, judging from his remarks, that he agrees with me in the principle which I propose to carry out L:." this amendment. I offered the amendment as it stands, because I believe it embodies correct phraseology, and because I believe it is carrying out an important principle, without rightfully incurring the objections which have been urged against it. Now, sir, I propose to insert the word "white" and then not have it an open question for the courts to decide as to the proper construction of the word, but to insert in another portion of the Constitution, a clause which shall, in direct terms, include Indians of mixed white blood, under the term white-that they shall be ranked and included as white citizens. I propose in other words, to insert'a provision declaring that the word "white," wherever it shall occur in the Constitution, shall be deemed and takento include all persons of mixed white and Indian blood. That removes all doubt from the subject. It ceases to become a question of judicial 12 179 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF IHE construction and places that class of our fellow citizens on the. same footing with the whites. I have no objection to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Dakota, only I think this is not the place to insert it. I propose that there shall be a genieral provision inserted among themiscellaneous clauses, construing the word wherever it occurs in the Constitution. I state distinctly, that I will go as far as the gentleman from Dakota or any other gentleman upon this floor, in securing to this class of persons their full rights as citizens. Mr. SIBLEY. I wish to state that I am not in the least afraid that the Convention will not give this construction, and it is immaterial to me in whatplace it is to be inserted. It occurred tome, that if the gentleman proposed to insert the word at this point, this would be the proper place to insert the construing declaration. I am anxious that the Convention shall at once adopt the principle, and then if it should seem more appropriate to insert it in another place afterwards, I have no objection. But, sir, as it can be inserted at another point, rather than prolong the discussion, I will withdraw the amendment. Mr. FLANDRAU. Gentlemen seem perfectly agreed upon the proposition that persons of mixed white and Indian blood shall enjoy all the rights and privileges that we enjoy, but cannot agree as to the manner in which that principle shall be expressed. Now I ask, what is the use of putting the word "white" into this clause which shall require an explanatory clause to define its meaning. The section as reported, reads thus SECTION 1. The Milltia of this State shall consist of all free able-bodied male persons, negroes and mulattoes excepted, resident in the said State, between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years, except such persons as now are or hereafter may be exempted by the laws of the IUnited States; and they shall be equipped, organized, and disciplined in such manner and at such times as may be directed by law. Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms, shall not be compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service. Now, sir, that would include everybody who would be included in the amendment of the gentleman from Ramsey, with his explanatory statement. It would exclude negroes and mulattoes. It excludes the Indians who have not adopted the customs and: habits of civilization, for they are a separate class by themselves, made so by United States laws and treaties; they are in no sense included within any class of persons over which the State has jurisdiction. There is therefore, no danger of their being included without a separate provision to exclude them. The section is perfectly clear and unmistakable, as it stands, and I repeat, what is; 180 (,CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the use of putting in the word "white" there, which will only have the effect of mystifying the whole clause? I have no doubt of the intention of the gentleman. I have no doubt that when the clause, if it is inserted, shall come up for construction in the courts, his eloquence in behalf of the half breeds, would be sufficient to satisfy the courts that they should be included as citizens. But why is it necessary to make a Constitution that needs fortifying at every point by arguments and authorities to clear up the doubts we have left there? I think the section is just right as it now stands. Mr. SIBLEY. I understand the Chairman of the Committee which reported this article, has a substitute which is much more simple and will relieve us from any difficulty in the matter. I will therefore suggest to the gentleman from Ramsey, that he withdraw his amendment and allow the substitute to be offered. Mr. M. E. AMES withdrew his amendment. Mr. BAASEN. I move to strike out the first five sections as follows: SECTION 1. The Militia of this State shall consist of all free able-bodied male persons, negroes and mulattoes excepted, resident in the said State, between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years, except such persons as now are or hereafter may be exempted by the laws of the United States or this State; and they shall be armed. equipped, organized and disciplined in such manner and atf such times as may be directed by law. T_hose who conscientiously scruple to bear arms shall not be compelled to do so, but shall pay an equivalent for personal service. SEc. 2. The Militia of this State shall be divided into convenient divisions, Brigades, Regiments, Battalions and Companies, with officers of corresponding titles and rank to command them, conforming as nearly as practicable, to the general regulations of the army of the United States. Sac. 3. Captains and Subalterns in the Militia; Field Officers of Regiments; Brigade Inspectors; Brigadier Generals, and Major Generals, shall be elected or appointed in such manner as shall hereafter be provided by law. SEc. 4. The Government shall appoint the Adjutant General and other members of his Staff; Major Generals, Brigadier Generals and Commanders of Regiments, and separate Battalions, shall respectively appoint their own Staff. All Staff officers may continue in office during good behavior, and shall be subject to be removed by the superior officer from whom they respectively receive their appointment. SEc. 5. All military officers shall be commissioned by the Governor. And to insert in lieu thereof, the following: Se. 1 Laws shall be passed providing for the organization and discipline of the Militia of the State at the next session of the Legislature. Mr. BECKER. I move to strike out the words "at the next session of the Legislature." Mr. GORMAN. I hope the amendment will not prevail. The 181 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Legislature should provide for the organization of the militia at its first session. Mr. BECKER. I made the motion because, as the substitute now stands, no Legislature, except at the first session, will have any cognizance over the subject. I have no doubt that the Legislature will make such provision at its next session, but if it should fail, no other Legislature would have any authority over the subject. Mr. FLANDRAU. I would suggest the word "first" would be a better one to use than "next," so that it shall read "at the first session of the Legislature." Mr. SETZER. It seems to be necessary that the Legislature should be compelled to organize the militia at its first session. We have heard so much here that Legislatures are not to be trusted, that I would suggest the condition of our frontiers may require a well organized militia force as soon as possible. Mr. MEEKER. I agree with the gentleman that the Legislature should proceed to organize the militia force at its first session; that it should be made the imperative duty of that body so to organize the militia. But suppose, like some other Legislatures, I will not say when or where, they should take it uponi themselves to disregard their duty,' the next Legislature would not have the authority to do it under the clause. The object, certainly, is not to deprive subsequent Legislatures of their power over the militia organization. Mr. FLANDRAU. I presume that provision would be construed as only directory, and the subsequent Legislatures would still have power to act. Mr. GILMAN offered the following amendment to the substitute: The Governor of this State shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Militia, and the Legislature thereof shall, as soon as possible, provide suitable laws for the organization of the Militia of the State. Mr. SETZER. I should like to know what is the difference between the two amendments? Mr. BECKER. One provides that it shall be the duty of the Legislature to organize. the militia at the first session, and the other, as soon as practicable. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The substitute was adopted. The Sixth Section was then taken up for conQusideration, as follows: SEc. 6. The Militia, as divided into Divisions, Brigades, Regiments, Battalions and separate eompanies, pursuant to the laws now in force, shall remain so organized until the same shall be altered or regulated by the Legislature. 182 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. SETZER. I move that Section be stricken out. If this Constitution is rejected, of course it will be rejected forever, and the Territorial laws will still remain in force. Mr. BECKER. I would suggest that there should be some general provision retaining the Territorial laws in force until repealed by the State. Otherwise, we shall be in a state of disorganization. Mr. FLANDRAU. There is a Committee on Miscellaneous Provisions which will no doubt report such a general provision; but it was thought best to report this, and if such a general provision is reported, it can be stricken out. The motion to strike out was agreed to. On motion of Mr. BAASEN, the Committee then rose and reported the article back to the Convention with the amendment agreed upon in Committee. Mr. BROWN. Before the Convention acts upon the report of the Committee, I think it will be well to notice the wording of the amendment. As the article now stands, amended by Committee, the first Legislature is required to organize the Militia, and no subsequent Legislature will have power to touch the laws that shall then be made. No matter what exigency may arise, the laws must remain unchanged, for no other Legislature has any authority over the subject. I move to strike out the amendment reported by Committee, and to insert the following: It shall be the duty of the Legislative Assembly to pass such laws for the organization, discipline and service of the Militia of the State as may be deemed necessary. I presume, as has beQn suggested, a provision will be reported, which shall continue the laws in force until new ones shall have been enacted We shall therefore be provided with the military organization which now exists until the Legislature see proper to change it, and then subsequent Legislatures will have the power to make such provision as may be necessary to meet any emergency that may arise. Mr. SHERBURNE. I hope the substitute offered by the gentleman from Sibley will be adopted. If there were no other objection to the Section as reported by the Committee of the Whole, there is an uncertainty about it which I think we should avoid. it is pos sible the first Legislature might not feel bound to pass laws for the organization of the Militia, and if they did not, of course there would be no remedy. It seems to' me that one of the first duties of the Convention is to make all their provisions perfectly intelligible. I think the amendment much preferable to the Section as reported, and I hope it will be adopted. 183 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The amendment to the substitute, as reported from the Committee of the Whole, was adopted. The report of the Committee, as amended, was then concurred in. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the article was adopted and referred to the Committee on Revision and Phraseology. On motion of Mr. TENVOORDE, the Convention, at one o'clock, adjourned. EIGHTEENTH DAY. MONDAY, August 3, 1857. The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. The Journal of Saturday was read and approved. On motion of Mr. SETZER, a call of the Convention was ordered. The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS was directed to report absent members in their seats. On motion of Mr. SETZER, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. On motion of Mr. WARNER, Mr. KENNEDY was excused from attendance this day. PRINTING OF THE ENABLING ACT, &C. Mr. KINGSBURY offered the following resolution which was considered and agreed to. RESOLVED, That the Secretary be requested to ascertain why the copies of the Enabling Act, and the Act which passed the last Legislature, relative to the Constitutional Convention, have not been furnished this body in pursuance of a Resolution passed on the 27th ultimo. INSTRUCTIONS TO REPORTER. Mr. GORMAN offered the following resolution: RzSOLVED, That the Reporter be instructed, under the direction and supervision of the President, to report in full the debates and proceedings of the Convention relating to its organization and the formation of a Constitution and State Government; and to furnish an abstract of such other debate as may arise upon the various incidental motions and propositions which shall be submitted. Mr. GORMAN. The object of this resolution is to give instructions to the Reporter in reference to reporting in full, the debate which may arise upon mere side-bar matters which are of no consequence. I presume it will be better to give an abstract of 184 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ,such debate. The resolution places the whole matter under the direction of the President, and I presume there will be no objection to it. The Resolution was adopted. PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. Mr. GORMAN. I wish also to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of Printing the Debates of this Convention. I believe nothing has been done in relation to the matter thus far, and it is not worth while to wait any longer. If we are not to have these Debates printed within a year from the time of our adjournment, they may as well not be printed at all. The only report of the proceedings of this Convention which now goes before the public, is the simple abstract furnished by the Reporter of the Pioneer and Democrat., Something should be done in relation to the matter. I merely make the suggestion to the Convention. Mr. DAVIS then offered the following resolution, which was considered and adopted: RESOLVED, That a Committee of three be appointed to ascertain upon what terms the Proceedings and Debates, as officially reported, can be published from day to day. Mr. SETZER moved that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the report of the Committee on " Bill of Rights." Mr. MURRAY. I hope the motion will not prevail. My colleagues on the Committee, Messrs. CURTIS and STREETER are absent, and I hope that subject will not be considered until they are in their seats. The motion was not agreed to. DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, on the report of Committee on the Distribution of the Powers of Government. Mr. A. E. AMES in the Chair. The report of the Committee was read as follows SECTION 1. The powers of the Government shall be divided in three distinct Departments-the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and no person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these Departments shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances expressly provided in this Constitution. Mr. SETZER. I should like to know whether that takes away the power of the Legislature, to create lawyers and admit them to 185 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE the bar? If it does, I am in favor of it. If it does not, I am, against it. [Laughter.] Mr. M. E. AMES. I rise simply to suggest for the informationand benefit of the gentleman from Washington, that this section does not take away the power from the Legislature for the simple reason that they never had it, and very seldom the qualification or ability. [Renewed Laughter.] Mr. SHERBURNE. No, neither of lawyers nor men. [Laugh-. ter.] Mr. SETZER. I made the enquiry because attempt was made in the Legislature to re-establish and admit to the bar, a certain lawyer who had been dismissed, and there were members who be lieved the Legislature had that power. Mr. MEEKER. I move the adoption of the Article as it stands. Mr. FLANDRAU. Before the article is adopted, I propose to analize it a little. (Mr. FLANDRnU read the section.) Now I do not know, but as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. SFTZER) says, it would be a very good thing to keep lawyers out of the Legislature, andtperhaps from many of the privileges that some gentlemen would like to deprive them of. But the question as to whether this Article would really exclude an attorney from holding a seat in the Legislature depends upon, whether he is or is not a portion of the Judicial Department. He is an officer of the Court; there is no doubt about that, and so are the Sheriff, Marshal and Clerk, but whether this section would render them inelligible to holding a seat in the Legislature or an office in any other branch of the government, I leave'for, gentlemen, to determine. I merely make the suggestion. Mr. M. E. AMES. In reply to the gentleman from Nicollet, I will simply state that this Article was drawn up with very great care; that it does not exclude lawyers, for they are considered very useful and essential as members of that body, but it was drawn with especial reference to the exclusion of Judges, and I think it will have that effect. (Laughter.) Mr. MEEKER. I really thought the suggestion of the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZER,) was not in earnest, but as Judge FLANDRAU thinks it was, and makes his comments upon the supposition that it is not quite clear that lawyers may not be excluded from seats in the Legislature, and that Clerks of Courts, Marshals and Sheriffs may also be excluded, I will say that I have always regarded these officers as purely ministerial, and not judicial in any sense of the term. I will also say that I do not iso I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. consider lawyers as Judicial officers. They have nothing to do with the administration of justice, officially. I believe this Article follows the very language of the Constitutions of several of the States, and there can certainly be noharm in adopting it. Mr. BROWN obtained the floor. Mr. SETZER. I call the gentleman to order; there is nothing before the Convention. Mr. BROWN. Well sir, I have the right to submit a proposition, and when I have done so, there will probably be something before the Convention. I move to strike out the whole section. It has been argued here that there is no impropriety in the provision that persons holding office in one of the departments of the the government should not interfere with the administration of another department. That is all true, but I would enquire as to the propriety of prohibiting Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate from holding seats in the Legislature, for such, most assuredly, will be the effect of this section. The Judicial Department, I presume, will include Courts of Record, Judges of Probate and Justices of the Peace. Now sir, Justices of the Peace are a portion of the Judicial Department of Government, then they will certainly, under this section, be debarred from holding seats in the Legislature. By our present laws, we have two Justices of the Peace authorized for each precinct, and I presume the number will not be diminished. Now I ask whether it will be advisable to exclude so large a class of our population from the right to occupy seats in the Legislature. I have no doubt of the power of the Convention to exclude them but I doubt the propriety of it. Mr. M. E. AMES. The gentleman has overthrown an object of straw, which he has himself erected. He says it would be impolitic and improper to prohibit Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate from holding seats in the Legislature. I have to inform the gentleman that such is not the result of the Article. Justices of the Peace are no part, no portion of the Judicial Department of the Government, in the sense in which the Constitution uses it, and this is the first time I ever heard of that question being raised before a Constitutional body. Upon examination, it will be found that the provision reported in this article is exactly similar to one contained in the Constitution of almost every State in this UJnion. It is no new doctrine. Mr. BROWN. It may be true, and in all probability is true, that such a provision is incorporated into the Constitution of almost' 18T PROCEEDINGS AD DEBATES OF THE every State. Admit it, and my views are not changed in the least. The Article reads: The Powers of Government shall be divided into three distinct departments, the*Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Now, let me ask what department Justices of the Peace belong to? The powers of government under this provision, are all com prised within three distinct departments. The Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate must be included within one of these three divisions, and according to the terms of the Article, must be prohibited from exercising the powers of any of the other depart ments. I hold the Justices of the Peace do belong to the Judicial Department, and that unless they are specially permitted under this Article, by a fair construction, they will be ineligible to seats in the Legislature. That would be my construction, and in all prob ability it would be the construction of many others. While we have the subject under consideration, therefore, it is our duty to make the matter perfectly plain and beyond all doubt. Mr. FLANDRAU. I believe this provision conforms to that of the Constitutions of many of the States. But sir, while it may be true that Justices of the Peace, may not, in Constitutional or abstract sense of the term, be considered a part of the Judiciary, yet whether they are really so, depends upon the wording of the Constitution itself. I notice that in the Organic Act of this Territory, and in a number of the Constitutions of the different States, it is provided that the Judicial Powers of the State shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Courts of Probate, and Justices of the Peace. If we, in our Constitution, follow these precedents, it is manifest that Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate will be excluded from seats in the Legislature, and from holding an executive office. Now sir, while there is every reason why Judges of Courts of Record should be excluded from these positions, I can see no reason why Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate should be, Mr. MEEKER. I concur in opinion with the gentleman from Nicollet, that Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate should not be excluded from holding seats in the Legislature, and from executive offices, and that Judges of the Supreme and District Courts should be excluded, because they constitute the chief constituent part of our Judiciary system. Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate have not usually been considered, technically, a part of the Judiciary, I do not think they should be so considered; but sir, if they are made so by the Constitution, if they are made to have, as they do have in some of the States, 188 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. criminal and civil jurisdiction, why, I can see no impropriety, on the contrary, it seems to me exceedingly proper that they should be prohibited from participating in the powers of the other departments of government. But, sir, I am opposed to the motion pending, to strike out the whole Article. If no distinction is made between the great sub. divisions of Government, you may see the Legislature forming a conglomeration of a Legislative, Executive and Judicial body, such as would present a startling anomaly in our system of Governrhent. If gentlemen wish that Judges of Probate, and Justices of the Peace shall. be made eligible to seats in the Legislature, let a provision be made specially granting that permission, and do not, by striking out the whole Article, render the highest officers in the Legislative or Executive Departments of Government, eligible to seats in the Legislature, and thus inaugurate in our Constitution a system which would startle every American Statesman. Unless the gentleman from Sibley has a substitute to offer for this section, I hope he will not insist on the motion to strike out. I am willing that Justices of the Peace should be admitted to seats in the Legislature, but I would go no further. Mr. SHERBURNE. The section which is now under consideration is a very old section, perhaps not exactly the same in languages but substantially the same as has been adopted into the Constitutions of all the States. There has always been provision made for three grand divisions of Government. Mr. BROWN. Will the gentleman permit me to say that I made the motion to strike out the section for the purpose of avoiding the question of order made by my friend from Washington, (Mr. SETZER.) With the consent of the Convention I will now withdraw that motion, and move to add to the end of the section these words, "But this Article shall not be construed to exclude Justices of the "Peace, and Judges of Probate firom the right to hold seats in the "Legislature, or any Executive Office." That will bring the subject up for consideration. Mr. SHERBURNE. The motion does not necessarily change the remarks I proposed to make. As the gentleman from Nicollet, (Mr. FIANDRAU,) remarked, the Organic Act of the Territory, and I think the Constitutions of some of the States which have been more recently adopted, have made Justices of the Peace a part of the Judiciary Department. In the older Constitutions, however, they have not been so considered, and in my opinion 189 PROOEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE cannot be so considered, unless made so expressly by Statute or Constitutional provision. Whether the amendment offered by the gentleman from Sibley is necessary or not, therefore, depends simply upon whether Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate are made by the Constitution we shall adopt, a part of the Judiciary Department. If they are not, -then the amendment is unnecessary and ought not to be adopted into the Constitution, because it means nothing. If they are, then I'go for the amendment. I do not know how that is to be determined until we have acted upon the Article on the Judiciary. I should be glad to see, when the Constitution comes up as a whole, all of its parts correspond with each other. I should rather not see any part inconsistent with another, or unnecessary. Mr. WARNER. For one, I am entirely opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BROWN.) I do not conceive that a man who holds any official position whatever, in the Judiciary, whether that of Justice of the Peace or Judge of a Court of Record, is entitled to a seat in a Legislative body. How is it possible for a man to hold two offices at the same time, and discharge efficiently the duties that appertain to both. If he holds an office under the Judiciary, and is elected to a seat in the Legislature, let him resign his office before he enters upon the duties of the place to which the people have called him. Mr. SIBLEY. It strikes me that this Article will have to be gone over again after the other provisions of the Constitution have been adopted, and made to conform to them. The proviso offered by the gentleman.is an unusual one, and I would suggest to him that he allow the section to be adopted as it stands for the present, and if it should become necessary to make the exceptions which his amendment indicates, they can be provided for afterwards, in the proper place. Mr. WAIT. It seems to me the latter part of this section is very improper in its place. I think it would be better to provide for the disqualification of these officers to hold other offices under the heads of the several departments to which they belong. In the Article on the Judiciary Department, let us say what officers in that department shall be disqualified for holding offices in other departments, and the same in the Legislative and Executive Departments. If we undertake to exclude these whole classes of officers, the whole subject will again come up in the considertion of each separate Department. I should prefer to strike out the latter clause of this section entirely, so that the section will read, 190 CONSTITU'rIONAL CONVENTION. The powers of the Governmient shall be divided into three distinct departments-the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Then when the subject of the Judicial Department comes up, we can define the powers of the Judges, and impose such restrictions as we may think proper; and the same can be done with the Executive and Legislative. Mr. MEEKER. It was stated by the Chairman of this Committee, (Mr. M. E. AMES,) and other gentlemen who have spoken on this question, the object of this section is to provide for the usual distribution of the powers of Government into three distinct departments, with the qualifications and limitations which are contained in nearly all the Constitutions which are made now-a-days. The gentleman who was last up, (Mr. WAIT,) is desirous of striking out that clause which prohibits the interference of the officers belonging to one department of Government with the duties of those belonging to another, for, as he says, the Article on the Judiciary will define the powers and restrictions of the Judges, and the same will be done in the Articles on the Legislative and Executive Departments relative to the officers provided for in those Articles. But, sir, permit me to say that this entire separation of the pow ers and duties of the different departments of Government, is not preserved in practice. The Legislature has judicial jurisdiction for certain purposes. The Senate and House of Representatives are empowered, in certain cases, to try high officers of the Govern ment. In that capacity they act as judges, and to that extent interfere with the duties belonging to the Judiciary Department. In my opinion, however, it is eminently proper that this distinction should be observed. I would prefer, with the gentleman from Scott county, (Mr. WARNEn,) that the section should be adopted just as it has been reported. I think it is better to conform to the distinctions which in our Ameican system of government, we are all accustomed to, and that the officers connected with one depart ment of Government, should have no authority to interfere with another department except in special cases, such as I have named. The cause of liberty, the cause of justice, as the experience of this country and of all other countries shows, demand that these dis tinctions should be preserved. The man who makes the lawmustnot expound the law, and the man who executes the law must not be the law maker. These are maxims of government which we have been taught from our boyhood, and I am opposed to their being broken down by this body. It has been very properly said, if a man is elected to the office of Judge of Probate, he ought to be satisfied with that office until he 191 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE is prepared to resign it for some other office. It is not our business to make offices for officers, but it is our business in framing the fundamental law of the land, in looking to the welfare, happiness, and prosperity of the people, to see that one man does not hold two, four, or six offices in different departments of the Government. I say that when a man is elected to the office of Justice of the Peace, he has no business to abandon the duties of his office and leave his people without justice during the sessions of the Legisla ture. And I say that when a man is elected as Judge of Probate, he has no right to abandon the Probate business of his district to attend the duties of another office. I am decidedly in favor of allcwing the section to remain precisely as it stands, and conform to the system of government which the experience of all the States has shown to be a wise one. Mr. EMMETT. My object in rising is not to make a speech, but to offer an amendment; which I shall do before I take my seat. I think with gentlemen who have spoken upon this section that the nature of its construction should be placed beyond all doubt. The very fact that learned gentlemen who have spoken here differ as to the construction which should be given it, makes it incumbent on us to put it beyond the possibility of misconstruction. Now, sir, I can see no reason why Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate should be prohibited from holding any other office, either Executive or Legislative; neither can I see any good reason why a member of the Legislature may not very properly, during his office as such, be elected to the office of Governor. The great object of the provision is to prevent Judges of Courts of Record from dabbling in politics wfiile they are on the bench, for the purpose of getting elected to some other office. Now, sir, it may be improper to allude to what has transpired in any other Committee, but I will state that I believe the Committee on ethe Judiciary will report a provision to be inserted into the Judicial Article, which will obviate any necessity for the restriction which is proposed to be inserted in this Article so far as the Judiciary are concerned. I do not think it proper that an Executive officer should, during the term of his office, become a Legislator, though I see no objection whatever, to a member of the Legislature being elected to an Executive office, when, if elected, of course his Legislative duties would cease. Now, sir, I am opposed to the section as it stands with the doubt which hangs over its construction. As a lawyer I may at some day be ambitious of becoming a Justice of the Peace. I have colleagues around me, promising young men, who may also have 192 OO(NSTITUTIONAL CONVDNloN. aspirations for election to that office, and when we have been elected, I see no reason why we should be deprived from occupying seats in the Legislature simply because, by a construction which may be given to this section, we may be considered as belonging to the Judiciary. Mr. WARNER. I should like to know of the gentleman, if he is ambitious of being elected as a Justice of the Peace? Mr. EMMETT. I stated that I might become ambitious of that honor, and that others of my fellow citizens might become ambi — tious of the honor; and that when we had attained it, I saw no reason why we should be prescribed from also becoming candidates for holding seats in the Legislature. Now sir, I move to amend the section, by striking out all afterthe word'- Judicial," so that the section will read: SEcTIoN 1. The powers of the Government shall be divided into three distinct Departments-the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. Then when we come to consider the articles on'the Executive and Legislative Departments, we may provide for such restrictions as may be necessary, if any should become necessary, more than are provided for in this Article. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not in order. Mr. BROWN. I think the amendment proposed by the gentle — man, is much better than the one I offered. I only made the propo sition for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee, to the point which I presented. If the Committee will allow me, I will accept the amendment of the gentleman, in lieu of my own. I presume that when we come to take up the Article on the Judiciary we shall prescribe all thee powers and duties, and limitations which are required to be attached to the offices we shall create by that Article. The same may be done when we take up the Articles on the Legislative and Executive Departments. That, it seems to me. is the proper place to provide for such restrictions if they are! necessary at all. I do not think it is necessary for this Article to go further than merelyto state that the powers of the State Govern ment shall be divided into three distinct departments-the Legis lative, Executive and Judicial. I hope the proposition suggested by the gentleman will prevail, and to enable him to offer it, I will withdraw my amendnment. Mr. EMMETT. I then offer the amendment, which I proposed, to strike out all after the word "Judicial" in the section. Mr. SHERBURNE. I really hope that the amendment will not be adopted. It seems to me that there is something in the wisdom of the past, some safety in precedent that we should have some: 199, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE consideration for in framing our Constitution. It has always been thought wise, that the different branches of government should be kept distinct, and that is the object of this provision, which is al ways found in the Constitutions of all the States. Now sir, there is not much danger of excluding good men from office. There is much more danger of getting poor ones there. There is not much danger in saying that a man shall hold but one office. There may be greater danger in saying, he may hold two. I trust we shall always be able to get good men for all the offices we have to fill, and only one in each. I hope the Convention will not keep out of sight the fact that each department of the govern ment shall be kept separate and distinct in itself. Now sir, I ask what objection can there be to incorporating in the section, language like this: And no persons belonging to or constituting one of these departments, shall exercise any of the powers, properly belonging to each of the others, except in the instances expressly provided in this Constitution. It is a good idea to lay down the rule in the first place which excludes all, and then if we find that in some instances men are competent to fill'two offices, let them be designated as exceptions, and not allow them to constitute the rule. Mr. FLANDRAU. The general rule of keeping separate and distinct, the different branches of government is undoubtedly correct; but in a country like America, there will undoubtedly instances occur-there is hardly a man on this floor, who cannot bring to his mind instances, where in sparsely settled counties the best men have accepted the offices of Judge of Probate, and Justice of the Peace, at a sacrifice of their own personal inclinations because there were no competent men wishing these offices. Now when these men have accepted the offices, under circumstances like these, I want to know if it is right to exclude them from being elected to other offices? Mr. SHERBURNE. I did not include Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate in the category at all I shall be in favor of allowing these officers to be eligible to places in the Legislative and Executive Departments. I do not think they have ever been considered in a Constitutional sense as belonging to the Judiciary at all. Mr. FLANDRAU. I do not think the gentleman from Ramsey and myself disagree in the least. I say, let there be a general rule requiring these departments of Government to be kept distinct, and let the exceptions be named in favor of particular classes of officers. There is no doubt that these officers as originally constituted in England-where justices were merely conservators of the 194 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. peace, did not come within the judicial departments in any legal sense. But, sir, under the practice of this country, they have come to settle, judicially, more than half the litigation of the country. I have no doubt that more than half the property which undergoes judicial cognizance, is in sums of less than $100, in which case the suits are tried before a Justice's Court. With such a state of things existing, they must necessarily be made a part of the Judiciary, and are so included in the Constitutions of most of the States Now, sir, when a man has sacrificed his interest, and his convenience and wishes, for the good of the community, and has accepted the appointment of Justiee of the Peace, I do not think it is right, when he is the choice of the people for a higher office, that he should be excluded. A seat in a Justice's chair is not an honor very much sought by anybody, and still, in many cases, the people will demand that good men shall fill it. Now, sir, I wish to say a word in reference' to the amendment which is before the Convention. I am in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Sibley (Mr. BROWN) as originally offered, and which, if withdrawn, I renew, and opposed to the amendment of the amendment. I think the exceptions which the gentleman proposes had better be adopted. Then, when we reach the Article on the Judiciary, if we incorporate Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate as a part of the Judiciary, as I have no doubt we shall, the exceptions will be just what we want to provide for. If, on the contrary, they are not adopted as a part of the Judiciary, then the exceptions will become unnecessary, and they can be pruned out when we come to put the various parts of the Constitution together; of course occasional changes will become necessary to make all the parts harmonize. I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. EMMErT) and in favor of that originally offered by the gentleman from Sibley. Mr. M. E. AMES. I have listened with a good deal of attention to the arguments which have been made, pro and con, for the purpose of ascertaining or judging for myself if there was any well formed objection to it; for if there was, I would as willhnglyamend it as any gentleman upon this floor. But as I said before, this is a very common provision, substantially the same as is found in the Constitution as far, as I recollect, of every State in this Union, certainly in every one which has undergone a recent revision. Since 1 before alluded to the subject, a gentleman has placed in my hand a paper published at the Capital of Iowa, dated on the 16th of last month, containing the Constitution recently adopted in that State, 13 195 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE where I find almost identically the same language. It is in these words: SEC. 1. The powers of the government of Iowa shall be divided i nto three sepa rate departments: The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these depart ments shall exercise any function appertaining to either of the others, except in cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. That is from the Constitution of Iowa, which has been recently formed, and upon which they are voting to-day. The same provision, in almost the same language, the framers of the Constitution of the United States also saw fit to insert into that instrument. And now, sir, in regard to the objections raised against this Article, I say without fear of contradiction by any legal gentleman, that Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate are not included within the Judiciary Department, and never have been so considered in any State. Sir, the proposition is new and novel indeed. If gentlemen will produce any precedents to support it, if they will produce any authorities, any case which has been adjudicated by any tribunal whatever to show that Jus tices of the Peace or Judges of Probate are a part of the Judiciary of any State, I will concede the whole ground. There is just as much reason for classing the Sheriff of a county as belonging to the State Executive Department. Sir, a Justice of the Peace under our present organization, is merely a local officer and nothing else. His jurisdiction is co-extensive with the limits of the District in which he is elected. Upder the organization of a State Govern ment their jurisdiction is still narrower. They are then mere township officers, and nothing beyond that. In respect to Judges of Probate, I suppose their powers may, very possibly be conferred upon a court of record, and the office will not exist, but if it is authorized, it will exist as a mere creation of statute, and is no more a part of the Judiciary than are Justices of the Peace. But even if they were a part of the Judiciary, if the Committee on the Judiciary should report in favor of making them by the ex press terms of the Constitution a part of the Judiciary, still this, I contend, is not the place for the amendment which the gentleman has introduced. It should either come under the head of Miscella neous Provisions or Qualifications. But, sir, I say again, that no such provision is necessary. If there were any precedent for it, if the doubt had ever been raised in the practice under any Consti tution as to the eligibility of these officers to seats in the Legis lature, then such a provision would be eminently proper, but the 196 t CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. clause which the gentleman from Sibley suggests is a novelty nowhere else to be found. Again, I agree with certain gentlemen who have spoken here, that it is not very important that one man should hold more than one office, and taking the construction which gentlemen have placed upon the rank of Justices of the Peace as correct, if any man holding that office is so'prominent that the citizens of his locality wish to send him to the Legislature, and he wants to go, I think it will be no great hardship for him to resign his office as Justice of the Peace, after he is elected, and before taking the oath of office as a legislator. I take it that it would be no more than the public good required, that he should vacate his office during his absence in attendance on the Legislative sessions, and allow it to be filled by some other man. I believe it is a good principle that when a man desires promotion or election to a higher office, he should resign his first. Mr. CHAIRMAN, it has from the first been a settled principle in the policy of our Government, that the exercise of the duties of the different departments shall be kept entirely separate and distinct, and that is the object of the last clause of the Section. The Section itself has two objects to attain. The first is to prevent the Legislature from encroaching upon the Executive or Judicial De. partments, assembled as a body, in their official capacity, and vice versa to prevent the Executive and Judiciary from encroaching officially upon the Legislative functions. It is also to prevent a member of one of the Departments individually from belonging to another, and in this manner exercises control over it; as if, for instance, you were to el,(ct to the Legislative Assembly, the Secretary of State or Attoriiey General, and perhaps two-thirds the Executive officers of the -tate, enough to control the action of that body; for any man who,ccupies so high position is generally a man of sufficient standing to be able to command votes enough to elect him to a seat in the Legislative Assembly. On the other hand, if the members of the Legislature were eligible to office, or to appointment while retaining their seats as legislators, what control might not the Governor have over the Legislative Department? It is for the purpose of shutting the door- if I may use the expression-against that sort of amalgamation, against the exercise of that kind of improper influence, either as a corporate body or as individuals, of one Department of the Government upon another. It is upon these views that other States have deemed it wise to insert such a provision as this into their Constitutions; and the Committee having this matter in charge, acting upon the same line 197 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE of reasoning and upon the precedents before us, have adopted the provision which is before this body. I hope the Article will not be amended as is proposed. I would rather see it stricken out in toto from the Constitution, than to have it mangled in the shape the amendment would have it. Mr. WAIT. I would like to ask the gentleman from Ramsey to what Department of Governmnent Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate belong to, if it is not to the Judiciary? Mr. M. E. AMES. I reply to the gentleman from Stearns. I will state that they belong to the township and county organizations, and not to any Department of the State Government. Mr. BROWN. If I was not thoroughly convinced of the manifest impropriety of the Article as it stands, the remarks of the Chairman of the Committee, who has just taken his seat, and the instance quoted by him, has convinced me beyond a doubt. Why, sir, does not the gentleman know that the Constitution of Iowa which he quotes from, was framed by a Black Republican Convention, and is repudiated by the Democratic party iu the State? Mr M. E. AMES. Do they repudiate it on account of this provision? Mr. BROWN. Not this provision alone, but this is one of the provisions I have no doubt on which they oppose it. Now, Mr. CHAIRMAN, the gentleman from Ramsey holds that Justices of the Peace are not judicial officers and do not belong to the Judiciary of the State, because their jurisdiction does not extend over the entire State. The same argument would include the District Court from the Judiciary of the State for the jurisdiction of no Judge of that Court is co-extensive with the State. A Justice of the Peace has jurisdiction over the limits of the District for which he is elected, in the same manner as the District Judge has jurisdiction over the District for which he is elected. He has juribsdictionover the same class of cases which come under the jurisdiction of the District Court, only involving sums of a less amount. The trials are con ducted in exactly the same manner before a Justice of the Peace as before a District Court. Appeals may be taken from the Justice's Court to the District Court, in the same manner as they may be taken from the District Court to the Supreme Court. I can see no distinction. They both belong equally to the Judiciary Depart ment.. They are not, properly speaking, parts of the Judiciary of the State, because the jurisdiction of neither of them is co-extensive with the State. Now, sir, I am opposed to the insertion of any provision into this Constitution upon which there is any doubt as to its meaning. If OONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Justices of the Peace are not to be regarded as a part of the Judicial Department, I want that fact to be made manifest in unequivocal terms. If it is desirable that Justices of the Peace should be excluded from the right to hold office in any other branch of the goyernment, I have no objection. I believe that the duties of one office are as much as a man can perform well at one time; but I want it distinctly understood, so that every one may read as he runs in reference to the matter. I want that there shall be no possibility of a doubt placed upon any portion of the Constitution which -we shall form. I think if the amendment of the gentleman from Ramsey (Mr. EMMETT,) is adopted, we can best provide for the officers under the head of each department as we come to consider the Articles upon the respective departments of government. We can prescribe such limitations and qualifications as may seem most expedient, and the whole matter will be best disposed of in that way. Mr. GORMAN. I am inclined to think the gentleman is right, and I am inclined to think he is wrong. The gentleman has given us an argument on both sides of the question. He says in the first place, that the Iowa Constitution is wrong. He says that Justices of the I'eace are a part of the Judiciary of the State, and yet he is in favor of the principle that no man should hold more than one office. Now, sir, in my opinion, that is precisely what this Article is intended to accomplish. It is intended that no one of the officers exercising functions under one department of the government shall exercise any of the functions which belong to another department If a man belongs to the Legislative department, for instance, this Article is intended to prevent him from exercising the duties of Governor, or Auditor, or Attorney General, or any of the duties appertaining to any of the offices in the Executive department. If he desires to fill an office belonging to another department of government, he must first resign the office he already holds. Mr. BROWN. The gentleman takes precisely the same view of the matter which I expressed. I do not hold that a man should be allowed to hold two offices at the same time; what I want to arrive at is, that there shall be no doubt in the construction of the Article we propose to insert. Mr. GORMIAN. I understand the position of my friend from Sibley. He wants this Constitutional Convention to resolve itself into a high court of judicature to decide all questions of jurisprudence which may arise under the Constitution. But sir, let me get ,through with the remark I was making. Shall an executive officer, 199 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE while exercising the functions of his office, and drawing the pay of the office, be elected to fill another official position? I say no, and the people will say no, as sure as you live. Would you allow a member of the Legislature exercising the duties of his position as such, and drawing his pay as such, also to fill the position of judge or any other office in the Judicial Department, and at the same time hold an office in the Executive Department? It is to prevent just such practices as this, that this Article has been framed. I do not care whether the man is Probate Judge, Justice of the Peace, or what he is, so long as he continues to discharge the duties of his office and draw the pay, I say he should not be elected as Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor or to any other office, for he cannot discharge the duties of both efficiently. It is one of the principles of this government that the people should allow as little power to go out of their own hands as possible, and for that reason, you should not allow a man to hold the powers of two offices, one of which he may use in connection with the other; as for instance, you should not permit a man to assist in making the laws of which he is to adjudicate, himself. Sir, the Article is right as it stands. The gentleman from Sibley has objected to it because there was a provision similar in character, inserted into the Iowa Constitution. Sir, the gentleman should recollect that there were Democrats as well as Republicans in the Convention which framed the Constitution of Iowa, and that although the Republicans had the majority in the Convention it is still very possible for Democrats and Republicans to agree upon great fundamental principles of government like this. I am in favor of making the application of the principle general, without exceptions If the officers of Justice of the Peace and Judges of Probate come within the provision, let them be included with other officers in the same limitations. I have always understood the rule as established by the Courts, to be that, where an officer performed Judicial functions of which he kept an official record, as the Judge of Probate does to a certain extent, he was a Judicial officer; but as I said, I am ready to carry out the principles fully. If a man holds even a ministerial office and draws its pay, I say he should be confined to that and not allowed to hold another office, unless he resigned the first. These are the views which I entertain upon this question. Mr. EMMETT. Even after the question has been argued to a very considerable length, I feel it to be my duty to add a few words to what has been said. I do not want to thrust myself upon 200 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the Convention, but I think it the duty of every member to see that he is placed in a proper position. Now sir, so far as the remarks of the last speaker are concerned, I agree with him perfectly, and I think no member of the Convention has expressed a different opinion in respect to the policy of allowing one man to hold two offices, except under particular circumstances. The only difference of opinion is in respect to the exceptions it is proper to make. Now sir, we do not want an Executive officer to exercise the functions of a Judicial office, nor vice versa. It has been suggested that if these qualifications and limitations upon the several officers of government provided for in this Constitution were inserted into the respective Articles to which they belong, this provision could be subsequently stricken out; but sir, it seems to be admitted that it is proper to make these exceptions in the Articles on the several departments, and I ask where is the necessity or advantage of making them again and again? The object we all want to arrive at is the same. The only difference is in the manner of reaching it. Now sir, it seems to rme that it is sufficient in this Article, to simply state that the powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments, and then have each department to be provided for in the Article relating to it when we take it up for consideration. I again repeat that the very fact of the difference of opinion in the construction of the latter clause, which I propose to strike out, is sufficient in itself to induce us to reject it. If the amendment of the gentleman from Sibley be adopted, excepting Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate, there may be other officers which we also ought to except, perhaps Registers of Deeds and Sheriffs. The very fact of its difficulty of construction should be sufficient to induce us to reject it, and make a plain unmistakable provision on the subject in another portion of the Constitution. Mr. SETZER. I will simply say in reply to the gentleman from Saint Paul, that in my opinion one of the great objects to be accomplished by such a provision as this, has been left out in the arguments which have been made. Provision should be made; not only that the officers of the different departments should not be elected to places in other departments, but provision should also be made that the different departments should not interfere with each other. I will state a circumstance which occurred in the' Legislature of this Territory. A motion was made to reinstate a lawyer who had been expelled from Court. The motion did not prevail, but there were lawyers who agreed that the Legislature had the power to 201 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATE8 OF THE reinstate him, in violation of the will of the Judiciary, which had expelled him. Now sir, I want to provide against any such possisible occurrence in future. I think the Judiciary should not be allowed to interfere with the Legislature, nor the Legislature with the Judiciary, nor the Executive with either department. I have no objection to Justices of the Peace being elected to the Legislative Assembly, but I am opposed to any part of this section being stricken out, for I want to see all the restrictions which it embodies retained in the Constitution. The motion to strike out was not agreed to. Mr. BROWN. I now move to strike out of the Article the words, "except as expressly provided in this Constitution." This Committee has decided that no person belonging to one department of the government shall exercise any of the duties belonging to any other department; and if we are going to make that announcement at all, I want no exceptions. Let us go the whole figure and say in unequivocal terms that no person belonging to one department of the government shall be eligible to office in another. Mr. SIBLEY. I hope the amendment will not be adopted. It strikes me the Committee have incorporated in this section almost precisely what is contained in the Constitutions of most of the States, and that we had better have the language just as we found it, unless there is some great principle to enunciate, not incorporated in the Article, which it is desirable to enunciate there. Now, sir, this body has,'in the vote it has just taken, refusing to strike out the portion which the gentleman moved to strike out, declared in favor of the general principle enunciated in the section. It has not said that there should be no exceptions to the rule. There may be some exceptions which we may find it wise to make hereafter. There may be some officers besides Justices of the Peace and Judges of Probate, that we shall find it advisable not to hold to the rule we have here laid down, as we progress. I think this whole discussion has arisen at an improper time. I am in favor of the general rule, but I am not prepared to say at this time what exceptions it may be proper to make, and I do not want to put it out of our power to make such exceptions as we may hereafter find necessary to make. I hope the amendment will be voted down. The amendment was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Committee rose and reported the Article to the Convention without amendment, and with the recommendation that it be adopted. 202 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The Article was then referred to the Committee on Phraseology and Revision. PREAMBLE AND BILL OF RIGHTS. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole upon the Article on the Preamble and Bill of Rights, Mr. HOILCO-MBE in the Chair. The/following is the Report of the Committee: PREAMBLE. ": We, the People of Minnesota, in order to form a State Government, and to secure and perpetuate the blessings of Liberty, do ordain, and establish this Constitution. BILL OF RIGHTS. 1st. Government is established for the security, benefit and protection of the People, in whom all Political Power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform such Government, whenever the public good may require it. 2d. No member of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. 3d. Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever exist or be tolerated in this State. \ 4th. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State to every person; and no person shall be rendered incompetent as a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief, and no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification for any public office; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentious ness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State. 5th. The right of Trial by Jury shall be secured to all, and remain inviolate forever; but a Jury Trial may be waived by the parties in all civil cases, in the manner to be prescribed by law. 6th. The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, un less when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. Ex cessive bail shall not be required excessive fines imposed, nor shall cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted. 7th. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial Jury of the County or District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which County or District shall have been previously ascertained by law; the right to be heard, and defend in person or with a counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, and to have compulsory process awarded. 8th. No person shall be held to answer for any criminal offence, unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases of impeachment, and in cases cognizant before Justices of the Peace, and in cases of Militia when in actual service, and the Land and Naval forces in time of War. No per son shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence; nor shall he be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; and in al cases, before conviction, the accused shall be bailable by suifficient sureties, 203 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE except for capital offences, when the proof is evident or the presumption great. 9th. No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble to consult for the common good, to instruct their Representatives, and to petition the Government or any department thereof. 10th. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all original pros ecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the Jury; and if it shall appear to the Jury that the matter charged as libelous be true and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be ac quitted; and the Jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. 11th. No bill of attainder or expostfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed. 12th. Foreigners who are, or who may hereafter become, bona fide residents of this State shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property, as native-born citizens. 13th. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable seizures and searches, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oaths or affirm ations, particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized. 14th. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, adhering to its enemies or giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be con victed of treason unless on the evidence of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. 15th. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action on mesne or final process, unless in case of fraud, and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace. A reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale, for payment of any debt or liability incurred thereon; the amount of such exemption shall be determined by law. 16th. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefor. 17th. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power, and no standing army shall be kept up in this State in time of peace. 18th. All lands within this State are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents, are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural land for a longer period than fifteen years, hereafter made, in which shall be reserved any rent or service of any kind, shall be void. 19th. All lands within this State, the title to which shall fail from defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the people. 20th. The enumeration of rights in this Constitution shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. MAr. BROWN offered the following as a substitute for the "Preamble." The People of Minnesota Territory, having the rights of admission into the Federal Union, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of Congress approved March 3rd, 1857, entitled "an act to enable the Peo"ple of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Government preparatory to "their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States," in order to establish justice, promote the welfare and secure the blessings o-f liberty to themselves and to their posterity, do ordain and establish the follow 204 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ing Constitution and form of government,-and do mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free and independent State by the name of the State of Minnesota. And they do hereby ratify the boundaries assigned to such State by the act of Congress aforesaid, which are as follows to wit: Beginning at the point in the centre of the main channel of the Red River of the North, where the boundary line between the United States and the British Possessions crosses the same;. thence up the main channel of said River to that of the Bois de Sioux River; thence along the main channel of said River to Lake Traverse; thence up the centre of said Lake to the Southern extremity thereof; thence in a direct South line to the head of Big Stone Lake; thence through its centre to its outlet; thence by a due South line to the North line of the State of Iowa; thence along the Northern boundary of said State, to the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence up the main channel of said River, and following the boundary line of the State of Wisconsin until the same intersects the St. Louis River; thence down the said River to and through Lake Superior on the boundary line of Wisconsin and Michigan, until it reaches the dividing line between the United States and the British Possessions; thence up Pigeon River, and following said dividing line to the place of beginning, with concurrent jurisdiction on the Mississippi and all other Rivers and waters bordering on the said State of Minnesota, so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said State and any State or States now, or hereafter to be formed or bounded by the same. Mr. MEEKER. I would enquire of the gentleman whether in that Preamble he has followed the boundary as described in the Enabling Act? Mr. BROWN. Yes sir. Mr. BECKER. It strikes me Mr. CHAIRMAN, that is the most extensive Preamble that I ever heard of. It is not only a Pream ble, but it is almost an entire Constitution. [Laughter.] I do not know whether the gentleman intended to intrude upon the jurisdiction of any other Committee, but I will inform him there is another Committee which has this matter of Boundary specially in charge, and who will be prepared to report to the Convention upon the various propositions submitted by Congress. For one, I do not desire to see that Committee turned out of employ. ment. Somie of us have a desire to serve our country in that direction, and hope the amendment will not prevail. Mr. M. E. AMES. I do not understand the precise shape in which this amendment comes before us; I rise to inquire whether it is offered as a substitute for the whole declaration of rights or as a substitute for the first section? [Laughter.] Mr. BROWN. For the information of the gentleman I will state that it is offered as a substitute for the Preamble only. I will also state that it was not offered with a view of infringing upon the rights or duties of the gentleman from St. Paul, (Mr. BECKER.) As we have been discussing questions of precedent, I will statethat I find in the Constitutions of quite a large number 205 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF T]IE of the States, and particularly of the Western States, the Boundary limits are defined in the Preamble, and I believe it is the proper place. I think this is certainly as proper a place to bring the matter before the Convention as any other, though I confess that when I offered the amendment, I had not reflected that the subject had been referred to another Committee. Mr. MURRAY. I will say in explanation'that the Committee having the matter of the Preamble and Bill of Rights in charge, found one or two Constitutions which stated the Boundaries of the State in the Preamble, and some of the Committee were in favor of inserting them into our report, but after consideration, and inasmuch as the subject had been specially referred to another Committee, it was thought best to make no reference to the subject. There are certain gentlemen belonging to this body who are very solicitous of placing themselves before their constituents and the country on this Boundary question, and we were desirous that the question should come bofore the Convention in such a way as to give them an opportunity of spreading themselves. [Laughter.] Mr. MEEKER. I could not for my life see the necessity of raising a Committee to take this subject into consideration, but it has been referred to a Committee raised to take this with the propositions made by Congress to the people of Minnesota in charge. It is an excellent Committee, and I have no doubt they will do the subject entire justice. But it does seem to me that so much of the matter referred to that Committee as relates to the Boundery of the proposed State, ought to appear in this Preamble to the Constitution of the State. It is certainly the most proper place in which to proclaim the name and boundary of the State of Minnesota. If there is any way, which it can be inserted therein through the Committee on the subject, at some future time, I have no objection, but I think it shonld come in here. Mr. MURRAY. The gentleman from Iennepin (Mr. MEEKER) is one of the Committee on Phraseology and Revision. It will be in the power of that Committee to transfer it to the Preamble. Mr. BROWN. As I have already stated, I did not reflect when I offered the amendment, that the subject had been referred to a special committee, but I certainly think with the gentleman from Hlennepin that here is the proper place for the boundaries of the State to be defined. This question is one which this Convention should, in my opinion, decide before any other connected with the Constitution. A great deal of the wording of the Constitution itself will depend upon the boundaries we shall adopt. The Committee on Apportionment, and various other of the committees charged 206 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. witli duties by tlse Convention, cannot act until the boundaries are established; and it was with a view of enabling those committees to act that I have proposed the substitute embracing the boundary lines prescribed by Congress. I have offered it, however, in Eoch shape as to place it in the power of any gentleman to move to amend by substituting any other boundary line which he may see proper, and giving such views upon the subject as he may deem it his duty to present. But, while I consider this the proper place in which to insert the boundary lines of the proposed State, and while I submit that these boundaries must be fixed definitely before other subjects of importance can be acted upon by the committees having them in charge, nevertheless, as the gentleman from St. Paul (Mr. BECKER) has given us the information that his Committee will be able to report in a short time, and as several gentlemen are anxious that the report upon the subject shall emanate from that Committee, with the consent of the Convention, I will withdraw the substitute. Mr. SETZER. I object to the withdrawal. The boundaries of the State should certainly be in the Preamble; and, if it is neces sary that the report should come from the Committee on the Name and Boundaries of the State, let us refer the Preamble, together with the amendment, to that Committee. Mr. BECKER. I have a very different idea of a Preamble from the gentleman from Washington, or the gentleman who offered the substitute. My idea of a Preamble is: something which goes be fore the Constitution-something that introduces the Constitution. It is no part or parcel of the Constitution itself. I have before me the Constitutions of several of the States. The Preamble to that of the State of New-York reads: "We, the People of the State of New-York, grateful to Almighty God for for our freedom: in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution." That of the Missouri Constitution reads: "We, the People of the State of Missouri, by our Delegates in Convention assembled, do ordain and establish the following Constitution." Now, sir, that is a Preamble, and that is the office of a Preamble It is merely to introduce the Constitution. On looking to the Con stitution of Michigan itself, I find that the first section establishes the name and boundaries. You might just as well go on and define what shall be the duties of the Governor here-and I ask the gentleman if he would consider that the proper office of a preamble? I am opposed to the substitute. Mr. BROWN. The gentleman's arguments have not changed my views upon the necessity and propriety of designating the name and boundaries of the State in the Preamble to the Constitu 207 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE tion. The Preamble as reported commences: "We, the People of "Minnesota." Now, what constitutes Minnesota? Mr. BECKER. The first Article of the Constitution should designate. Mr. BROWN. No, sir. In my opinion wV should say: "We, "the People of Minnesota." [within certain limits] "do ordain and establish this Constitution." Otherwise, it may be "the People" within any limits whatever. I hold that, in order to have a proper understanding of the Preamble, it should designate who are the people-living within what limits, who thus join together to form a Constitution. Mr. FLANDRAU. I am opposed to this being inserted into the Preamble, because I do not think it is the proper place for it, and I have listened in vain to hear any gentleman show one reason why it should go there. I think the argument of the gentleman from Sibley (Mr. BROWN) upon this question is like a good many other arguments that gentleman makes. When hle has made a motion which he is satisfied is an improper one he draws upon his imagination to bear him out. Technically speaking, I do not think the Preamble is any part of the Constitutional law: it is merely placed there to make it read better-for the purpose of furnishing something to start with. The establishment of the boundaries of the State are an important portion of the Constitution and should be embodied in the instrument itself. It should constitute Article One of the Constitution. Mr. CHAIRMAN, I repeat that I think the Preamble is not the proper place for the insertion of the boundaries of the State. I want to see that subject come up in a regular report of a committee, and come up in a shape in which it may be fairly met. Mr. SHERBURNE. If it is proper that the boundaries of the State should go into the preamble, then it is not necessary that they should go into the Constitution at all. The Preamble is a mere statement of the subject matter which follows, similar to an enacting clause or the title of a bill, a recitation of facts or reasons perhaps, which may serve to make what follows more intelligible. Such statements in former times, preceded the enactment of laws. Now, sir, if it is proposed that we should put these boundaries in. the Constitution for the purpose of making them valid, I tell gentlemen that to put them in the enacting clause, will make them of no binding effect whatever; for say what you will, the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution. Suppose we were to mark out different lines from those which appear in the Enabling Act, how would that appear in the Preamble? It does not necessarily fol 208 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. low that those who are making this Constitution should be represented by these exact boundaries. Sir, if we intend to establish these lines, we must put them in the Constitution and not in the Preamble. It is said there are precedents for this. There may be precedents for other errors, but I say the idea that you can establish a boundary lines by a Preamble, is absurd upon its face. I hardly think the gentleman from Sibley can be serious in offering it. Mr. MEEKER. Under the impulse of the moment, I thought the Preamble might be the proper place to establish the boundary lines of the State, and I am satisfied that it is. It is true there are precedents to the contrary. The gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. BECKER,) read from the Preamble of the Constitution of the State of New York; but sir, the Constitution of New York not only does not contain the boundaries in the Preamble, but they are not to be found in the body of the Constitution. Why? - Because the boundaries of the State of New York was a matter of national notoriety. There was no controversy in relation to it. Such I think is the fact in reference to the Constitutions of all the New England States and most of the older States, whose boundaries are well established and settled. But in the new States, and particularly here, it is necessary that the limits of the State should be expressly fixed in the Constitution, because the boundary lines are a subject of controversy among the people themselves, and may become such in Congress. It has been a matter of controversy among us as to what should be the boundaries of the State of Minnesota. I believe that Congress has carried out the will of the people in proclaiming the boundaries which they have prescribed in the Enabling Act. But, sir, I insist that the'Preamble is just as much a part of the Constitution as is Article one or two, and I say that it is perfectly proper when it is proclaimed that "we, the people of Minnesota, do ordain this Constitution to say what people. Not the people of the Territory of Minnesota by any means, only a portion of them; then what portion? Why, those living within the boundaries designated by the Enabling Act. I say therefore, as I said in the start, that there is great propriety in announcing in the Preamble the limits of the State, which are ordained and established by the Constitution. I however, am not a stickler in the matter. I would not be guilty of the slightest discourtesy to the Committee on the Name and Boundary of the State, but whenever the subject of boundary has been decided by the Convention, I shall urge that the proper place to insert it is in the Preamble. Mr. CURTIS. I am opposed to the substitute. Ibelieve with other gentlemen who have spoken, that it is no part of a preamble to 209 PROCEEDINGS AID DEBATES OF HE incorporate Constitutional provisions in it. I think the' course in referring this subject to a separate Commnittee was a correct one. The argument of the mover of the substitute proves too much. He is anxious to have a ratification of this important proposition at the very outset, and therefore places it outside the Constitution altogether, By reading the substitute, I findsthat for certain pur poses, certain limits are adopted, and to establish justice, promote the welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, they do ordain and adopt the following Constitution: What Constitution? You find that the main proposition is placed in the heading of the chapter. It would be like taking a proposi tion in Euclid, placing the results in the heading, and calling that proof. They wish a solemn recognition of their Boundaries, and, therefore, commence by putting them in the Preamble. Why, sir, there is neither sense nor propriety in the Preamble apart from the Constitution itself. The people of Minnesota, within certain Boundaries, do ordain and establish this Constitution. What Constitution'? We have made no Constitution. We have merely spread upon the record our idea of the work we are about to carve out. It strikes me that the main object of a Preamble is to enunciate the object, and it is merely the statement of the object for which the gentleman's Boundaries and all the other provisions which follow, are established. In regard to the fact that there are precedents for inserting the Boundaries in the Preamble, it strikes me that they are bad precedents, and precedents which should constitute the exception and not the rule. As I have said, my main objection to the substitute lies in the fact that the only legitimate object of a Preamble, is to introduce the work of the Convention, and when you go beyond that, you might as well insert the Declaration of Independence, which is a very good document, to which we all subscribe. You might as well insert the Article on the Judiciary, or any other important article upon which we are to act, as to insert these Boundary Lines. The preamble, as I apprehend, should be short, succinct and unambiguous. It should simply state the subject of the action of the Convention, and serve merely as an introduction to the Constitution itself. Mr. SIBLEY. It strikes me that if we are going on at this rate, it will take us a good while to get through with the Constitution. The gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BROWN,) this morning, submitted an entirely irrelevant proposition, upon which the Convention had a long discussion; and now, the same gentleman comes in with a proposition, to take away from the charge of one of the Standing 210 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Committees a subject —which was deemed of sufficient importance by the Convention, to raise a Committee of the full number of seven, for the special purpose of considering-lnotwithstanding the statement of the Chairman of that Committee, that they have the subject under consideration and will soon be ready to report. Now, sir, I have no disposition to discuss this question. The Preamble is evidently not the place to insert the Boundary Lines of the State, and I hope gentlemen will not again introduce matters where they do not belong, but allow them to come up in the regular manner. Mr. BROWN. With all due deference to the gentleman, I hold that I have as good a right to settle in my own mind what is propriety in the introduction of propositions, as any other man upon this floor, and that the introduction of such subjects as I have deemed proper, is not a subject upon which I am to be castigated in this body. I introduced the substitute, as I stated before, believing this to be the proper place to introdace it, without reflect ing at the time that the subject had been referred to another Com mittee. I still believe and other gentlemen of the Convention between that this is the place in the Constitution where these Boundaries should appear. I introduced an amendment to another Article when it was under consideration this morning, believing it to be the proper place, in Committee of the Whole, to introduce such an amendment; other gentlemen thought differently. Of course I shall submit to the decision of the Convention,' but I have simply done what I thought to be my duty in the matter. On motion of Mr. MURRA_Y, the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. On motion of Mr. MNURRAY, at one o'clock the Convention adjourned. NINETEE-NTH DAY. TuESnAY, August 4, 1857. The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The PRESIDENT appointed Messrs. DAVIS, SETZER, and BRowN, a Com - mittee to ascertain upon what terms the proceedings and debates as officially reported, can be published from day to day pursuant to the resolution of yesterday. 14 211 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE On motion of Mr. SETZER % call of the Convention was ordered. On motion of Mr. WARNER, Mr. PRINCE was excused from attendance this day. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. Mr. MEEKER from the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution, presented a report which was laid on the table. Mr. SETZER moved that the daily hour of meeting in future be at 10 o'clock instead of nine o'clock. Mr. S. said that for the last two days the Convention had to wait until 10 o'clock for a quorum and we might as well meet at that hour. Mr. BROWN enquired if the same difficulty would not arise if the hour were fixed at 10 o'clock. There were some members who would never be present at the opening of the session, whatever hour might be fixed. The motion was not agreed to. AMENDMENT OF THE RULES. Mr. MURRAY offered the following resolution RESOLVED, That Rule 19th of the Rules for the Government of this Coinvention, be amended so as to read as follows: "The preceding Rules shall be observed in Committee of the Whole, so far as applicable. A call for the yeas and nays, for the previous question, and a motion to adjourn, shall not be applicable, but a motion for the Committee to rise shall always be in order, and shall be decided without debate, but the journals of the proceedings in Committee shall be kept." Mr. MURRAY said the resolution did not change the existing Rule except in reference to the right of a member to speak more than twice in Committee of the Whole. He proposed to apply the same Rule in this respect in Committee as in Convention, The resolution was not adopted. Mr. HOLCOMBE moved the adoption of the following additional Rule: Rule 25. The President shall be required to vote on all questions, and on call of the yeas and nays., his name shall be called in alphabetical order as Mr. President. Mr. BECKER thought the object of the proposed Rule was attained-under JEFFERSON'S MANUAL. The PRESIDENT said, under Congressional practice, the Speaker was required to vote only when there wad a tie vote or when his vote would make a tie. Mr. BROWN moved to amend by striking out the words, "in alphabetical order," and insert in lieu thereof the word'"last." The amendment was adopted. 212 CONSTITUTIONAL cONVENTION. The Rule as amended was then adopted. CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN BANKS. On motion of Mr. WARNER the Convention resolved itself into .Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee on Corporations having no banking privileges, Mr. BAASEN in the Chair, the following section being under consideration. Slc. 4. Lands may be taken for public way, for the purpose of granting to any corporation the franchise of way for public use. In all cases, however, a fair and equitable compensation shall be paid for such land and the damages arising from the taking of the same. Any attempt on the part of the corporation, enjoying the right of way, in pursuance of the provisions of this section, to pervert its privileges from their legitimate construction, for the purposes of private speculation shall vitiate such right of way, and the lands shall revert to their original owner. Mr. SETZER moved to amend section four by striking out all after the words "taking of the same," and insert in lieu thereof the following: "But all Corporations being common carriers, enjoying the right of way in pursuance of the provisions of this Section, shall be bound to carry the mineral, agricultural, and such other productions or manufactures of the country on equal and reasonable terms, or on their refusal so to do, it shall vitiate such right of way and the lands shall revert to the original owner.'" Mr. BROWN. I move to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "do" the words "without sufficient cause therefor," so that it will read "on their refusal so to do without sufficient cause therefor." Mr. SETZER. I accept the amendment. The amendment so modified was agreed to. Mr. MEEKER ofie red t,!( following substitute to section four: "Private proq erty sh b; I)e taken for public use without just compensa tion'. " Mr. MEEKER.' t,endment provides an adequate remedy for the evil which it is sought to avoid. It is a part and parcel of the Constitution of the UJnited States, and I hope it will be adopted. Mr. SETZER. The language employed by the gentleman is already embodied in the Bill of Rights. Mr. MEEKER. It is not in the Bill of Rights. The object I wish to attain, is to avoid legislation as much as possible. Some of the States have gone so far as to preclude all action of the Legislature On the subject. Now I imagine we do not want to pre-clude future Legislatures from prescribing penalties for non-compliance on the part of Corporations with their charters. Mr. SIBLEY. I hope the amendment will not be adopted-. We 213 PROCEEDINGS AND D1'BATES OF THE are here to protect the rights of the people in this Constitution, so far as is practicable, without going into the details of legislation. Now, sir, we know that in some of the States, in consequence of their being a laxity in their Constitutional and Legislative provis ions upon the subject of Corporations, Railroad Companies have taken it upon themselves top'ranscend by very far, the limits which were intended to be fixed' in their charters.' It is true that indi viduals have their remedies in the courts, but as has already been stated in the course of the discussion'upon this subject, individuals do not like to enter into a contest in the courts with great moneyed corporations, and if they do, the advantage must neces sarily be in favor of the Corporations. A single instance has just been mentioned to me which has been the cause of much complaint. I understand thatin certain instances Railroad Companies have refused to take certain articles into market for others than thie company themselves; for instance, such as wood, which is absolutely essential to the convenience and comfort of the public, the company themselves making a speculation out of it by loading their cars with their own wood and taking it into market, thereby preventing a wholesome competition. Mr, CuHAIRMAN, I am not in favor of trammeling these Corporations more than is absolutely necessary, but I hope this Convention will take care to put such restrictions upon the Legislature and upon these Corporations as will prevent them in future froms becoming instruments of oppression. Now, sir, the clause which the gentleman from elennepin, (Mr. MEEKER,) proposes to insert in lieu of this whole section, does not meet the case at all. It is a very proper provision to have inserted in the Bill of Rights. But, sir, the object of this Article is to restrict the Legislature Within fixed limits, and not to enunciate merely great general principles. We propose to define what Corporations shall do and what they shall not do. After they have secured for themselves the right of way through the lands of individuals, in many instances without paying for them, they ought to be required to carry whatever products any person may desire to send over their road. I think it is wise to make such a restriction as is proposed by the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZER,) and I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Hennepin will be voted down. Mr. MEEKER. I will relieve the Committee from the necessity of any action upon my amendment by withdrawing it, for Iobserve that the same provision has been inserted into the Bill of Rights. I had been informed that it was not in the Bill of Rights, and there 214 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. fore I offered it here. I have however one word to say in reply to the gentleman from Dakota, (Mr. SIBLEY.) He says this provision ought to appear in the Bill of Rights, and no where else. Now, I would inform the gentleman that in the first Constitution ever made on the American Continent deserving the name and honor of such an instrument-the Constitution of the United States-it is made a prominent provision in the fifth article in the body of the Constitution; and I should think that WASHINGTON, MADISON and the honored names which are appended to that instrument, knew very well -where to put such a provision. But it is not material to me where it is put; and inasmuch as it is embodied in the Bill of Rights, I will withdraw my amendment. Mir. STACY. I move to amend the section as amended, by striking out the word "equal" and inserting the word "equitable." Mr. SETZER. I hope the amendment will not prevail. The 'language used was adopted after due deliberation to cover a certain class of cases. It was intended to prevent Railroad Corporations from establishing a higher rate of charges upon one kind of freight than another. Mr. CURTIS. It strikes me that the amendment is a good one. Every one knows that all railroad companies charge different prices for different kinds of freight. They must charge more for bulky articles by the weight, to make their charges equitable. Mr. MEEKER. It seems to me, that if we undertake to regulate the carrying business, and establish rates of charges in all their details for carrying produce on the railroads, we shall have -our hands full. As I remarked before, I have no objection to this amendment as it stands, only that it is certainly entering into the details of legislation too much for a Constitutional Convention. Let the Legislature provide charters for the railroads, and then make such provisions as they may find necessary for requiring the the companies to carry out their charters. I do not think this is the proper place for such legislation. Mr. BROWN. The gentleman is entirely mistaken if he supposes this section establishes a tariff of prices for carrying the different kinds of freight over railroads. It is simply estab,lishing a great principle for the protection of the people, by re quiring railroad companies whichreceive their charters as comnmon carriers, to conform to the requirements of their charters, and not become instruments of oppression and injustice instead of an accommodation to the public. I think the object sought to be obtained is one of great importance, and should be provided for in -the Constitution. The only question is as to the use -of such 215 PROCEEDINGS AD DEBATES OF THE phraseology as shall, while it protects the people, not do injustice to corporations. The question was taken, and Mr. STACY's amendment was dis agreed to. Mr. CURTIS. I am not prepared with an amendment, but I should like to see the section placed in such terms as to effect its object. It provides for carrying the "mineral, agricultural and "such other productions or manufactures of the country, on equal "terms." I suppose the term "of the country" means of the United States. Now, I think they should be required to carry imported products upon the same terms as those of this country. Mr. SIBLEY. If the Committee will permit me, I wish to sub mit an amendment to strike out the word "equal" and insert " reasonable." Mr. BECKER. If it be in order, I will move to strike out the whole -section. It: seems to me we are touching upon the powers and privileges of a legislative body. I cannot conceive what bu siness this Convention can possibly have in regulating the prices of carrying freight on the railroads which may be constructed. I do hope we shall not incorporate any thing in the Constitution which shall look like legislation. If there is any great principle involved in this section which it is important to establish, let'us insert it; but it seems to me wholly unnecessary. The whole principle involved is contained in the declaration of the Bill of Rights, that "private property shall not be taken for public uses "without just compensation or reward." Under that declaration it will not be in the power of a railroad corporation to obtain the right-of-way through the private property of any citizen -without paying for it such just and reasonable compensation as a jury of his countrymen may award. I do not see what necessity there is for lumbering up the Constitution with anything beyond this by enunciating any other general principles respecting private property being taken for public uses. I hope the whole section will be stricken out. Mr. SETZER. In reply to the gentleman from Saint Paul, I will say that we have just as good a right to restrict the Legislature here in respect to this subject as we had, a few sections back, to restrict them upon the subject of passing special acts. The gentleman says it is unnecessary to enunciate general principles with respect to taking private property for public uses. They may be general principles, sir, but they have been frequently invaded. Appraisers have been chosen Who have fixed the damages at a fictitious, amount, and the owners of the property received no compensation'.. 216 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. whatever for the property taken. The benefit accruing to the owner of the property from the construction of the road has been taken to be a sufficient compensation. Such a construction is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, but in many instances it has been sustained by the Courts. If, then, corporations obtain the rightof-way through private property on the ground that they are for the public benefit, they should not be allowed to become an injury to the public by refusing to carry the products of the country through which the roads pass, as they have done in several instances, creating a monopoly for themselves and preventing a wholesome competition relative to certain products. Sir, we should just as much guard against such monopolies as against the monopolies which we undertook to prevent in a preceding section of this Article, when the subject of special legislation was under consideration. The principal railroad routes in this Territory, or future State, extend from the extreme north to the borders of Iowa, and from the Mississippi to the western boundaries of the proposed State. They are expected to bring fuel from the mines of Iowa, and, in return, to carry back lumber from our northern pineries. Now, suppose these roads should take it into their heads to refuse to carry coal for any person or company except themselves. They could purchase it at reasonable rates, and, having a monopoly of the market, could sell it for high rates, making for themselves a profitable speculation at the expense of the public good. It is to protect the people against such monopolies that this section was drawn up, and I think it is the duty of the Convention to provide such protection. Mr. MEEKER. I insist that I love the people as well as my friend from Washington, (Mr. SETZER,) and-will go as far as he to protect them. But, sir, there is no effort being made upon the part of any body to deprive them of any right whatever. The gentleman says that heretofore, Corporations have evaded the laws, and have taken private property for public use without furnishing the proprietors of such private property just compensation. Now, sir, there are two kinds of compensation which have been recognized in the taking of the right of way for Railroad Companies. One is the actual payment of money, and the other is to set off the increased value of the property in consequence of the building df the road, against the property taken. This principle, that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, as I have remarked, was first enunciated in the Federal Constitution, and has-since been enunciated in the Consti .1 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE tutions of nearly all the States. Its simple enunciation is all, in my opinion, that should be contained in the Constitution; leaving the Legislature to carry it out in its details. Is not the Legisla ture competent to provide the adequate remedies? I am surprised to hear the gentleman from Washington, who has so long been a a member of the Legislature, afraid of trusting the matter to the Legislature. Mr. SETZER. I call the gentleman to order. If he wishes to have a personal collision I am ready for him, but he has no right to make personal allusions in debate. Mlr. MEEKER. I am surprised at the sensitiveness of the gentleman, statesman and legislator as ihe is. But, sir, I have only to say that no such provision as it is sought to insert here will cure the evils complained of. If Railroad Companies are allowed to violate their charters by refusing to carry the products of the country, no provision that we may insert in the Constitution will prevent them. It is the business of the Legislature to provide remedies for a non-compliance on the part of the Railroad Companies with their charters, and the subject has no proper place here. I am, therefore, in favor of the motion to strike out the whole section. The motion to strike out the section was not agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to strike out the entire section and to insert as follows: SEc. 4. The property of no person shall be taken by any Corporation for public use, without compensation being first made or secured in such manner as may be prescribed by lav. Mr. BROWN. Either gentlemen do not comprehend the object sought to be attained by the section as it now stands, or else they take a great deal of trouble to beg it. The Constitution of the United States provides that no private property shall be taken without just compensation. That provision is binding upon us whether we enunciate it in our Constitution or not. It is as binding on us as if we had it in every paragraph in our Constitution. We cannot make it stronger. But what we want to get at, is to protect the people from the encroachments of Corporations. Nonw, I will state a case: Suppose a Railroad were constructed fiom St. Paul, Minneapolis, Stillwater, or any other lumbering region to the coal fields of Iowa. The people owning property in the Big - Woods, which it must necessarily traverse, would, of course, be anxious for its construction, because it would open a market for their timber, which could not otherwise be brought to market. The people owning Prairie Land through which the Road 218 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. would pass, would also be anxious for its construction, because it would open a channel of communication with the lumber regions of the North, and also furnish an outlet for their surplus products. The owners of the Big Woods and Prairie through which the Road would pass, would probably be willing to give the right of way in consideration of the enhanced value of their property from the construction of the Road. Now, surppose that after obtaining the right of way the Road should be put in operation, and the Company should say to the public, "We will carry no lumber or fuel, either "wood or coal, for you; none except that belonging to ourselves. "We will claim and possess, in spite of you, a monopoly of the "trade in wood, coal and lumber." It is to provide against a contingency of this kind, that this section has been framed. That is what we want to get at, and the only question in my mind, is whether the language adopted will accomplish the object. We want to protect the people against the encroachments of Corporations, and at the same time not do injustice to the Corporations themselves. We do not want to say anything about the prices at which the Corporations shall carry particular articles, nor what they shall pay for the right of way; but we do want to provide that after having obtained the right of way, as public carriers, they shall be conducted for the public benefit, and that they shall not be made the means of creating a monopoly in any article of commerce carried over the Road. Mr. TUTTLE. It seems to me that the section as it now stands, covers more ground than it is wise for us to assume. It is provided that any Railroad Company which shall refuse to carry any article of produce, shall vitiate the right of way. Now, suppose some Agent of a Company, without the authority or intention of the Company itself, should refuse to carry some article of produce, and a suit should be commenced, is the Company, in consequence of the unauthorized act of this Agent, to vitiate its right of way? Is the whole Road to be discontinued in consequence of such an offence? It seems to me it would be well to require the Road to incur some penalty, or pay some compensation for such refusal, but not to the extent of forfeiting their entire charter. I move that so much of the section as provides for vitiating the right of way be stricken out. Mr. SHERBURNE. I do not know whether I shall oppose the motion to strike out or favor it; but there is a point which has sprung up in the course of the discussion this morning upon which I wish to make a single remark. It seems to have been taken for granted by this Committee that railroads have full power to carry 219 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE whatever they choose, and to discard whatever they choose. Now,. I do not understand that they have any such right. I do not un derstand that they have the power to control the people to any such extent. It is true that there should be some limit in regard to their power of taxation, but they are common carriers, like all other common carriers. They have taken upon themselves that duty, and they are governed to some extent by the common law upon this subject. It may be well in this Constitution to oblige them in some form to charge equally or equitably, in order to pre vent a monopoly; but further than that it appears to me totally unnecessary to go. If men want wheat carried on the railroad, the Company have no right to say they will not carry it. If the inhabitants say they want corn carried, the Railroad Company have no right to say they will not carry it. The only question is,whether they should not by some principle laid down in the Constitution berequired to charge for such carrying a reasonable.and equal rate. I like the original amendment of the gentleman from Stillwater, (Mr. SETZER,) to compel them to charge upon any one kind of article, one man equally with another, not the same price per pound or per squire foot or square yard upon all kinds of freight, but that the taxes shall be equal and equitable between different parties upon each of the different kinds of articles to be transported. I can see no good reason for tying up their hands further. In regard to the forfeiture of their charters in consequence of a single mistake or a single act of mal-administration, I agree with the gentleman who last spoke, that the penalty is too severe. The amendment offered by Mr. AMEs was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS moved to strike out of Section 4, as amended, the words "of the country." Which motion prevailed. Mr. SETZER moved to strike out of Section 4, as amended, all after the words "equal and reasonable terms." Mr. BECKER. I should be in favor of the amendment if I could see the propriety of inserting any such Section into the Constituticn of Minnesota. I do not suppose that any party can do wrong without being liable to damages for the wrong. There is not a plainer principle of law, and I can see no necessity for providing specially ini the Constitution for this special case. These corporations are liable for wrong acts by the plainest principle of law, and we make them no more liable, we throw no stronger guards around the rights of the people by the insertion of a special clause to that effect. Mr. SHERBURNE. The gentleman is -certainly correct in his 220 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. statement. I see no reason why the whole proviion should not be stricken out. The Legislature, certainly, would have full power to determine in what manner these corporations shall be liable. Mr. SETzrR's motion was agreed to. The Section, as perfected, is as follows: SEc. 4. Lands may be taken for public way, for the purpose of granting to any corporation the franchise of way for public use. In all cases, however, a fair and equitable compensation shall be paid for such land, and the damages arising from the taking of the same; but all corporations being common carriers, enjoying the right of way in pursuance of the provisions of this Section, shall be bound to carry the mineral, agricultural and other productions or manufactures on equal and reasonable terms. Mr. SHERBURNE. I rise for the purpose of moving to re-consider the vote by which Section 2 was adopted in its present form. If I am correct in my recollection, it now stands with simply the words "No corporations shall be formed under general acts." I consented at the time, that the words "except for municipal purposes," should be stricken out, but after hearing remarks which were subsequently made, and after consideration upon the subject, I am not certain that we understand each other as to the meaning of the term, municipal purposes. I am satisfied that I did not understand it at the time I consented to its being stricken out in the same sense that many of the other members of the Convention understood it. Now, sir, "municipal" may apply in its primary sense to the original formation and regulation of government which cannot take place under general laws. We can form no general laws by which we can lay down county lines. I referred the other day, in consenting to have the words "except for municipal purposes," stricken out, only to mere town and city charters. It is essential that there should be special laws for the purpose of laying off town and county lines, making regulations for voting, assessing taxes, &c I therefore, if it is in order, move to insert at the end of Section 2, the words "except for municipal purposes'." That will cover the whole ground. It is necessary that power to pass special acts should be given to the Legislature for these purposes, otherwise all counties, towns and tprecincts must be of the same size and form. The Legislature must have some'power to control the matter. If the language applies only to city charters, it is well enough to have them formed under general laws, for while they are entirely distinct from corporations for mere business purposes, yet they are in one sense corporations, and I regard the matter of no special consequence, whether they were formed under general or special laws. 221 -I PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. SIBLEY. I merely rise to suggest to the gentleman that he had better put his amendment in different language. As it now stands, it is clearly out of order. The Committee has by a distinct vote stricken out these words, and it is certainly not in order to move to insert them again. Mr. SHERBURE. I rose to move a reconsideration, but it was suggested that I could move directly to insert the words, and I therefore adopted that form. Mr. SIBLEY. I concur entirely with the gentleman in the propriety of his amendment. I only suggested that it should be put in a different shape, because it looks badly on record. Mr. BECKER. I would suggest to the gentleman that when the report of the Committee of the Whole is made in Convention, it will be perfectly competent for him to offer his amendment there. Mr. SHERBURNE. It is immaterial to me how the object is accomplished. I will withdraw the amendment with a view of offering it in Convention. Mr. EMMETT. I move to strike out Section 2, and insert the following as a substitute SECTION 2. The Legislature shall provide by general laws for the formation of corporations, and may for municipal purposes, and in cases where the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws, create corporations by special acts, but when created by special act said corporations shall be governed by general laws. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. WARNER. I move the following as an additional Section: SECTION 5. The person or persons incorporated shall be liable for the debts of the Corporation. Mr. SETZER. This is precisely the same as a provision we have already adopted. I move the same provision again as Section 6. We might as well have it in three times, as twice. Mr. WARNER. No sir, it is not the same. Mr. MEEKER. It seems to me that the proposition of the gentleman from Scott county, if adopted, would have the effect of destroying a very profitable source of speculation. Half the Charters which have been obtained, have been sought by the Corporators for the purpose of selling out. Now I would suggest that half these Corporators whom the gentleman wishes to make liable, have no pecuniary interest in the Corporation whatever. They are mere men of straw, and to make them liable for all the debts of the Corporation would be making them pay rather dear for the honor of appearing in the bill. Many of them are inserted without even consulting them. Mr. WARNER. The gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZER,) 222 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. as I understand him, says the amendment I have offered provides for what is already provided for in Section 3. Now sir, the difference is this: Section 3 makes each individual Corporator liable for the amount of stock taken. I wish to make him liable for the debts of the whole Corporation. I had not intended to say any thing upon this subject. I preferred to allow those of more experience to have their own way in the formation of this important branch of government. But sir, it is a subject so deeply affecting the welfare of the community that we cannot too carefully guard it. We are not here to legislate for the Banker or Capitalist. Capital will take care of itself. It is our province to protect the laboring man in his interest, for it is he who is most largely interested in this subject. Corporations represent the moneyed interests of the country. The laboring men are dependent upon them to a very great extent for their means of subsistence, and I know of no reason why this general principle that the Corporators shall become individually liable for the debts of the Corporation, should not be inserted into the Constitution of the future State of Minnesota. Suppose the Company is composed of ten or fifteen as Corporators, and that out of these there are only two or three responsible persons. If each person is responsible only for the amount of stock taken, then the debts of the Company are secured only by the stock of these two or three persons, and only to the amount of the stoek taken by them. Suppose the Company has contracted debts to the amount of $3000, and that only $1000 has been subscribed by these responsible parties, where are the creditors to go for justice? Sir, the Constitution of the State says he shall have only the amount subscribed by these responsiple parties. I am in favor of special legislation no further than it protects the interests of the laboring classes, and I believe the amendment I have offered will most effectually, secure that object. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY. I move to strike out Section 3. The reason I make the motion is this: By Section 3, the stockholders are made responsible for the amount of stock subscribed, we have just made them responsible for all the debts of the Corpoi ation by another Section, and it is evident that one Section or the other should be striken out. Mr. SHERBURNE, I do not know whether I understand what the Committee are doing. If I understand it, we have made each of the Corporators individually liable for the whole amount of stock subscribed. It seems to me that is a very strange provision. Mr. FLANDRAU. I ask whether this Section is retro-active, and 223 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE applies to Corporations already formed: If it does, I shall be in favor of disposing of any stock I may have, as soon as possible; Mr. SIHERBURNE. I am opposed to the motion to strike out Section 3. I am also opposed to the Section just adopted, and I hope the Committee will get rid of it in some way before the matter is finally disposed of. It either means nothing, or it means that the original Corporators of a Company shall be liable for all -the debts a Company may contract. If it means that it is a very dangerous and unjust provision. If it means nothing, it is ridiculous and absurd. Mr. SETZER. I think the object of the last Section was simply to prohibit the building in future of any Canals, Railroads or any other internal improvement. If that is the object of the Convention the sooner we adopt it the better. Mr. SHERBURNE. That will certainly be the effect of it. Mr. MEEKER. I am very much in hopes the Committee will reconsider its action in the adoption of that Section, I cannot believe the Committee were in earnest in adopting it. My opinion is that as it stands it means nothing. It will have neither a retrospective nor prospective action. Mr. SIBLEY. I rise to a point of order. I submit that the amendment of the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. MURRAY,) toi strike out the third Section is not in order. The Committee have passed that Section in the report and it is not in order to move to strike !it out. Mr. MURRAY. I question miyslf wvhiethler the motion is pioperly in order. I made it because I was uncertain whether-the report of the Committee would be adopted by the Convention as a whole, or whether it would be acted on by'Sections. I presume, however, it will be acted on by Sections, and with that understanding I am -villing to withdraw the amendment. On motion of Mr. KINGSBTJRY, the Committee rose and repIorted the Article back to the Convention with tire amendments agreed on in Committee. The amendment reported to Section 4, was concurred in. The question was next stated on concurring in Section 5, as an ,additional Section. Mr. SETZER. As I cannot go back to my constituents without placing myself upon record against that amendment, I call for the yeas and nays upon it. Mr. GORMAN. The language of that amendment if I finder,stand it, is that the persons incorporated shall be liable for all '221 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the debts of the corporation. This is certainly neither in accordance with rule or precedent. If the provision is adopted at all, it should refer to the persons taking stock or holding stock in such corporations. Why, sir, many of the names of the corporators are put in there merely for the purpose of organizing the company and never own any stock at all. I merely make the suggestion. Mr. MEEKER. That is the objection I made to it. I fully endorse the opinion of the gentleman, that for the corporators to be required to assume the debts of the company is a new precedent in the legislation of the country. Probably one-half the names mentioned in the acts granting charters, are of persons who are not even aware that such charters are in existence. Why, sir, I found on my return to the Territory that my name was included in the charter for a company chartered to make the Mississippi navigable. Am I to be responsible for the debts that company may choose to contract, because they saw fit, without my knowledge or consent, in my absence, to make me one of the corporators? But as I said 'before, if this amendment is adopted by the Convention, it will be perfectly harmless, for no person will ever become a stockholder or corporator in any company with this provision hanging over his head. I certainly hope no such provision will ever be incorporated into the fundamental law of Minnesota. If it is we shall never have another incorporation. Mr. FLANDRAU I have no fear that the Convention will adopt any such provision when they come to understand it. If they do, I hope they will also adopt this addition which I now offer, as an amendment: "That no citizen of the State shall be made a Corporator in any Bill without his consent in writing, to be placed upon the Journal of the House in which such Bill originated." Mr. WARNER. I hope this Section will not be acted on finally to-day. When gentlemen come to examine it they will see that it contains nothing that is not proper and just. It is precisely such a provision as has been adopted by a number of the different States. Mr. SETZER. It has certainly never been adopted by any State. Mr. WARNER. I do not think I am mistaken. I hope gentle men will take time to consider it before they conclude to reject it. I move that the Convention now adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU's amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to amend by striking out the words "the person or persons incorporated," and inserting "the stockholders. 22,5 0 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The amendment was not agreed to. The yeas and nays were ordered upon the adoption of Section five. Mr. GORMAN. I do not want to make a speech, and I do not intend to; but, sir, I am either very much mistaken, or some of my fellow-members are very much mistaken in some of the positions which have been advanced here to-day. Sir, it is the opinion of some of the first statesmen of the nation, and an opinion which has never been and never can be successfully controverted, that this Constitution can abolish all your law. It is retro-active. It binds everything. It can wipe out all the laws you have ever passed. It is the act of the sovereignty of the people, and is superior and may supercede every act your Territorial government has ever passed. If you suppose that nothing you do here can affect past legislation, you had better stop. I do not ask any body to take my word for it, nor to look into the matter unless they see proper, but I tell you that this Constitutional Convention is in its acts, from its very nature, the embodiment of the great principle of vox populi, vox Dei. It is the highest authority upon this American continent, second only to the Constitution of the United States. You have the right to do any thing and all things, subject only to the Consti tution of the United States. You may abolish your apportionment law and make a new one. You may abolish all your laws. You may abolish your Government itself, and there is no power to prevent you. If the people adopt this Constitution, it becomes the fundamental law of the land, paramount to every other local authority. The Constitution of the United States expressly reserves to the people of the States all powers not expressly conferred upon Congress. You represent the people of the Sovereign State of Minnesota, and your will, ratified by the people, is the Supreme law of the land. Mr. KINGSBURY. Can this Convention pass ex post facto laws? Mr. GORMAN. The expression ez post facto laws, in the Constitution of the United States, applies exclusively to crimes and misdemeanors. Mr. MEEKER. Mr. PRESIDENT, what is the question before the Convention? Mr. GORMAN. I will tell the gentleman what is the question before the Convention. It is upon the adoption into the Constitution of a clause making corporators indiscriminately liable for all the debts of the corporation. The suggestion was made by the honorable gentleman who addresses me, that this fundamental law, this Constitutional law which we are engaged in framing, could 226 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. have no retro-active effect. Upon that point I take issue with him. Mr. MEEKER. I only expressed such an opinion so far as the Constitutional law which we are engaged in forming goes, to disturb vested rights or impair the validity of contracts. I said, and I say now, that so far as any past action of the Territorial Legislature has created vested rights which are not in contravention to the Constitution of the United States, or laws of Congress, nothing that this Convention can do will affect them in any manner whatever. That opinion has been pronounced by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case which the gentleman well recollects. Mr. GORMAN. I will allow the gentleman to make a speech as long as he pleases. I am not at all punctilious in regard to hearing the sound of my own voice; but, if hlie will permit me, I will read from an authority which I presume he will admit carries some weight with it-that of Chief-Justice MARSHALL. I now affirm again that the primary, original sovereignty of the people represented in Constitutional Convention has the right to abolish all laws and commence de novo; that we have the power to alter, modify or abolish all corporations of a public nature, such as lanks and everything connected with the administration or functions of any and all departments of government. I have before me a speech made by JAMES BUCHANAN, in which he quotes from the opinion of Chief-Justice MARSHALL, in the Dartmouth College case. tie says: "I think, therefore, it may be stated as a general proposition that the Constitution of the United States in prohibiting the Legislatures of the respective States from passing laws to impair the obligations of contracts, never intended to prevent the States from regulating according to their own sovereign will and pleasure, the administration of justice: their own internal commerce and trade: the assessment and collection of taxes: the regulation of paper currency, and other general subjects of legislation. If this be true, it follows as a necessary consequence that if one Legislature should grant away any one of these general powers either to corporators or to individuals, such a grant may be resumed by their successors. Upon a contrary supposition, the legislative power might destroy itself, and transfer its most important functions forever to corporations. In these general principles, I feel happy that I am sustained by the high authority of Chief-Justice MARSHALL, in the celebrated Dartmouth College case, 4 Wheaton, pp. 627, 628, 629, 630. I shall not consume the time of the Senate in reading the whole passage, but shall confine myself to the conclusion at which he arrives. He says:' If the Act of Incorporation (of Dartmouth Col'lege) be a grant of political power: if it create a civil institution to be em'ployed in the administration of the Government: or if the funds of the College 'be public property, or if the State of New Hampshire, as a Government, be 'alone interested in its transactions, the subject is one in which the Legislature 'of the State may act according to its own judgment, unrestrained by any lim'itation of its power imposed by the Constitution of the United States.' He then proceeds to decide the case of Dartmouth College on the principle that it 15 22,7 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE is not a public but a private eleemosynary corporation, and therefore within the prohibition contained in the Constitution. "Here, then, the principle is distinctly recognized that if a corporation created by a State Legislature' be a grant of political power-if it create a civil in'stitution to be employed in the administration of the Government,' then the charter may be altered or repealed by the State Legislature. The distinct opinion clearly deducible from this, as well as from the nature of our Government, is, that contracts made by a State Legislature, whether with corporations or individuals, which transfer political power and directly affect' the administration of the Government, are not such contracts as the Constitution intended to render inviolable. In other words, although these contracts may be within its general words they are not within its intent and meaning. To declare that they were, would be to say that the people had surrendered their dearest rights into the keeping of the Legislature, to be bartered away forever at the pleasure of their own servants. This would be a doctrine utterly subversive of State rights and State sovereignty." Now sir, if this Convention can abolish, alter, remodel and revise your whole governmental system, we must certainly be very careful how we proceed. But why do I make these remarks? I do it because honorable gentlemen have expressed the opinion, on this floor, that the acts of this Convention cannot affect past Legislation. I do not like to differ with my friends, but I think it is better to understand each other, and that here is the place for this discussion. Mr. MEEKER. Will the gentleman allow me to ask one question? Does he maintain that this Constitutional Convention has the power to abolish all past acts of the Territorial Legislature, vesting rights and making contracts, such as the creation of corporations in the nature of contracts? Mr. GORMAN. That mry answer may be perfect'y satisfactory to the gentleman, I will read Chief Justice MIARSHALL'S opinion directly in answer to his question. If the act of Incorporation be a grant of political power; if it create a civil institution to be employed in the administration of the government; or if the funds of the college be public property; or if the State of New Hampshire, as a government, be alone interested in its transactions, the subject is one in which the Legislature of the State may act according to its own judgment, unrestrained by any limitation of its power imposed by the Constitution of the United States. Now what are your corporations? If the gentleman will take -the pains to turn to the Statutes, he will find that every single railroad corporation is declared to be a public corporation. They are public corporations for the purposes of trade and commerce. Every corporation of whatever description, which is created for public uses and is public in its character, comes within the perview of tihe law making power. It is within the control of the 228 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Legislature, and how much more is it in the control of a body representing the primitive sovereign people. As to our passing a law impairing the obligations of contracts, we are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States from doing that, but to what class of contracts does it refer? If it is a contract with a railroad or any other corporation of a public character, you may pass any act you please, impairing it. So says Chief Justice MARSHALL. Now sir, this amendment proposes to make corporators individually liable to the whole amount of the debts of the corporation. For one, I am in favor of making the stockholders individually liable to the full amount of the stock taken by each. I would even go so far as to make them liable to double the amount of their stock. But my principle object in rising was in reference to the doctrine that we have no right to interfere with past legislation. I could not, by my silence, permit such a doctrine go abroad as endorsed by this Convention. I repeat, then, that whenever the corporation is connected in any way with the affairs of government, or with its commerce, or connected with its finances or currency, if it is created for any public purpose, you have full power ever it. These are my views upon the subject, and I give them for what they are worth. If they are wrong, the records of the country are -before you, and gentlemen can disprove them. Mr. MEEKER. I do not intend to prolong this debate; but it seems to me that whenever gentlemen come to understand each other, there will tbe no dlifference of opinion in reference to the powers of this bo"lyX over acts of past legislation, if that were' the question bct'ire tl Convention; but I understand the question to be on an amendmenit reported by the Comnmittee of the Whole on the subject of Corporations. Inasmuch, however, as the gentlemai who has just taken his seat, has referred directly to me, I desire to reply in a few words to one or two remarks in reference to the powers of this body. Now sir, the action of the Territorial Legislature, passed by vir-tue of the Organic Act of the Territory, and not-incompatible -with the provisions of the Constitution of the'United States, constitutes law, binding in its obligation upon the people of the Territory But it is also true that this Constitution, when it goes into effect by the will of the people, becomes ipso facto, the Supreme Law of, the land, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and so far as it does in its miscellaneous provisions come in conflict with the existing laws passed by the Territorial Legislature, super 229 a PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE cedes them. Otherwise, we should be afloat without compass or pilot. But as to the legal opinions Which the gentleman from Ramsey has so freely advanced, my opinion is this: That where corporations have been created,' whether public or private, in which pecuniary rights are iuvolvw'd, those rights are protected against the power of this Convention, or any other body to destroy them, by that excellent provision of the Constitution of the United States forbidding the passage of any law impairing the obligations of, contracts. Now, it is true that corporations looking towards the administration of the government, those which have reference to" the administration of justice, and those which have reference to the political action of the State, are under the control of the State, but not where contracts involving the rights of private citizens have been created. Mr. GORMAN. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? He has lived, I believe, for some time, in the State of Kentucky, I ask him whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States, did not sustain the decision of the. Courts of Kentucky in abrogating the charter of the Commonwealth Bank, with all its vested rights and chartered privileges? Mr. MEEKER. I think not. It is a matter entirely irrelevant to the subject under consideration, but my recollection is that when the question of the constitutionality of that Bank was questioned, the matter was carried from the highest courts of Kentucky to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was decided, for the first time that a State Bank was a Constitutional institution. The Court was decided by three to two, only five judges sitting on the case. But, sir, I think this discussion has been carried far enough. I hope the question ill be taken. The question was taken upon the adoption ef Section 5, as an additional Section, and it was decided in the negative-yeas 2, nays 41, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Murray and Warner. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Burns, Butler, Becker, Baker, Burrett, BUrwell, Bailly, Brown, Baasen, Curtis, Chase, Cantell, Day, Emmett, Faber, Flandrau, Gorman, Holcombe, Jerome, Kennedy, Kingsbury, Keegan, Leonard, Lachelle, Meeker, McGrorty, McFetridge, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Setzer, Sherburne, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Tenvoorde, Taylor, Tuttle,Wait, and Mr. President-41. So the amendment was not concurred in. The report of the Committee of the Whole upon the substitute for Section 3, as offered by Mr. GORMAN, was theft adopted. The report of the Committee of the Whole, as amended upon the. entire Article, was then concur red in. -0 go :Y t, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the article was referred to the Com,-mittee on Revision and Phraseology. Mr. BAASEN moved to adjourn to half past 2 o'clock v. M. The. motion was not agreed to. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Convention resolved itself into a ,,Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department, Mr. NORRIS in the chair. The report is as follows: The Committee to which was referred the subject of the Legislative Department,of the Government, and the subject of Congressional and Legislative Apportionment, respectfully submit a report upon the Legislative Department of the Government. The Committee, at a future time, will submit a report upon Congressional and Legislative Apportionment in a separate Article: ARTICLE. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. SimON 1. The Legislative Department of the State shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, who shall meet at the seat of Government of the State at such times as shall be prescribed by law. SEC. 2. The number of members who compose the Senate and House of Bepresentatives shall be prescribed by law, but the representation in the Senate shall never exceed one member for every five thousand inhabitants, and in the House of Representatives one member for every two thousand inhabitants. The representation in both Houses shall be apportioned equally throughout the different portions of the State, in proportion to the population thereof, and exclusive of Indians not taxable under the provisions of law. SEC. 3. Each House shall be the judges of election returns, and eligibility of its own members; a majority of each shall constitute a quorumt to transact business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide. SsEC. 4. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, sit upon its own adjournment, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but no person shall be expelled a second time for the same offence. SEC. 5. The House of Representatives shall elect its presiding officer, and each House shall elect such other officers as may be provided by law; shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, and the yeas and nays of either House, on any question upon which they may be had, shall be entered on such Journal. SEC. 6. iNeither House shall, during a session of the Legislature, adjourn for more than three days, (Sundays excepted,) nos to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be in session, without the consent of the other House. SEC. 7. The compensation of Senators and Representatives shall be three dollars per diem during the first session, but may afterwards be prescribed by law. But no increase of compensation shall be prescribed which shall take,ec 231 PROCEEDI1 GS AND DEBATES OF THE feet during the period for which the members of the existing House of Repre sentatives may have been elected. SEc. 8. The members of each House shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of their re spective Houses, and in going to or returning from the same. For any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. SEc. 9. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he is elected, hold any office under authority of the United States, or of the State of Minnesota, except that of Post Master, and no Senator or Representative shall hold an office under the State, which had been created, or the emoluments of which had been increased during the session of the Legislature of which he was a member, until two years after the expiration of his term of office in the Leg islature. Src. 10. All Bills for raising a revenue shall originate in the House of Represenatives, but the Senate may propose and concur with amendments, as on other Bills. SEC. 11. Every Bill which shall have passed the Senate and House of Repre sentatives, in conformity to the rules of each House, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor of the State. If he approve, he shall sign and deposit it in the office of Secretary of the State for preservation, and notify the House, where it originated, of the fact. But if not, he shall return it with his objections to the House, in which it shall have originated, when such objec tions shall be entered at large on the Journal of the same, and the House shall proceed to reconsider the Bill. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds 6f that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be re-considered, and if it be approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons 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 Gov-V ernor within three 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, by adjournment within that time, prevent its return, in which caseV it shall not be a law. Sxc. 12. No money shall be appropriated except by Bill, Every order, resolution or vote, requiring the concurrence of the two Houses, (except such as relate to the business or adjournment of the same,) shall be presented to the Governor for his signature, and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being returned by him with his objections, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the members of the two Houses, according to the rules an&d limitations prescribed in case of a bill. SEc. 13. The style of all laws of this State shall be, "Be it enacted by tize Legis-... latire Assembly of the State of Minnesota." SEc. 14. The HIouse of Representatives shall lave the sole power of impeachment, through a concurrence of a majority of all the members elected to seats therein. 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. Nio person shall be convicted without the concurrence of~two-thirds of the members present. SEc. 15. The Legislative Assembly shall have full power to exclude from the privilege of electing or being elected, any person convicted of bribery, perjury; or any other infamous crime. 232, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. SEC. 16. Two or more members of either House shall have liberty to dissent and protest against any act or resolution which they may think injurious to the public or to any individual, and have the reason of their dissent entered on the Journal. SEC. 17. The Legislative Assembly shall prescribe by law the manner in which vacancies in either House shall be supplied, and the manner in which evidence in cases of contested seats in either House shall be taken. SEC. 18. Each House may punish by imprisonment, during its session, any person not a member, who shall be guilty of any disorderly or contemptuous behavior in their presence, but no such imprisonment shall at any time exceed twenty-four hours. Sic. 19. Each House shall be open t6 the public during the sessions thereof, except in such cases as in the opinion of the House requires secrecy. SEc. 20. Every bill shall be read on three different days in each separate House unless in case of urgency, two-thirds of the House where such bill is depending, shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule, and no bill shall be passed by either House until it shall have been previously read twice at length. SEc. 21. Every bill having passed both Houses shall be carefully enrolled, and shall be signed by the presiding officer of each House. Any presiding offi, cer refusing to sign a bill, which shall have previously passed both Houses, shall hereafter be incapable of holding a seat iA either branch of the Legislative Assembly. SEC. 22. The Legislature shall provide by law for an enumeration of the inhabitants of this State in the year one thousand eight hurdred and sixty-five, and every ten years thereafter. At their first session after each enumeration so made, and also at their first session after each enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of Congressional, Senatorial and Representative Districts, and to apportion anew the Senators and Representatives among the several Districts according to the provisions of section second of this Article. At each of said sessions the Legislature may prescribe the qualification of voters within this State. Src. 23. Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected to serve for one year, and members of the Senate shall be elected to serve for two years. SEC. 24. Senators and Representatives shall be citizens of the United States, and shall have resided for one year in the State, and six months immediately preceding the election, in the District from which they are elected. SEC. 25. Members of the Senate of the United States from this State shall be elected by the two Houses of the Legislative Assembly on joint ballot, at such times and in such manner as may be provided by law. Sic. 26. No bill shall be passed by either House, embracing any subject not referred to in the title. SEC. 27. All members and officers of both-branches of the Legislature, shall, before entering upon the duties of their respective trusts, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully and impartially to discharge the duties devolving upon him as such member or officer All of which is respectfully submitted. JOSEPH R. BROWN, WM. P. MURRAY, HENRY N. SETZER, ANDREW KEEGAN, DAVID GILMAN, W. A. DAVIS, W. W. KINGSBURY, O. W. STREETER. 23,3 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. A. E. AMIES moved to amend section two, by striking out the words, "five thousand," and inserting in lieu thereof the word, "eight thousand," so that the clause as amended would read: SEC. 2. The number of members who compose the Senate and House of Representatives, shall be prescribed by law; but the representation in the Senate shall never exceed one member for every eight thousand inhabitants. Mr. A. said, that as the section now stood, if there were 200,000 inhabitasts, the Senate would then consist of forty members. The amendment was not agreed to. M. A. E. AMES. I move to amend by striking out "five," and inserting "ten;" we should then have twenty members for the Senate, with a population of 200,000. Mr. SETZER. I call the attention of the Convention to the fact .that this section leaves it open for the Legislature to apportion the State, and to reduce the number of Senators as much as they may see fit. It only provides that the number shall nlot exceed one for every 5,000 inhabitants, and with the present population of the Territory, I think we could not extend the limit further, and give every portion of the Territory a fair representation. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. MEEKER. I move to amend Section two, so as to provide that the number of Senators shall never exceed 45, nor the number of members of the House of Representatives exceed 100. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend so as to provide that the Senate shall never exceed 50 members, nor the HIouse of Representatives 100 members. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I move to amend by adding the following: PROVIDED, that every county having 500 inhabitants, shall be entitled to one Representative. There are interests pertaining to each county, which no person residing out of the county can properly represent. Mr. SETZER. I move to amend the amendment by striking out the words, "having 500 inhabitants." Mr. HOLCOMBE. I accept the amendment. Mr. MEEKER. I hope this amendment will not be adopted. I have known counties organized as soon as they had population sufficient to furnish a Sheriff, Recorder, Constable and one Squire. Mr. SETZER. My object in moving the amendment, is to give the Legislature an inducement to create as many counties as pos 234 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONl. sible. It will operate very well for the Democratic party. [Laughter.] Mr. BROWN. If the amendment of the gentleman were elabodied in a bill before the Legislature, I should vote for it very cheerfully, because it would operate beneficially to our section of the country, but it would7 ill my opinion, be wrong to embody such a provision in the Constitution. The Section, if the amendment should be adopted, would provide that the ratio of representation for the House of Representatives shall not exceed one member for every 2,000 inhabitants, but every county shall be entitled to at least one Represeilta.tive. Now suppose, as is perhaps the case on the frontier, that there are fifteen or twenty Counties with a population of from 300 to 500 each; you would then give to those 300 or 500 a representation equal to 2,000 in the more thickly settled portions of the State. I admit that it might operate very well for the Democratic party, but it would be doing an injustice to the more thickly settled portions of the State. Sir, let us be just to all. If we are to have a representation, let it be fair and equal. If a county has not inhabitants enough to entitle it to a representative, let two, three, four, or a half-dozen, be put together to form one Representative District. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. IIOLCOMBE moved to amend so as to provide that each County containing 500 inhabitants shall be entitled to one Repre sentative. Mr. BROWN. The adoption of that amendment would be still doing an injustice. You would then give to 500 inhabitants in one County a representation equal to 1,500 inhabitants in another County. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I cannot see that the adoption of my amend ment will work injustice upon any portion of the Territory. If the County of Washington has the full quota of 2,000 inhabitants, it will be represented in the Legislature. But, sir, I can very readily see that in the frontier Counties, there is a much larger number of voters in proportion to the population, than in the more thickly set tled portions of the Territory. I venture to assert that if the cen sus were taken to-day in Washington or Ramsey County, there would not be one-half the proportion of voters that would be found in the frontier Counties. But again, these frontier Counties are the out-posts of civiliza tion and require to a greater extent, the protection of Government. I admit the correctness of the gentleman's position, that represent ation should be equal; but there is no rule without an exception. 235 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Suppose, as the gentleman says, three or four counties are grouped together and send one Representative. There is frequently jeal ousy existing between these Counties, and the Representative elect ed from one cannot possibly represent the wishes or interests of the people of another County. I think it no more than justice to the frontier, that where the population of a County reaches 500, it shall be entitled to one Representative. Mr. CURTIS. I propose to amend the amendment by striking out the word "inhabitants" and inserting the word "voters." Mr. BAKER. I have been and am now determined not to take up the time of the Convention in discussing the various propositions contained in the reports of the various Committees. Where the propositions they submit are right, I want to go for them. And I do not propose to depart from that iule now, because I am anxious that this Convention shall bring its labors to a close.' But, sir, I do know that there is justice in the remarks of the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. HOLCOMBE.) I think I see now on the floor of this Convention, two or three gentlemen representing Counties which eighteen months ago, did not contain a hundred inhabitants. But they are steadily increasing, and their interests require that they should be represented in the Legislature.'As I remarked, I do not want to go outside the report of the Committee if I can possibly avoid it, but I think that justice to these frontier Counties requires that where'they contain as many as 500 inhabitants they should be represented in the Legislature. I hope the amendment of the gentleman from WVashington will be adopted. Mr. BROWN. I stand here representing ill part, I do not know how many Counties, several of them created as such by the last Legislature. All of them will, I presume, contain as many as 500 Inhabitants before the first apportionment under this Constitution will be made, and I should be very glad to see this amendment adopted, if it would not carry with it very great injustice to other portions of the Territory. It gives to thinly settled portions of the Territory thrice the proportionate representation that you allow for the more densely settled portions. I think there is injustice in it. I am aware that the necessities of the frontier Counties perhaps demand a larger share of the attention of the Government, but I think there is no such necessity as should justify us in giving them so large a preponderance in the Legislature. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would suggest that the question is on the amendment to the amendment, which is to strike out the word "inhabitants" and insert the word "voters." Mr. BROWN. I was just coming to that point. The gentleman 236 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. from Washington, (Mr. HOLCOMBE,) remarked that there was a larger proportion of the population in the frontier Counties voters, than in the more thickly settled Counties. I am well aware that such is the fact, but still I do not think it would be just to give them a larger representation. If we are to make any discrimination at all, we might as well discriminate in favor of a property qualification. I am opposed both to the amendment and to the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SETZER. I move to amend the amendment by providing that the County of Washington shall be divided into twelve Counties. My colleage from Stillwater, (Mr. IHOLCOMBE,) has said that there is a larger proportion of voters in some of the Counties than others. Now, sir, I venture to say that there is not a County in the Territory containing a larger number of voters in proportion to the population than the County of Washington. A large portion of the inhabitants of that County are lumbermen, nearly all of whom are voters, and sir, the lumber interests of that County are as peculiar and require as much the attention of the Government as those of any section of the Territory. If, therefore, the amendment of my colleague is to prevail, it is no more than justice that the amendment to the amendment should be adopted. (Cries of " question " "question!" ) The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. WARNER. The great objection to the report as it stands, seems to be that the more sparsely settled Counties will not be represented in the Legislature if three or four of them only elect one Representative. Now, sir, I have an amendment which, I think, will obviate that objection, and which I offer as a substitute for the pending amendment. I move the following And every County having a population of 500 inhabitants shall be entitled to representation in the House of Representatives. Mr. MEEKER. I am in favor of that proposition. It leaves the whole matter with the Legislature, where it belongs. The substitute for the amendment was not adopted. The question then recurred on the original amendment offered by Mr. HOLCOMBE, and being taken, the amendment was disagreed to. Mr. HIOLCOMB. I now renew the same amendment, making the number one thousand. I do not do it to detain the Convention. But, sir, the gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BRowN,) has admitted that there is justice in giv 237 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE ing the frontier Counties a larger proportionate representation. Now, sir, when a new County has attained a population of 1,000 I want to see it represented in the Legislature. I want to know what kind of a county it is. I do believe that every voter inthese frontier Counties should have the representation of two voters in the densely settled Counties. The amendment was agreed to. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. Mr. BAKER moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, the Convention then at fifteen minutes before one, adjourned until half-past 2 o'clock, P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met at half-past 2 o'clock. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mfr. NORRIS in the Chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department. Mr. BECKER moved to strike out the following section SEc. 10. All bills for raising a revenue, shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose and concur with amendments, as on other bills. Mr. BROWN. I hope that amendment will not prevail. The section is copied verbatim from the Constitution of the United States, in regard to the introduction of appropriation bills into Congress, and I think it is proper and right. This report provides for the election of Senators for two years, and Representatives for only one. Now I want the appropriation bills to originate with the immediate representatives of the people. Mr. BECKER. The reason why I moved the amendment is this: Under our Constitution, as I presume it will be adopted, both the members of the Senate and House of Representatives are to be elected by the people, and I can see no necessity for any such distinction. In England, where one House of Parliament is hereditary, it is a very proper provision that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in that'House which comes from the people. The same reason applies, to a certain extent, in the Senate of the United States, which body is elected by the State Legislatures, but here in 238 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Minnesota where both the Senate and House of Representatives emanate directly from the people, I see no reason whatever for any such distinction. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU. I move to amend section eleven, by striking the words "in conformity to the rules of each HIouse and the joint "rules of the two Houses" from the following clause of the section. SEc. 11. Every bill which shall have passed the Senate and House of Representatives, in conformity to the rules of each House, and the joint rules of the two Houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor of the State. I will state as a reason for my amendment, that in my opinion, the condition which I propose to strike out, ought not to be made an absolute requisite in the passage of a bill, that if a bill had passed the Legislature by no mnatter how large a majority, and it should turn out that there had been some little informality in complying with some rule of the two Houses, it might be questioned whether the bill was a law. Now, I trust that matters of this trivial nature will not be made absolute conditions for the validity of a law. The two Houses are supposed to be capable of enforcing their own rules, and there certainly is no necessity or propriety in putting such a clause in the Constitution. Mr. BROWN. By another section of this report, each House is authorized to make rules for its own government. They can make such rules as to them may seem necessary and proper, but when made, I think it is right that they should be required to conform to them. Mr. FLANDRAU. But it seems to me that you are making an important result depend upon an unimportant informality. For instance, the ordinary rules of a Legislature require that a bill be fore being presented to the Governor for his signature shall be signed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Such a provision is proper to be in the rules. They must have rules to secure regularity in their proceedings, but gentlemen will see that by inserting a clause in the Constitu tion requiring bills to be signed by these officers before they can be presented to the Governor, they are creating a separate veto power and placing the whole action of the Legislature in the hands of one of its officers. I am in favor of striking these words out. Let the Houses of thie Legislature make their own rules and enforce them as they may see fit, but do not make the validity of laws depend upon such little unimportant informalities. The amendment was disagreed to, Mr. FLANDRAU. The latter clause of section fourteen relating 239 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE to trial for imprisonment, reads, "No person shall be convicted ,, without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present." I move to strike out the word "present" and insert "elected." We have had instances, as in Massachusetts, where for a politi cal cause the Legislature attempted to legislate a man out of office by a kind of impeachment, and but for the veto of the Governor, he would have been removed. It is an example that we ought to look to and be made cautious by. I think this removal from office in these high political times, is something that ought to be guarded as carefully as we caln, for the safety of the country. If you caL remove by a majority of the members present, you may remove by less than one third the members of the Senate. Mr. MEEKER. I am in favor of the amendment. The gentle man is, however, mistaken in the similarity which he supposes exist in the proceedings contemplated by this section, and that mentioned by him in the Legislature of Massachusetts. That was an attempted removal by address and not by impeachment. There was no trial had. Under the Constitution of that State, as of several of the other States, the process of removing high officers of the State, is first by address and then by impeachment and trial before the Senate. The first was the proceeding attempted against Judge LORING. Mr. BROWN. I suppose that it is necessary that I should defend the action of the Committee. This was a subject which was taken into consideration and discussed by us. From the fact that we have required a majority of the entire number of members elected to the Houseof Representatives to prefer articles of impeachment against any officers, it was thought that to require two thirds of the members of the Senate present to pass judgment, would be a sufficient guard. I am very willing to see every guard thrown around the different officers of State that is necessary, but I do not want to see them guarded to such an extent that in times of high political excitement a guilty officer can neither be reached by the body impeaching or that trying him. If it is a matter of much importance, in all probability a large proportion of the Senators elected will be present, and if a large majority are present and two thirds are required to convict, it is throwing around the officer, it seems to me, as much guard as the duties and responsibilities of the Senate will admit of. Mr. SIBLEY. I only want to say that in my opinion, the Committee in their report have thrown all the guards around the officers that ought to be thrown around them. I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Nicollet, simply for the 240 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. reason that so far as the trials in this country for impeachment have been carried on to the culminating point, they have proved mere farces. In the whole history of the country, so far as United States Judges are concerned, I believe there has been but a single removal from office by impeachment-that of Judge CHAsE. I am not able to see the force of the reasoning of the gentleman from Nicollet. I think the history of the country will show that with the restrictions provided, guilty officers are much more likely to go unpunished than others are to be punished when they do not deserve it. Mr. FLANDRAU The arguments of the gentleman from Dakota, simply prove the purity of our Judiciary. I have no doubt the courts wich have tried these cases, have done their duty and that the parti's acquittedit were innocent. Now sit', in referencie to the process of impeachment, I undrstand the action of the House of Representatives in preferrig articles of impeachment to be precisely similar to an indictment by a Grand Jury. They present the indictment to another body which as court, tries the officer indicted. I apprehend the accused party has no hearing before the House of Representatives in their action impeaching him. He is impeached upon ex parte evidence, and then brought before the Senate for trial, wheie he is given the opportunity to defend himself. There is no opportunity of a fair representation of the case before the impeaching tribunal. He is brought before the body that is to try himn upon an ex parte indictment. A majority of that body constitutes a quorum and you propose to allow two-thirds of that majority to convict him. If that majority happen to be opposed to him politically, he stands in my opinion a very small chance of receiving justice at their hands. Mr. SIBLEY. One word in reply. I have as high a regard for the purity of the ermine as the gentleman; but sir, it is notorious that there have been many cases where justice loudly demanded that Judges should be impeached. I will only refer to one case which now exists and stands in the face of the country, from year to year as a glaring case of neglect upon the part of somebody. I refer to the case of Judge WATROUS of Texas. The Legislature of that State have time and again, brought the facts to the attention of Congress. But the House has neglected to act upon it and up to this time no articles of impeachment have been preferred. I think as I said before, the Committee have provided amply against all danger of abuse upon the part of the Senate, and I hope the amendment will be voted down. Mr. FLANI)RDAU. One word more in regard to this Massa 241 PROCEEDINGS AND DFBA'1'S OF THE chusetts case. If I recollect the circumstances correctly, the only crime urged against Judge LOPING was for having fearlessly and independently done his duty, in executing the laws of his country in the face of popular prejudice, faction and excitement. He executed the law like ani upright, virtuous Judge. The case arose under the Fugitive Slave Law and such was the treasonable excitement upon the part of the Legislature that they would have rushed him out office if they had had the power. Sir, future Legislatures of Minnesota are as likely to act from undue excitement as was that of Massachusetts, and it seems to me it behooves us now, while we are framing the Organic Law of our future State, to place this matter where such a stigma will never be placed upon our Legislature as now rests upon thle Senate and House of Representatives of Massachusetts. Mr. SETZER. I think the gentleman who last spoke takes an entirely wrong view of this subject of impeachment. His practice at the bar has made him conversant with trials in the courts, but I do not think he fully understands the subject of impeachments more than I do myself. Impeaclihments only lie against persons high in office. The pari jsians of the officer accused will defend him in person in the House of Representatives, if his course is at all susceptible of defense, and he will have advocates to defend him when he comes to be tried in the Senate. But sir, he is not to be tried before the Senate for his property or his life. The Senate has no such jurisdiction. It merely decides whether he shall hold office. His situation is entirely different from that of a citizen who is being tried for a crimiial offence. We throw strong safeguards around the life of the citizen, and it is proper that there should be some protection against the people, to persons high in office, who have been guilty of high misdemeanors. But sir, the case mentioned by the gentleman from Nicollet, (Mr. FLANDRAU,) in the Massachusetts Legislature is also an entirely different thing. The address did not accuse Judge LORING with any crime, nor did those who voted for the address say he was guilty of any crime. They merely requested the Governor to remove him, which that officer had the power to do if addressed by a simple majority vote. But before an officer can be tried for impeachment, he must be proven to be guilty of crime, and those who convict him must say upon their oaths that they believe he is guilty. Every gentleman is familiar with the trial of Judge ltVNTER of Wisconsin upon the charge of a misdemeanor. Hie was acquitted because there was not a two-thirds vote to convict hirm, though I believe a majority voted for it. 242 CONSTITUTIONAL CON'VENTI(ON. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. MEEKEPR. That section, I think, is a little defective. It says that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds the members present. Convicted of what? What are the consequences of conviction? What judgment is to be rendered? All the Constitutions of the States which I now remember specify what should be the effect of such conviction. They generally specify that the conviction shall not extend beyond removal from office or disability to hold any place of honor or trust under the State Government. Unless some restriction is contained in the Constitution, the Senate would have the power to irnis,on the person convicted. I move to amend by adding: And the judgment, on conviction, shall not extend beyond removal frown office, and a disability to hold any office of trust or profit in the State. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU. I move to strike out the following section: SECTION 21. Every bill having passed both Houses shall be carefully enrolled, and shall be signed by the presiding officer of each House. Any presiding officer who shall refuse to sign a bill which shall have previously passed both Houses shall thereafter be incapable of holding a seat in either branch of the Legislative Assembly. I do not wish to be captious about these matters, but I cannot really see the necessity of providing in the Constitution that every bill shall be read twice at length. The effect of it will be to prevent either House from dispensing with the reading by unanimous consent. It seems to me you are hampering up the Legislature to an extent that you will regret. The Legislature is certainly capable of taking care of itself. in these matters. I hope the section will be stricken out. Mr. BROWN. I hope the motion will not prevail. If I understand the duty of the Committee which had charge of this subject, it was to draw up such an Article to be embodied in tlis Constitution as would not only prescribe and define the duties of the Legislature but furnish such means as would secure the proper dis charge of their duties as such. Now, sir, experience has taught us that there is not a section in the whole Article more important than the one under consideration. I have known, often, bills to be passed without ever being read once. During the last session a bill of the most obnoxious character passed the Legislature, and was only prevented from becoming a law by the scrutiny which it underwent in the Executive office. I want to guard against any such action in future. I want to see all bills of any importance read on three different days, and that, under no circumstances, shall any bill pass without being read twice at length. I consider 16 243 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE it a necessary safeguard for the people. I do not think a bill should be passed in either House even by unanimous consent with out being read at length. Mr. FLANDRAU. To what bill did the gentleman refer, passed at the last session? Mr. BROWN. It was a bill which would have given negroes the right to vote. It was passed by unanimous consent, without reading, upon the representation of a member that it contained nothing objectionable. Mr. FLANDRAU. I withdraw the motion to strike out. Mr. SIBLEY. I move to amend the Section by adding: "or of "holding any other office of honor or profit in the State." The clause will then read: Any presiding officer refusing to sign a bill which shall have previously passed both Houses, shall thereafter be incapable of holding a seat in either branch of the Legislative Assembly, or holding any other office of honor or profit in the State. I offer the amendment because I consider the penalty for the omission of so important a duty devolving upon a presiding officer, which is provided in the section as it stands, entirely inadequate to the offence. Any officer who would take it upon himself to defeat a bill by refusing to sign it after it had passed both branches of the Legislature, should certainly be disqualified not only from holding a seat in the Legislature but from any office of honor or profit under the State Government. I hope the amendment will be adopted. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU. I renew the motion to strike the whole Section out. It presents the same difficulty to which I called the attention of the Committee in a former section, of providing rules for the House in the Constitution. I want all bills signed by the Speaker, and I want that he should be required to sign theme,; but I object to placing a veto power in his hands. Mr. BROWN. During my legislative experience I have known a great many bills defeated by the refusal of a presiding officer of one of the Houses of Legislature to sign them. I suppose I could mention at least a dozen instances of bills which had passed both Houses and, the next morning after the adjournment of the Legislature were found comfortably reposing on the Speaker's desk unsigned. Now, sir, I want the Speaker to be required, under as heavy a penalty as is provided in this Section, to sign bills that have passed both Houses. Mr. FLANDRAU. The gentleman from Sibley (Mr. BRowN) has 244 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ,given the Convention a stronger argument than I could have possi~bly done against this making a compliance with the rules of tho Hiouse a requisite for a bill becoming a law. The gentleman says he could instance a dozen cases where bills have been defeated by a refusal of the presiding officer to sign them. Now, sir, if these instances are so frequent, it certainly becomes our duty to obviate such failures in future by placing it out of the power of presiding officers to defeat bills in any such manner. Mr. SETZER. The objections are perhaps well founded, but I ask what better evidence can we have that a bill has passed the House than the signature of the Speaker. We must have some authentic evidence; and if we make the signature of the presiding officer unnecessary, what authentication shall we have? Mr. FLANDRAU. The position I take, gives the remedy. Leave it to the rules of the House to provide, but do not allow the neglect or refusal of the Speaker to sign bills, to defeat them, Let the presiding officer sign it, but if'he refuses, the certificate of a majority of the members who voted for it, is sufficient evidence that it has passed, and the certificate of the Governor is sufficient evidence of that fact. Let the presiding officers sign the bills, but do not give them the veto power. Mr. MEEKER. The gentleman from Nicollet takes a very ,different view of the veto power from what I do. The presiding -officer of the House, when he enters upon his office, takes an oath faithfully and impartially to discharge the duties of his office Among these duties is that of signing all bills which have passed both Houses. If he fails to do that duty, we may provide for punish ing him, but it is not conferring a veto power upon him, by making it possible to violat, his oath of office. It seems to me we have no right to soi)pose:at anypresiding officer will fail to discharge his official obligations. 1 think the amendment is wrong and ought :not to prevail. Mr. BROWN. I simply want the Committee to observe the posi tion which the gentleman from Nicollet assumes in his argument against his own motion. He says, strike out the section and allow the Legislature to provide its own rules. Now I defy the gentle man to show me a single instance in the rules of any House of any Legislature of any State which does not require the presiding officer to sign all bills which have passed both Houses. That then is made a part of his duty. Now the Clerk may lay the bills which have passed both Houses before him, and those bills have not been passed according to the rules of the House, until he has signed them. But in the hurry in which bills are huddled on his desk in 245 PROCEEDIGS AND DEBATES OF THlE the closing hours of the session, he may easily select out those which are-obnoxious to himself, and lay them aside, and it will not be discovered that they have not been signed until the close of the session. I want that it shall be made imperative upon him to sign them. Mr. SIBLEY. The sectin: nder consideration provides against accidents such as the gentleman from Nicollet has mentioned. If it shall be discovered or appear that the presiding officer has re fused to sign a bill, the Constitution makes his office vacant forth with, and the House can proceed to provide itself with another presiding officer. It strikes me that the section as it stands pro vides all that it is necessary to provide on the subject. Mr. EMMETT. How will the gentleman know that the presiding officer has refused to sign a bill? Mr. SIBLEY It is the proper business of the Committee on Enrolled Bills to ascertain. It is their duty to present all bills to the Governor for his signature within a certain time after their passage, and the mere fact of their not being presented is sufficient evidence of his having refused to sign them. Mr. EMMETT. I understand that the practice usually is to flood the Speaker's desk with bills, in the last hours of the session, so that it is almost impossible to ascertain what bills have and what have not been signed until after the close of the session. It seems to me that by this section you do, as the gentleman from Nicollet says, place it in the power of a presiding officer to refuse to sign a bill, and thus secure its defeat near the close of the session, if he chooses to do it and make a martyr of himself by taking the consequences of his refusal. Mr. SIBLEY. The gentleman seems to overlook the fact that the penalty attached is one which very few presiding officers would care to incur. The instances mentioned bv the Chairman of the Committee, (Mr. BROWN,) of the refusal of the presiding officers to sign bills were where no such penalty was attached. Mr. EMMETT. But suppose he should see fit to take upon him self the responsibility of incurring the penalty, what remedy would you have? Mr. BROWN. If the gentleman will permit me, I will state under the rules usually adopted, bills are signed by the Speaker of' the House of Representatives first. They are journalized as they are singed, and then transmitted to the Senate by a message of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and placed upon the desk of the Secretary of the Senate. It is his duty to present them at once to the presiding officer of the Senate for his signature and to, 19,46 OONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. journalize them as they are signed. I think there should be no difficulty in ascertaining whether the presiding officer signs or refuses to sign any bill. Mr. FLANDRAU. The arugments which have been presented, do not touch the difficulty of which I have complained. It is that if you make it a part of the Constitution that all bills shall be signed by the presiding officers, then if they do not sign them, these bills will not become laws. You then place it in the power of each of the presiding officers of both Houses to defeat the will of the House over which he presides, and of both Houses, There can be no doubt of that. Why? Because the Constitution of the State makes the signature of these presiding officers necessary to give validity and authority to laws. Then, sir, you place in the hands of each of these presiding officers a veto power superior to that vested in the Governor of the S ate. If the Governor vetoes -a bill, it is in the'power of the two Houses by a two-thirds vote, to pass that bill into a law in spite of the veto of the Governor, but for the veto of a presiding officer you have no remedy. Now sir, I say, punish these men for a violation of their duty punish them to the full extent provided for in this section, but do not place it in their power to defeat the will of the two Houses by such violation or omission of duty. As the Article now stands, you will have the satisfaction of punishing a presiding officer for malfeasance in office, but he will have the satisfaction of having de feated the will of the Legislature. You will simply have the sat isfaction of punishing him after you have irretrievably lost your bill. That is my position and it is one which has not been success fully answered. Sir, you talk about imposing a penalty which no man will be willing to incur. Why, sir, to carry certain political ends has become a part of the religion of a large number of men in this country. It is embodied in their church regulations, and the history of the world shows us that men for the sake of their religious be lief, will incur, not only such minor penalties as disqualification from office, but will sacrifice even life itself, and become martyrs to their religion. I tell you there are men in this country who would glory in incurring any penalty you may impose, to defeat -certain political measures which may be carried through the Leg islature. I say again, punish these presiding officers as severely as you choose for dereliction of duty, but do not place it in their power, by the refusal to sign a bill, to defeat the will of the peo ple expressed through their representatives. Mr. EMMETT. I am opposed to striking the Section out entire 247 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE without putting something in its place. I think the Section as it stands, by placing it in the power of a presiding officer, if he chooses to make a martyr of himself, to defeat any bill, gives to that officer a veto power, or something equally objectionable. But it is necessary that there should be some authentication of the passage of bills, and I am opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Nicollet to strike out without suggesting anything else to cover the object sought to be attained by the Section. My own opinion is that the refusal of a presiding officer should not be allowed to defeat a bill, but that, upon his refusing to sign a bill, some action ought to be taken to cause him instantly to va cate his seat and allow the House to provide another presiding officer. I do not think that follows as a necessary consequence under this Section, but I think some provision should be adopted to require that course to be taken. The Legislature ought to be made incapable of adjourning sitae die until the presiding officer had signed the bills which had been passed. I simply make these re-.. marks with the hope that some mnember of the Convention may suggest an adequate remedy. Mr. BUTLER. I move to amend the amendment by adding, "and the bill as refused to be signed, shall not be invalidated by said refusal." Mr. SETZER. The position has been takenl upon this floor that by the refusal of a presiding officer to sign a bill, a veto power is placed in the hands of that presiding officer. Well, sir, I think such should be the case. Hle may be removed for his refusal, and another elected who will sign the bill. But, sir, it seems to me the picture has been presented to our view all on one side. The gen — tleman from Nicollet has shown us the evils which will result from a presiding officer refusing to sign a bill; and what do they amount to? Simply, that the bill will not at that time become a law. The remedy is at hand; by the removal of the presiding offices and the substitution of another, or if the bill has to be passed again subsequently, the interests of the people do not suffer by it seriously. On the other hand, if you allow the certificate of the Clerk or Secretaryto be taken as sufficient evidence, you will have your records imperfectly authenticated, and the interests of the people will be much more likely to suffer in consequence than by the postponement of the passage of the bill to another session. Mr. A. E. AMES. I hope the Section will be amended by substituting the word "neglect" for "refusal." Mr. MEEKER. I think the gentleman who proposes that amendment does not reflect on its consequences. The presiding officer' 248 CONSTITUIONAL CONVENTION. may neglect to sign a bill from forgetfulness or oversight, and to require him to incur all the penalties prescribed in this Section for such neglect, it seems to me would be too severe a punishment. Mr. SETZER. Before the question is taken, I will simply state that I have known instances where the Committee on Enrolled Bills reported a different bill from that which passed both Houses. Such a case occurred during the last session. Who is to blame if the Speaker refuses to sign such a bill? Mr. SIBLEY. A bill so presented could not be a bill which had passed both Houses. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS. I move to amend by adding "and in case of such "refusal, each Hlouse shall provide by rule the mannier in which such "bill shall be properly certified for presentation to the Governor." Mr. MEEKER. I hope the gentleman will recollect that we are here providing the fundamental law of the State, and should not pass upon provisions so important as this without clearly understanding them. Sir, what is the difficulty of which complaint is made? Is it anything which can be remedied by anything we can insert in this Constitution? The only difficulty apprehended is that the Speaker will not do his duty. Well, sir, if he fails to perform it, it is in the power of the body over which be presides at once to remove him and place somebody in his place who will discharge his obligations of office. That is the remedy, and, it seems to me, is adequate. Mr. BROWN. I would inquire of the gentleman how the Senate would go to work to remove its presiding officer, who is the Lieutenant Governor of the State? Mr. CURTIS. And I would enquire how the House is to apply the remedy when its Speaker refuses to sign a bill at the very close of a session? Mro MEEKER. It is perfectly within the control of the House to remove its Speaker at any time. With regard to the presiding officer of the Senate, his removal would be a little more difficult; but we could place a provision in the Constitution which should declare the office of Lieutenant Governor ipso facto, vacated upon his refusal to discharge his official duty. It seems to me the remedy is very easily reached. Mr. SIBLEY. We have the remedy already provided for. Mr. MEEKER. Then there is nothing to contend about. Mr. FLANDRAU. Gentlemen already, upon the sober second thought, begin to see that they are running into a labyrinth of dif ficulties from which they cannot extricate themselves, by under 249 PPROCEEDINGS AND DEBATrES OF IHa taking here in the Constitution to provide rules for the Legislature. I appreciate the difficulty of gentlemen who have committed them selves to this course of policy in maintaining their consistency, and at the same time preserving us from the commission of a great error by that course. I tell gentlemen again, that this whole thing of interfering with the rules of the Houses of the Legislature is one that will involve us in difficulty, whatever provisions are adopted to prevent it. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. CURTIS. I move to amend Section 22 by striking out the latter clause, as follows: "At each of said sessions, the Legislature may prescribe the qualification of voters within this State." I make the motion for the reason that it has been thought a mat ter of sufficient importance to provide in the Constitution what shall be the qualifications of voters until 1865, when you propose to allow the Legislature to amend the Constitution. Now, I apprehend the same reason will exist then for continuing the qualifications of voters a constitutional provision, that now exists for making such a provision. I propose, therefore, that if it should become necessary to amend the Constitution in this particular, it should be accomplished by the same means as other amendments to the Constitution, which subject is under the charge of another of the Standing Committees of the Convention. Mr. BROWN. I find that in this report I have trenched upon the rights of a number of the Standing Committees. In the 13th Section, which provides that the style of all laws of this State shall be, "Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Miz "nesota," it may be said that we have assumed the name of the State without waiting for the Committee on Name and Boundaries to report. In this instance the gentleman from Washington (Mr. CURTIS) says we have provided for amending the Constitution. Now, sir, it seems to me that without the necessity of going through the ordinary forms of amending the Constitution, the people should have the right at stated periods to say through their representatives what shall be the qualifications of voters. If the question is submitted directly to the people, they will have to vote for or against the particular words which may be submitted. Now, sir, it seems to me much better that the qualifications of voters for the adoption of the Constitution shall be prescribed in the Constitution, and then allow the people through their representatives, at every uneven period of five years, to make such changes as may seem expedient. I think that is Democratic doctrine, and I hope, therefore, the amendment will not prevail. 250 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. CURTIS. Let us examine the proposition for a moment and see where it would lead to if applied to any other subject matter which it has been thought necessary to provide for by a grave Constitutional provision. Is there anything as to which the gentleman is more tenacious of providing for in this Constitution, than to define the right of suffrage? I apprehend there is nothing of more importance which will come before us. Why not, then, allow the Representatives of the people, every five years, to take into consideration the Bill of Rights and every part of the fundamental law of the State, and determine what it shall be? Mr. BROWN. I should, for one, be decidedly in favor of the proposition. But in reference to this matter of the qualifications of voters, I think it is essential that the Representatives of the people should, at stated periods, have the power to make such modifications as shall accord with the genius of the times. Mr. EMMETT. I hope the motion of the gentleman from Washington will prevail. I do not want to see this Convention dodge any question that is properly before us. Now, sir, if there was any question which entered more largely than any other into the contest pending our election to seats in this Convention, it was as to what shall constitute the Right of Suffrage. Sir, I want gentlemen to come right up and make their mark upon the question. I want them to say, unequivocally, whether they are in favor of Negro Suffrage. If you allow the Legislature-if such a one should chance to be elected in 1865-to say that Negroes, and the descendants of Negroes shall have the right to vote, you will find it a difficult matter, when once that right is established, to shut that class of people out afterwards. I want every member to come right up and vote yea or nay upon this question. I, for one, am ready for striking this clause out, and then I am ready to vote that the right of Suffrage shall never be extended to the Negro race. Mr. BROWN. Before the gentleman makes his speech I ask him to allow me to offer this amendment to be added to the section: But no person of Negro blood shall be allowed the Right of Suffrage, or of holding office. Mr. BAKER. There is only one point in this report upon which I have anything to say, and that is right here. I do not think I have any black constituents, or shall be in danger of ever having black representatives; but I want this Convention to decide, and decide now, who are to be the voters. I want it to be understood, clearly, that I know of no difference amongst White men. I make no distinction against a man whether he is born in Ohio, in Nova Scotia or across the waters; but I want the people to decide at this first election who the voters are to be. > 251 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THiE Mr. A. E. AMES. I desire to enquire of the Chairman of this Committee, how he is to decide what persons contain Negro blood? I know of no rule by which the Judges of Election can determine. If the gentleman will present some criterion by which that fact can be ascertained, we can then act safely. Mr. BECKER. I would suggest to the gentleman from Sibley, who offered this amendment, that we are now in Committee of the Whole, considering the Article on the Legislative Department, and he has led us off on the question of the Right of Suffrage. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. CURTIS,) I think is a very proper one, and I hope it will be adopted. Further than that, I can see no necessity for going on this subject at present. When the report of the Committee on the Right of Suffrage comes properly before us, it will then be the time to take the subject of the qualification of voters into consideration. Mr. BROWN. As far as the question of propriety is concerned, I am desirous that such a provision as I have reported shall be inserted somewhere in the Constitution, and I see no reason why it may not as properly come in here as at any other point. Mr. WAIT. It seems to mne the most proper time to consider this subject will be when it is regularly before us in the report of the Committee on the Right of Suffrage. The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to. The original amendment was agreed to. Mr. BECKER. I move to amend Section 22, by adding at the end thereof, "Senators and Representatives shall be elected by "single districts.". Mr. BROWN. Would the gentleman apply that rule to the election of Representatives in this city. Mr. BECKER. I would apply it everywhere. Where there are inhabitants enough to elect a Representative, let them elect him; and where there are inhabitants enough to elect a Senator, let them elect him, the same as is now done in the election of members of Congress. Mr. SETZER. I think that would be a wise provision for the Legislature to adopt. But sir, we have now no census to go by, and most of us are not sufficiently well aquainted all over the Territory to make an apportionment by single districts. Mr. BROWN. If I had not heard the interpretation of the provision contemplated, as given by the gentleman who offered it, I should not have known what it meant. In all probability there may be persons in the Legislature of as weak minds as myself, who may not understand what it means. They will not know 252 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVETION. W whether it means by counties or what is the proper interpretation of "single districts." I cannot see any necessity for the incorporation of any such provision into the Constitution. Of course, the Legislature when they come to make the apportionment upon the ascertained population of the Territory, will make the districts as small as possible, so as in the election both of Senators and Representatives to bring the vote down as close to the people as is practicable. But suppose you take a populous county entitled to elect one or more Senators, and two or three or more Representatives, and how can you elect them by single districts? Will there not be a question under the provision, whether you can put two counties together or not? I can see no good result which can come from the adoption of the amendment, and I can see a good deal of misunderstanding which may ensue. Ar. BECKER. I grant, there may be some little objection to placing the provision I have offered in this section, but I did not suppose a single member of this body would object to what is called the single district system. I believe all the Constitutional Conventions which have been held in any of the States, have provided the single district system in the election of Senators; and the same rule has been adopted in the election of members of Congress. The object of its adoption will be apparent at once. It brings the Representative nearer the people. It makes him the immediate recipient of their votes and sentiments, and makes him responsible directly to them. I can see no difficulty in adopting it for the government of the Legislature of this State. Under a former Section of this Article you have made provision by which perhaps 30 Senators, and 60 Representatives will be elected. Now sir, I can see no difficulty in dividing up the Territory into that number of districts. I think the provision is a wholesome and important one, and I hope it will be adopted in this Constitution. Mr. FLANDRAU. I ask the gentleman whether that amendment means that the member shall be a resident of his district and shall be voted for by nobody but his constituents, or what it means? I do not fully understand the purport of it. Mr. BECKER. The gentleman is aware of the system adopted in ttie State of New York. Mr. FLANDRAU. Of course. Mr. BECKER. Well, the amendment provides for precisely thc same system as that adopted in New York and Michigan. Mr. BROWN. As far as the apportionment is concerned, what would answer very well in the State of New York, and that of Michigan, would be utterly worthless here. For instance, in the: 253 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE State of New York, the same districts apportioned off ten years ago probably stand now. There is not that necessity for change there, that there is here. In a country like this, where the population is so rapidly increasing, and changes in the apportionment so often required, I do not see how the rule laid down by the gentleman can well be adopted. Mr. BECKER. There are some evils connected with our system as it now stands, evils which need only to be pointed out to be recognized by every gentleman present. The district in which I reside, embraces two separate sections of country, a portion of it is situated in the city of Saint Paul, and the remaining portion in the country outside, having no sympathy at all with the city. I have no doubt there are others here representing districts similarly situated. Now sir, Dakota county is entitled to six members, but I have no doubt the wishes of the people would be much beter represented by electing them from single districts, than to Mect the whole six from the county at large. I think the amendment is right, and hope it will be adopted. The amendment was disagreed to. On motion of Mr. SETZER the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. Mr. BECKER presented a report from the Committee on the Name and Boundaries of the State; which was laid on the table. On motion of Mr. GORMAN the Convention then at ten minutes before five o'clock adjourned. TWENTIETHI DAY. WEDNESDAY, August 5, 185 7. The Convention met at nine o'clock, A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Convention resolved itself into C(ommittee of the Whole, Mr. NORRIS in the Chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department. Mr. SETZER. I move to strike out the word "one" and insert "two," and strike out "two" and insert "four" where they occur in the following section: 254 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Sem. 23. Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected to serve for one year, and members of the Senate shall be elected to serve for two years. I do not suppose the amendment will carry. It involves, as will be- seen, the principle of biennial sessions. I hold that all the necessary business of legislation in this State, can be very well transacted with biennial sessions. The case of nearly all the States has been too much legislation. If the amendment is adopted representatives will then be elected for two years and Senators for four years. Mr. SIBLEY. I am individually in favor of the principle of biennial sessions, but I understand upon good authority, that in the States where they have been adopted, it has been a matter of regret upon the part of the people. They have been almost universally pronounced a failure. Such is the case in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, andMichigan. In conversation with gentlemen who have had a good deal to do with these matters, I learn that the practice of holding biennial sessions of the Legislature is no longer regarded with favor in any of these States, and that the people are anxious to have their Constitution amended so as to substitute annual for biennial sessions. It is in view of these facts, that I am induced to believe we had better provide for annual sessions. I understand the gentleman to say that he does not wish to change the tenure of office of Senators and Representatives except to provide for the contingency of biennial sessions, and I would suggest therefore, that he withdraw the amendment for the present, until that question has been first decided upon. Mr. BROWN. The Committee has already passed upon the subject of the sessions of the Legislative Assembly. We have said in one section of this act, that the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such times as may be provided by law. It is competent then for the Legislature to determine for itself how often the public service requires it to meet. If they decide that biennial sessions only are required, there need be no change in this provision, for it will be competent for them to provide for elections to conform with snch a regulation. Mr. SIBLEY. I am decidedly opposed to leaving it to the Legislature to determine how often they shall assemble. They might determine to sit three fourths of the time. I think we ought to determine here whether the Legislature shall meet annually or biennially. If that feature is incorporated into any portion of this Article which we have passed, I hope the Committee will strike it out. Legislatures always manifest a disposition to protract their sessions. The difficulty has hitherto been to restrict the sessions 255 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE to any reasonable time. I hope no provision will be incorporated into this Constitution leaving the whole matter at the discretion of the Legislature. Mr. SETZER. I cannot agree with the gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BRowN,) that if the Legislature should adopt biennialsessions it would be competent for them to change the system of annual elections provided for in the Constitution; nor do I believe that a House of Representatives elected for one year can adjourn over to the next year without giving those to be elected that next year, a chance to try their hands. Now, Sir, if we provide for annual electious, annual sessions must be held. I think that provision should be made in the Constitution for biennial sessions only. Mr. MEEKER. With the gentleman from Dakota, (Mr. SInLEY,) I am decidedly in favor of fixing the periods of meeting and the duration of the Legislative sessions in the Constitution. I do not think it is a matter which should be left to the discretion of that body. And with the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZER,) I am decidedly infavor of biennial sessions. That feature has been adopted I believe into the fundamental law of all the western States. If that feature should be adopted by this body, it will .certainly become necessary to adopt the change suggested, in respect to our elections by the gentleman from Washington, in the amendment which is under consideration. What, sir, elect Representatives annually to sit biennially! It looks like electing two sets of Representatives for one session of the Legislature. Mr, SIBLEY. The gentleman is mistaken. There is 11no such proposition. Mr. MEEKER. That wvas the reasoning of the gentlenman from Sibley. Mr. BROWN. I beg the gentleman's pardon. I stated no such proposition. Mr. MEEKER. I am glad of it. I so understood the gentleman, ,and I thought it resulted from the disposition the gentleman has occasionally manifested to adhere to the course first marked out by him, whether right or wrong. I am very glad he has consented to take {one step backwards. Sir, I think the people of this Territory will demand biennial sessions of the Legislature. It would be a saving of certainly $100,000 annually, and the Legislature will as well attend to the wants of the people by holding sessions once in two years as by annual sessions. Such has been the usage in Kentucky, in Illinois, in Iowa, in Tennessee, in Missouri, and in several of the other States, and/ why should Minnesota be an exception? Why, sir, if they were to have sessions every six months, about so 256 i CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. much time would be consumed every session. Nothing would be done until the last week of the session, and then all the business would be done in a batch. We have made such progress in the science of legislation that one session of the Legislature under the Constitution which we shall form, will be sufficient to codify the laws and transact all the bussiness necessary to be transacted by the Legislature for two years, and if anything occurs in the time to make it necessary, let the Governor call an extra session. This is a subject upon which I have conversed with the people more or less, and as far as I have heald, they have expressed but one voice, and that has been in favor of sessions once in two years, both on the score of economy and stability in legislation. That, sir, is the opinion to which this western world, and eastern too, is coming with great unanimity. I amn decidedly in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Washington. Mr. WARI-'NER. I am entirely in favor of the amnendmenet proposed by the gentleman from Washington. Having been formerly a resident of Ohio where they have adopted biennial sessiqps and witnessed its operation, I am strongly of the opinion that they are for the best interests of the people. As has been remarked, our great trouble is in consequence of having too much legislation. I hope the amendment will prevail. Mr. EMMETT. I also too, happen to be from Ohio, where they have adopted the practice of biennial sessions and I knlow equally well that they are sick and tired of thlem. They are almost unanimously anxious to return to annual sessions. Ever since the adoption of the Constitution they have had special sessions during every recess. I was there two years ago, and there seemed to be but one voice on the subject, and that was in favor of annual sessions. So far as my own opinion is concerned, I would rather have sessions twice a year than once in two years. Mr. MEEKER. I would enquire of the genltleman, if he has resided in the State of Ohio since the adoption of their Constitution. Mr. EMMETT. I have been there since that time and have made especial enquiry as to the effect of the adoption of this provision. I have recently conversed with a gentleman from that State, who has been a member of the Legislature, and he says there is but one voice in Ohio upon the subjiect, and that is in favor of annual sessions. Mr. A. E. AMES. I have been a resident of the State of Illinois, where they formerly held annual sessions. Under their new Con 257 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE stitution, however, they are required to hold biennial sessions only; but the plan has not worked well there. They have been compelled frequently to hold special sessions. Here in Minnesota, it seems to me, at any rate for the first ten or twelve years, an nual sessions will be required. After that, when our affairs become more settled, perhaps it may be well to try biennial. Mr. SETZER. I submit that the arguments of the gentleman from Saint Paul, (Mr. EMMETT,) and from iHennepin, (Mr. AMES,) prove nothing in favor of requiring annual sessions to be held. These gentlemen tell us that in Ohio and Illinois, where they have provided in their Constitution for biennial sessions only, special sessions have frequently been called, and annual sessions have been held. Now sir, that is all very well. When the business of the State requires annual sessions, let them be held, but all must submit that there will sometimes periods occur when annual sessions are not required. Then why provide in your Constitution that sessions shall be held annually, whether they are needed or not? We all know what excessive legislation is carried on in nearly ell the States-how laws are enacted and repealed, and reenacted, session after session, and into what confusion the laws are thrown from the continual change. I think it will certainly be unwise in us to require annual sessions to be held. Mr. A. E. AMES. I think this is one of the most important subjects that we shall have before us; and hence I am very glad the gentleman from Washington has offered an amendment which has brought the subject up for consideration at this time. I however, cannot, for a moment, advocate such an amendment, either in Committee or in Convention. So far as I have been able to learn, in all the Western States where the practice of holding biennial sessions has teen adopted into their Constitution, it has been disregarded almost invariably, and I think that will be the effect of adopting such a provision into our Constitution. Either from some real or supposed necessity, the Legislature will meet every year. The principle of holding biennial sessions may be a very good one to apply to the older States where their institutions and laws are settled, and where there are but few changes of population; but I should be unwilling to adopt it into the organic law for this country, where new territory is so rapidly settling up and changes are so constantly going on requiring the care and attention of the government. I do not think in the State of Minnesota, a Legislature assembling only once in two years could possibly meet the wants of the people I am therefore unwilling that such a provision should be adopted. 258 OONSTITlIONAL OONVETION. But sir, while 1 am in favor of annual sessions, I am also in favor of limiting them to some specified period. I would suggest to the Chairman of the Committee, whether it would not be well to amend his report in the first section or in some other section, so as to limit the sessions of the Legislature to forty, fifty, sixty, or any other number of days which may be deemed advisable. Mr. BROWN. The first section of the report provides that "the Legislative Department of the State shall consist of a Senate and ",House of Representatives, who shall meet at the seat of Govern" ment of the State at such times as shall be prescribed by law." That. authorizes the Legislature to make such provision for the meeting and duration of the sessions as in their opinion the exigencies of the State may require. If it is deemed proper that there should be annual sessions, the law will so provide; if it is deemed necessary that there should be only biennial sessions, with power vested in the Government to call extra sessions, the law will so designate; if the first Legislature should provide for annual sessions, and it should be afterwards deemed by the people that biennial sessions are all that is necessary, they will so provide through their representatives in the Legislature. There is where this Report leaves the matter, and there is where in my opinion it ought to be left. I presume that, for the first few years, annual sessions may be required, and that after a time the exigencies of the public will only require biennial. We cannot now designate the time when such a change will be desirable, and I therefore prefer to leave it to the people through their representatives when the time arrives. Now, in reference to the election of Representatives to serve one year, &?1d of Senators for two years, upon which the gent1eman fro iti Ai ihony (Mr. MEEKER) says I have taken a step baclk;'yds, Gy to that gentleman that I hold precisely the same opinioni whicih I assumed when the question was up before. There may be biennial sessions and still the members of the House of Representatives may be elected to serve one year and the mem bers of the Senate elected to serve two years without incurring any difficulty whatever. By saying that members shall be elected -to serve one year it does not necessarily imply that they shall be elected annually. If the Legislature provide for biennial session, they will of course change the law for the election of members of the House of Representatives so as to allow an election only once in two years. The Senators who are elected for two years would of course serve for only one session, the same as members of the .House of Representatives. Mr. SETZER. Suppose that during the year in which there was 17 259 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE no session provided for, some exigency should arise from which the Governor should call an extra session, what House of Repre sentatives would he call? Mr. BROWN. He would call the members elected, of course. Mr. SETZER. But the members are elected for only one year, and their term would have ey-nred. Mr. BROWN. That would bc provided for by law. Of course, the Legislature would make provision for such an emergency. Mr. A. E. AMES. I am opposed to leaving this matter to the discretion of the Legislature. It is a matter, in my opinion, of sufficient importance to be regulated by the Organic Law of the State. I think the Constitution should determine how frequently and for how long a time the Legislature shall meet. If you leave it to the Legislature to determine, confusion must necessarily arise. In the first place, you would have sessions of the Legislature extending through nearly the whole year. If you neglect to affix some limit in this Constitution to the length of sessions, you will make your Legislatures odious to the people. Then, a Reform Legislature would be elected, who would perhaps go to the other extreme of providing for biennial sessions and limiting them to a period in which it would be impossible to transact the public business. So, you would have your Legislature vibrating from one extreme to the other, and your public affairs would become involved in the most inextricable confusion. I believe this is the place to determine whether you are to have annual or biennial sessions. It is a matter which is provided for in the Constitution of every State. Mr. EMNIETT. One word in reply to the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZER.) He seems to think the state of facts mentioned in the State of Illinois is an argument in favor of biennial sessions. I think otherwise. He thinks the only necessity there is for annual sessions arises from improvident legislation, or from the exigencies of the times. Now, if a law has been improvidently passed, the sooner we get rid of it the better. We do not want to have it remain on our statute-books for two years. But if it is a good law, the Legislature will certainly not stultify themselves by repealing it. If members are elected for two years and biennial sessions provided for, we have no certainty that the Legislature will be called together when such an emergency as ought to require it arises. And again, it may very likely happen that when such an emergency arises it is upon some issue which has arisen since the members were elected, and they will not necessarily represent the wishes and sentiments of the people upon 260 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. that questioni. l'or these reasons, among others, I think we should at least have annual sessions. I think, as I remarked before, that it would be better to have sessionis twice a year than only once in two years. When new issues arise, we want legislators to act upon them fresh from the people —men who were elected upon those issues. It does seem to mue that the experience of other States ought to admonish us that the oftener our legislators are brought fresh from the people, the better it will be for the people. I concur with the gentleman from ITennepin (Mr. A3Es) that there is a peculiar fitness about having annual sessions of the Legislature here in Minnesota. In the older States,-where their institutions, their habits, their laws and their population have become settled,-there may perhaps be some show of reason for only biennial sessions; but here in Minnesota, with the constant important changes that are going on, the Legislature should certainly meet annually, and the members should be elected annually. [ Cries of "Question! " "Question! " ] Mr. ItOLCOMBE. It strikes me that whatever may be said in favor of biennial sessions in the older States, at this stage in the age and progress of Minnesota we should have annual sessions of the Legislature. There are peculiar advantages in annual meetings of the Legislature in new States. Why, sir, our party chains which bind us together would become rusty if they were to lie by unused for two years. We want, at any rate, to get together at least and compare information relative to the progress of the different sections of the State. We want to hear of the development of -the agricultural and other resources of every part of the State. We should certainly have annual sessions at this early stage of our history. Mr. SETZER. I am certainly astonished at the view taken of the duties of a legislator by the gentleman from Stillwater. I had supposed that legislators had something else to do besides discussing agricultural prospects. That information can be obtained from the papers, without going to the expense of requiring the meeting of a session of the Legislature. Mr. MEEKER. I dislike to prolong this discussion, but, sir, it seems to me that the course of argument pursued by those who have advocated the policy of holding annual sessions has been predicated upon the supposition that the object of a Legislature is for something else than the good of the people. It has been said that biennial sessions will do for the old States but not for the new. Now, sir, in a large portion of the old States annual sessions are still held, and why? It is because the Leg'islature is made more to 261 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE subserve the interests of the politicians than the people. They want to keep the political cauldron boiling. Another reason is, that the assembling of the Legislature is a benefit to the locality where it meets. In the State of Kentucky, where I once resided for a good long time, so long as the Legislature continued to meet annually their Capital was a flourishing place; but when a change was made, and biennial sessions only held, the business of Frankfort was brought to a stand-still-boarding-houses, hotels and places of amusement were thrown out of employment. So it will be everywhere. So long as annual sessions are held the places of meeting of the Legislature will be built up, politicians will flourish out of the constant agitation which they succeed in keeping up, but it will all be at the expense of the people. [ Cries of "Question I "] Mr. CURTIS. I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I merely wish to say that I shall vote against any proposition for biennial sessions, and at the same time, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I shall not do it for the purpose of promoting the interests of the hotels and theatres of the seat of government. Nor should I do it for any such reason were the Capitol located at the place where I reside. But, sir, I think the legitimate business of the people requires that annual sessions should be held And if there is anything in precedent, the fact that at least three-fourths of the States in the Union hold annual sessions, is very much,in favor of annual sessions in Minnesota. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. BAKER moved to strike out Section 24, as follows: SEC. 24. Senators and Representatives shall be citizens of the United States, and shall have resided for one year in the State, and six months immediately preceding the election, in the District from which they were elected, and to insert in lieu thereof: SEc. 24. Senators and Representatives shall be white male persons who have resided in the State and District six months previous to election, or civilized male inhabitants of Indian descent. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. MEEKER. I move to strike out Section 26, as follows: SEC. 26. NO Bill shall be passed by either House, embracing any subject not referred to in its title, and insert in lieu thereof, the following: SEC. 26. NO law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be embraced in its title. My object in moving this amendment, is to guard against a practice which has been to a greater or less extent, prevalent in this Territory, as well as in other States, of grouping together several 262 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. different subjects in one bill, and passing them through by means of a system known as log-rolling. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BECKER. I wish to offer a separate Section to come in after Section 26, in these words: Divorces shall not be granted by the Legislature. The amendment was adopted. Mr. BROWN offered the following as a separate Section to come in after Section 21: No Bill shall be passed by either House of the Legislative Assembly upon the day prescribed for the adjournment of the two Houses. But this Section shall not be so construed as to preclude the enrollment of a Bill or the signature and passage from one House to the other, or the reports thereon, from Committees, or its transmission to the Executive for his signature. The amendment was adopted. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend Section 1, by striking (out all after the word "State," and insert in lieu thereof, "on the first Monday "of each year." Mr. KINGSBURY moved to amend the amendment by adding, " and no session shall extend beyond 60 days." Mr. SETZER suggested that the amendment should be so modified as to read, "annually on the first of December in each year.' Mr. BECKER. I would suggest that the first Legislature which meets will certainly require more time than sixty days to discharge the business which will come before them. That Legislature will probably have to revise our code of laws. We certainly ought not to limit them, and my opinion is that no body of men who will assemble here as a Legislature, will extend their session beyond the period necessarily required for the transaction of the public business. I cannot see what incentive there will be to remain longer. Certainly the $3 per day will be no inducement. I am opposed to any limitation. Mr. SIBLEY. I rise to a question of order. I submit that all these amendments are out of order. The Convention has gone through with the report section by section, and nothing is now in order except the adoption of the Article as amended. If we are to begin and go over with the report again to amend it, the work will be interminable. Mr. SETZER. The Chair declared the whole Article to be before the Committee, as I understood him. The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the Committee have the right to review their action if they see proper, and the Chair decides the amendments to be in order, Mr. MEEKER. I am in favor of the amendment. I think two 263 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIlE months is long enough for any Legislature to transact the business before it. Every Legislature really does all its business in less time than that. The Congress of the United States always crowds the business of the whole session into the last four or five weeks. I think two months is amply long time enough for our Legislature to transact all its business, and I am in favor of the limitation. The amendment was agreed to, and the amendment as amended adopted. Mr. BUTLER. I move to amend by adding, "after its first ses-. sion." I suppose the first session of the Legislature will require more than sixty days. Mr. BROWN. I would suggest that the first Legislature will, in all probability, have the apportionment of the State under the new Constitution to make, and very likely the revision of the laws will have to go over until the next session. It will be better to except at least two Legislatures. Mr. BUTLER. I will modify my amendment then, so as to make it from and after the year 1860. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BROWN. I now propose an additional Section to come ill after Section 1, as follows SEc. 2. When, in the opinion of the Governor, or the person performing the duties of Governor, an Extra Session of the Legislative Assembly may be deemed necessary, such Session may be called by Proclamation, giving thirty days' notice thereof, but no Extra Session shall extend beyond the period of twenty days. Mr. SIBLEY. I move to amend the amendment by striking out all except the words, SEc. 2. No Extra Session shall extend beyond the period of twenty days. I ask the gentleman if the substance of his amendment is not embodied in the report of the Committee on the Executive Department? Mr. BROWN. It properly belongs to both Departments. It may properly come in here because the preceding Section provides for the regular Sessions of the Legislature, and it is as well to provide for Extra Sessions in the same connection. I think this is the most proper place to incorporate it. Mr. SIBLEY. The report of the Committee on the Executive Department prescribes the duties of the Governor, and among other duties is that of calling an Extra Session of the Legislature whenever it may become necessary. And inasmuch as the Article on the Executive Department will naturally precede this in the Constitution, I think there is a propriety in having this provision 264 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. inserted there. It would be very well, however, to have the Extra Sessions which may be called, limited in this Article, in the same connection with the regular Sessions, and I am willing that so much of the amendment shall remain. Mr. EMMETT. I move to substitute for the whole amendment, the following: Extra Sessions of the Legislature may be provided as in this Constitution, but no Extra Session shall extend beyond twenty days. MIr. GORMAN, I think the phraseology of the substitute is preferable to that of the amendment, but I am opposed to limiting the length of an Extra Session to twenty days. The occasion for calling an Extra Session should be one of great importance, such as war, or some public disturbance which should require great deliberation. It may become necessary to call an Extra Session in consequence of some great commercial crisis, and it certainly should not be limited to twenty days, nor in my opinion, should it be limited at all. Mr. SiBLEY. I decidedly disagree with the gentleman who has just spoken on this subject. I think these extra sessions are always called upon some specific subject, to attend to some particular business that can as well be transacted in 20 days as 100. We have provided regular sessions for the transaction of the regular business of the State, and I can conceive of no state of things which would justify the Governor in calling an extra session which should extend beyond the time fixed in the amendment. Mr. EMMETT. I have so modified my amendment as to leave it in blank. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is of the opinion that the substitute for the amendment is in the nature of an amendment in the third degree, and therefore not in order. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to, and the amendment as amended adopted. Mr. EMMETT. I now move that the amendment which has been adopted as a separate section, be added to section one. The motion was agreed to. Mr. McGRORTY moved to amend section 24 by inserting after the words, "United States," the words, "or who have declared their " intentions to become such, conformably to the laws on the sub"ject of naturalization." Mr. MURRAY. I do not propose to discuss this matter now. I call the attention of the mover of the amendment to the fact that the Committee on the Right of Suffrage, have this matter properly in charge. So far as I am concerned, I am willing that any per 265 PRO(EDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE son who is entitled to vote, shall be entitled to hold office. I do. not propose to make any distinction, and I would suggest to the gentleman, therefore, that he withdraw his amendment, and move to strike the whole section out. Mr. McGRORTY. As I understand the section now drafted, none but citizens of the United States will be eligible to election to the Legislature. It requires a residence in the country of five years for a foreigner to become a citizen of the United States, and I think, therefore, my amendment should be adopted. Mr. M. E. AMES. I am in favor of the amendment of my colleague, if it is necessary; but I arise to ask the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative Department, whether the whole of section twenty-four is not unnecessary and superfluous in this Article? It strikes me that it might very properly be stricken out and inserted under the head of "Qualifications." Mr. BAKER. I am certainly in favor of striking out the section, or of adopting the amendment of my colleague. For my part, I can see no reason why a person of foreign birth, who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, is not as well qualified to hold office as a native-born citizen. I see no reason why you shall deprive me from sending a man whom I may select to represent me in the Legislature, because he has not been in the country five years. I want no such distinction to be made either for the voter or office-holder. Mr. MURRAY. I now make the motion to strike out the whole section, and let the qualifications be made to conform to those which we shall establish on the Right of Suffrage. I think the two should go together-I want no distinction. If we provide that a foreigner who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States may have the right to vote, I say, let him also be entitled to hold office. I want no distinction between the two. Mr. M. E. AMES. I will enquire of my colleague who last spoke, whether the qualifications of members of the Legislature, can properly come under the head of qualifications for electors. Mir. MURRAY. The Committee on the Right of Suffrage will undoubtedly report that persons qualified to vote shall be qualified to hold office. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend the amendment by striking out of section twenty-four the words, "citizens of the Unites States,'" and insert in lieu thereof the words, "qualified voters of the "State." Mr. BAKER. How do you know what will be the qualifications. of voters? 266 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. EMMETT. I do not care, for this purpose. I want to enunciate the principle that persons who are entitled to vote shall be entitled to hold office. Mr. SETZER. There is, and should be, a great difference between being qualified to vote and being qualified to hold any office. There is a distinction made in the Constitution of the United States, and in the Constitutions of all the States. Mr. MURRAY. No difference, I believe, except with regard to age. Mr. SETZER. That is not the only distinction. The Constitution of the United States prescribes that no person shall be qualified to hold the office of President unless he is a native-born citizen of the United States. It provides that no person shall be qualified to become a member of the Hlouse of Representatives of the United States, unless he shall be a native-born citizen of the United States, or shall have been a citizen seven years. And it further provides that no person shall be qualified to become a Senator of the United States, unless he be a native-born citizen of the United States, or shall have been a citizen of the United States for nine years. The right to vote and the right to hold office have never been placed upon an equality, and, in my opinion, should not be. It is certainly proper that a person should remain in the country long enough to become acquainted with the principles of party and the issues which are before the country, before he is allowed to take part in making the laws which are to govern us. Men who are to make our laws, ought to understand for themselves, the principles of our institutions, the relations of the Federal to the State Governments, and vice versa. It requires a man to have been some time in the country to be able to understand all our complex machinery of government. I think a foreigner should, at least, become a citizen of the United States, before he shall be qualified to hold a seat in our Legislature. Mr. BAKER. I hold that people have the right to make their own selection for the man who shall represent them in the Legislature, and I object to the application of any test whatever. In Connecticut, it is made a test that a man shall read and write cor rectly to qualify him to vote; and yet sir, on an examination of the Governor's message some fifteen or twenty grammatical errors were found in it. I have known many foreigners who have been in the country six months, who understood our institutions better than others who were native born citizens. I do not want to see any such distinction as a residence of five or seven years made. - It is an old fogyish doctrine. Any free white male citizen of Minnesota 267 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE coming from across the water is as good a citizen, and understands our institutions in Minnesota, as well as if he came here from -the State of Massachusetts. Mr. MlcGRORTY. When I offered this amendment, I did not do it with a view of creating any distinction in favor of foreigners, nor do I wish to do so now. I thought that when a foreigner had come to Minnesota to reside, and had renounced all allegiance to foreign princes and protentates, he should be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a citizen. It does not follow that because a man has resided in this or any other Territory five years, he understands our institutions any better than others who have resided here but one year. I hold that the persons who emigrate here from Europe are not all fools, and do not learn all they ever know after they get here. I know many persons who were well aquainted with the in stitutions of this country before they came here. I am a little surprised that the gentleman from Washington, who is generally an advocate of equal rights, should object to allowing foreigners who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, to become candidates for seats in the Legislature. Mr. SIBLEY. I think this discussion shows very plainly that we are leaving the subject legitimately before us, and involving ourselves in another subject which is in charge of another standing Committee, and with which we have now nothing to do. I have no idea that any member of this Convention, has any disposition to deprive any foreigner of a single right which he ought to possess. When the subject of the Right of Suffrage comes legiti mately before us, I have no doubt that we shall make provisions sufficiently liberal to satisfy every one. I hope the whole Section will be stricken out, and let the subject come up where it belongs. Mr. EMMETT. The greatest object I had in view in proposing my amendment, was for the purpose of diverting this discussion to where it belongs. I think it is enough to say that all qualified voters shall be qualified to hold seats in the Legislature, and leave the subject of the qualification of voters to come up and be disposed of in its proper place. I see no reason why a person who is qualified to vote, should not be qualified to hold a seat in the Legislature, but further than that I can see no propriety in going in this Article. Mr. SIBLEY. I think it would be very well for the Committee having in charge the subject of the Right of Suffrage, to report a provision defining the qualifications for holding office, but I cannot see how such a provision can have any proper place in this Article on the Legislative Department of Government. 268 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. EMMETT. I think the gentleman is in error upon that subject. I think it is necessary in the Article upon the Legislative Department, to define what shall be the qualifications for becoming members of that Department. For instance, we have provided that a member shall reside within his district, which is a qualification, and would not in my opinion appropriately be inserted in any other Article. I think that the qualifications for each particular office, should be fixed in the Article referring to that office, and not outside. I am in favor, therefore, of inserting into this Article, a clause requiring that members of the Legislature shall have the qualifications of voters, and leave it to be decided what those qualifications shall be when the Article on the Right of Suffrage comes up for consideration. Mr. BROWN. As this has been decided to be a legitimate subject of discussion, and as the question in issue seems to be the proper place to provide for the qualifications of members of the Legislature, I have but this remark to make: If the subject of qualifications has been referred to a Committee to report, I say, let the Committee report, and the proper place for the discussion upon the subject, is when that report is made. Then if any necessary provisions are omitted, we can provide for them afterwards, and insert them when we come to consider the report of the Com mittee on Revision and Phraseology. On motion of Mr. HOLCOMBE, the Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. Mr. GORMAN from the Committee on the Executive Department made a report; which was laid on the table. Mr. IIOLCOMBE, from the Committee on the Finances of the State, Banks and Banking, made a report; which was laid on the table. MIr. MURRAY made a report from the Committee on the Elective Franchise; which was laid on the table. The Convention then at a quarter past 11 o'clock, adjourned until half past 2 o'clock, P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met at half past 2 o'clock. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention resolved itself 269 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE into Committee of the Whole, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the Legislative Department. Mr. NORRmis in the Chair, the question under consideration being on Mr. MCGRORTY'S amendment. Mr. KEEGAN. I am not in favor of the amendment of the gen tleman from Saint Paul. I do not think persons of foreign birth, should have the right to hold office as soon as they arrive on our shores. So far as I know, the foreign born citizens desire no such distinction in their favor. We only wish for the privileges of citizens, after we have resided here for a reasonable time. Mr. SETZER. I do not know that I have any particular objec tion to the amendment of the gentleman from St. Paul, (Mr. Mc GRORTY,) but I have serious objections to the amendment of the amendment which makes all qualified voters eligible to seats in the Legislature. I understand that a proposition has been reported which will probably be adopted, allowing the Indians who have adopted the habits and customs of white men, to vote. Now, sir, I should have strong objections to allowing Indians to sit as members of the Senate antd House of Representatives in the State of Minnesota. The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to. Mr. CHASE moved to amend the amendment by striking out of Sec. 24 all after the word "State," so that the same shall read"Senators and Representatives shall be qualified voters of the State." Which amendment to the amendment was decided in the negative. The original arne'idwii(t offered by Mr. McGRORTY, was then adopted. Mr. GILMAN offered the following as a substitute for Section 1, of the Article. "The Legislative Department shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives, which shall meet annually at the seat of Government of the State, at such time as shall be provided by law. The compensation of each member of both branches of the Legislative Assembly, shall be fixed at a gross amount per annum." Mr. GILMAN said I have offered this amendment for the purpose of relieving the Committee from all difficulty relative to limiting the sessions of the Legislature. If Senators and Representatives are paid by the year, there will be no need of limiting the length of the regular or extra sessions of the Legislature. The amendment was adopted. Mr. WAIT. I move to amend Section 7 by striking out the lat 270 OONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ter clause, which prohibits the Legislature from increasing their own compensation. The amendment was disagreed to. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Committee here rose, reported back the Article with amendments, and recommended the concurrence of the Convention therein. The first amendment thereto was the following: To insert after the word "inhabitants" in the fourth line of 2nd Section, the following: "PROVIDED, That every county having 1000 inhabitants, shall be entitled to one Representative." Mr. BROWN. I hope that amendment will not prevail. In my opinion, a more pernicious feature could not be adopted into the Constitution. It is antiDemocratic in every respect. Its effect, if adopted, will be to give one section of the Territory privileges which are denied to another. I believe its adoption would have a very injurious effect in the vote the Constitution will receive at the hands of the people. Mr. BAKER. I do hope the gentleman fiom Sibley will not insist on his opposition to this amendment, and if fair play is a jewel, he will not. Nothing can be more certain than if eight or ten counties. are represented by one man, they cannot be well represented. Now, sir, if a county becTlomecs densely settled, it is all the more fortunate for the county; but their interests can be very well represented by one man, and the wants of the frontier counties demand that each county shall be represented by one man coming from that county. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I should regret exceedingly to be the means of engrafting upon this Constitution a provision which should insure its defeat, as the gentleman from Sibley (Mr. BROWN) has inti mated. I did what I did in perfect good faith. It is my coolest judg ment that our frontier coun,ties should be represented in the Legis lature as early as possible. I may not have presented the right number to entitle a county to send a Representative, for I confess I had not matured that subject well in my own mind. Now, sir, if I understand the basis of apportionment which the Committee have reported, it is one representative for 2000 inhabit ants, and one Senator for 5000 inhabitants. Then, a district corln taining 10,000 population would be entitled to five Representatives and two Senators, making seven members of the Legislature in all, making an average representation in both Houses of one member for 1428 4-7 inhabitants. Now, sir, the difference between the ratio of one member to 271 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE every 1000 inhabitants, and the ratio of representation for both Houses provided for in the report, is very small. I should be will ing that the counties having less than 2000 inhabitants which are represented in the House should not be represented in the Senate, if that would be a check which would satisfy the gentleman. But, sir, I do hold that it is a matter of great importance that our fron tier counties should be represented as early as possible in the Leg islature. I hold that it is our duty to encourage settlement in those counties by every legitimate means in our power. If this amend ment is voted down, therefore, I shall offer another, fixing a differ ent number of inhabitants to entitle a county to send one repre sentative. Gentlemen know to what inconveniences the inhabitants of the sparsely settled counties have to submit. I can remember when men had to travel fifty or sixty miles to take the oath of office, because there was no officer qualified to administer oaths nearer. But, sir, our Territory is progressing rapidly-so rapidly that we can hardly keep pace with it. The more I learn of the wants and necessities of our people, the more I am satisfied that it is a matter of very great impoltance that every county should have a Representative in the halls of legislation at the earliest pos sible period. Mr. CURTIS. Before the vote is taken, I desire to give a reason for the vote I shall give, which will be against the amendment offered by my colleague. It is not that I am indifferent to the wants of the frontier counties; it is not that I do not desire that the shield of law should be extended over them; but it is because there is a higher and more sacred principle at the bottom of representation than mere county lines. Sir, if the principle which my colleague seeks to initiate, were to prevail, the large county of Itasca in the north ought to be represented by at least twenty-fire members in the Legislature, for it covers a very large extent of country, which, in consequence of its sparseness of population, is left almost defenceless, and without the conveniences of government which we, who live in the more thickly settled portions of the Territory, enjoy. Sir, any such basis for representation is wrong. The only true principle on the sub. ject-the only true criterion which you can adopt, is that of population. It is not true that the wants of a people grow less as the population increases. They increase. There is a greater necessity for a good representation in a thickly settled country than in a thinly settled one. My colleague spoke of the difficulty which was once experienced in taking the oath of office. I apprehend that difficulty has al 272 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ready been removed. There are officers appointed to administer oaths in every county. But, I repeat, that any other principle than that upon which this report is founded, as a basis of representation is radically wrong. It is not, as I said, true that the wants of a people diminish as the population increases. There is not a county in the Territory which requires more attention in proportion to its representation in the Legislature, than the county of Ramsey, notwithstanding the fact that it is densely populated. The necessities of a county containing 2000 population are, in my opinion, as great in proportion to the number of inhabitants as those of a county containing 1000. For these reasons, I shall record my vote against the amendment of my colleague. Mr. TUTTLE. It appears to me, from the course this question is taking, if this amendment is adopted it will open a very wide door for smuggling in new counties. I would inquire of the gentleman who offered the amendment, what will prevent new counties from being organized wherever they can be carved out to contain a thousand inhabitants? Mr. HOLCOMBE. The Legislature will take care of that Mr. TUTTLE. Will it not require a new census to be taken every year? Mir. IIOLCOMBE. It may be so. Mr. TUTTLE. For one, I am in favor of making no discrimination. I can see that there will be a fair, just and equitable representation, if it is based upon the population only; but such will not follow if all are to adopt county lines. Mr. SETZER demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered The question was taken, and it was decided in the negative, yeas 16, nays 28, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Baker, Baasen, Cantell, Faber, Gilman, Holcombe, Jerome, Kingsbury, McFetridge, McMahan, Rolette, Stacy, Streeter, Tenvoorde, Vasseur, Wilson 16. NAYS —Messrs. M. E. Ames, A. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Burns, Bailly, Burwell, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Day, Gilbert, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, McGrorty, Norris, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Swan, Taylor Tuttle, Warner and Mr. President-28. So the amendment was not concurred in. The second, third, fourth fifth and sixth amendments of the Committee of the Whole were then read and concurred in. The PRESIDENT then stated the question to be upon the amendment first adopted in Committee of the Whole to Section 1. Mr. M. E. AMES raised the question of order that the amendment having been subsequently superceded in Committee of the Whole, was not properly before the Convention. 273 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The PRESIDENT decided that the Convention having ordered the Journal of the Committee of the Whole to be kept, it must act upon the amendments adopted in their order. The Convention could not offic6ially know that the amendment had subsequently been superceded in Committee until it reached that point in the Journal. Mr. SETZER appealed firom the decision of the Chair. After debate, the question was taken on the appeal, and the decision of the Chair sustained. The amendment was non-concurred in. The question was then stated upon the substitute reported for Section 1. Mr. BROWN. I most sincerely hope that substitute will not be adopted. Its effect will be simply to allow each Legislature at the commencement of its session to prescribe what shall be its own pay. Then it may go to work and sit as long or as short as it pleases. Mr. M. E. AMES. I hope the amendment or substitute will not prevail. My objections are based principally upon this one point: that it leaves the Legislature at liberty at each successive session to fix its own salary, and not only to fix its own compensation, but to fix it in gross. I believe it is wrong in principle, and not sustained by a single precedent. I do not believe there is a single State in this confederacy in which the Legislature is allowed by the Organic Law of the State, to fix its own compensation by annual salary. It opens the door for abuses. Perhaps it is not fair to presume that any Legislature that will be elected in Minnesota would fix an exorbitant amount for their services, but it would be placing a temptation before them to do so. Now, sir, I do not think that any body of men sitting as a Legislative Assembly should receive a large compensation for their services as such. I believe that most of the men who will be elected, will be ready to serve in the capacity of Legislators, from pride, from a desire to serve the State, from motives of patriotism, if you choose to call it such; and hence, they will be satisfied that their compensation should be regulated beforehand, and fixed at a verv moderate sum. It is true that the Congress of the United States has adopted the principle which it is proposed to engraft upon our Constitution; but, sir, the position of that body is different, and forms no precedent for us. I do not believe that any Legislature, with proper feelings of delicacy, would desire to fix their own pay. And as I said, I do not think there is a single precedent to be found in any State in the United States of America, for such a provision. 274 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. GILMAN I think PennIsylvania has such a rule at this time. Mr. M. E. AMES. If there is such an instance, it is a solitary exception to the general rule of thirty-one or thirty-two States. I think it is a subject which should be regulated by the Constitution. I think we should say in direct terms that the compensation of members of the Legislature should not exceed a certain amount. I believe any man qualified to be a member of the Legislature, would prefer that his compensation should be fixed by the Constitution. But, sir, I believe the whole system is radically wrong, and for that reason I hope the amendment will not be concurred in. Mr. BECKER. I am decidedly in favor of the substitute, and I hope it will be adopted. Mr. BAKER. I am heartily in favor of the substitute offered in Committee of tihe Whole by the gentleman from Benton County, (Mr. GILMAN.) I think its adoption will have a wholesome effect upon the Legislatures of the State. It is a thing which will regulate itself. From the experience we have had, if ever a Legislature fixes an exorbitant compensation for its own members, it will be a Republican Legislature, and when the fact comes before the people, they will regulate it by sending back a Democratic Legislature. I do not care how small a compensation is fixed, but it is a subject that the people will regulate themselves, and I want no limitation in the Constitution. Mr. GILMAN called for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and it was decided in the negative; yeas 20, nays 22, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Baker, Burns, Cantell, Faber, Gilman, Jerome, Keegan, Lashelle, Murray, McFetridge, Norris, Rolette, Streeter, Taylor, Tuttle, Vasseur and Wilson-20. Ns-Y-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Baasen, Curtis, Chase, Gilbert, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Leonard, MeGrorty, McMahon., Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Stacy, Swan, Tenvoorde, Warner and Mr. President?22. So the substitute was not adopted. The Article as amended was then adopted. REPORT OF COMMITTEE. Mr. A. E. AMES, from the Committee on School Funds, Education and Science, made a report, which was laid on the table. COMMITTEE ON ENROLLMENT. Mr. A. E AMES, on leave, introduced the following resolution: 1.8 275 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE REoLvED, That a Committee of three be appointed on Enrollment, and that the Secretary of this Convention, is hereby authorized to employ an Engrossing and Enrolling Clerk, and to agree with such Clerk as to the compensation, and report the same to the Convention. Which resolution was adopted. On motion of Mr. BAKER, the Convention then at five o'clock, adjourned. TWENTY-FIRST DAY. THURSDAY, August 6, 1857. The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the reading of the Journal vas dispensed with. On motion of Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DAvIS was excused from attendance on account of sickness in his family. On motion of Mr. SETZER, a call of the Convention was ordered. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. The Journal of yesterday was then read and approved. The Chair announced the following as a Committee on Enrollment: Messrs. A. E. AMEs, SWAN and BUTLER. Mr. BECKER offered the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to: RESOLVED, That one hundred copies of each of the reports of Standing Committees be printed in Bill form, for the use of this Convention. BILL OF RIGHTS. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the Preamble and Bill of IRights, Mr. HOLCOMBE in the Chair, the question pending being the substitute fixing the Boundaries of the State for the Preamble, offered on a former day. Mr. BROWN proposed to withdraw the substitute. Mr. SETZER. I object, and I will briefly state the reasons for my objections. It has been stated on the floor of this Convention, that the Preamble to the Constitution had no binding effect. Now, sir, in my opinion, the Preamble of a Constitution or law sets forth certain propositions which, as axioms, are admitted to be true and 276 CONSTITIONAL COL NTION. unalterable. The Preamble, therefore, is as much binding in its ,effect as any other portion of the Constitution. It is a matter of no great importance to me, whether the Boun-daries are set forth in the Preamble or in the body of the Constitu-tion. If it is more parliamentary to insert it in the body of the instrument, why let it go there. I, myself, think, the Preamble by far the most preferable place. I am also in favor of acknowledging, in the Preamble, allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. This may seem a very simple and unnecessary proposition, but when you take into consideration that a very large number of the Free States have been acting in open violation of that instrument-when you take into consideration the number of rampant nullifiers and disunionists which are abroad, such a declaration will certainly be not improper or unnecessary. Mr. SIBLEY. I am opposed to this Preamble; not that I am opposed to any provisions which it contains, if inserted in the proper place, but I do not think the Preamble is the proper place to insert any such important Constitutional provision. Now, sir, the gentleman who has just spoken, acknowledges that there is no necessity of providing for the Boundaries of the State here, if provision is made for them in the body of the Constitution. Then I hope he will not object to the withdrawal of the substitute, especially as the subject has been referred to another of the Standing Committees of the Convention. I think it is due, as a matter of courtesy to that Committee, that we should consider their report. Mr. BROWN, (no objection being made,) withdrew his substi tute. The Prean)-ie, as Lreported by the Committee, was then read as follows: PREAMBLE. We, the people of Minnesota, in order to form a State Government, and to secure and perpetuate the blessings of Liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution. Mr. BROWN. I move to amend the Preamble by inserting after the word, "Minnesota," the words, "having the rights of ad mission into the Federal Union, in accordance with the Constitu tion of the United States." Mr. WARNER. I am entirely opposed to that amendment. I do not think it would look well ten or fifteen years hence. I think it is entirely superfluous, and that it will look much better to remain as reported. If we are to be admitted into the Union at all, it 277 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBA'FS OF TfHE must be a foregone conclusion, without the necessity of expressing it, that we shall be admittcd in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. We could not be otherwise admitted. Mr. CURTIS. I am opposed to the amendment in the shape in which it now stands. I have no objection to the announcement that we come in under the Coie; -:ution of the Uiited States, but the expression, "having the right of admission," I do not think is neces sary. I do not concur with my colleague, (Mr. SETZER,) that the office of a Preamble is to announce axioms. I think it is what it purports to be-something which goes before-as applied to this Constitution, it is something which precedes the action of this Convention, the object of which is to announce the subject of of our action. I move to amend the amendment so as to make it read, "for the purpose of admission into the Federal Union, under "the Constitution of the United States." Mr. BROWN. Why not say, "having the right of admission." Mr. CURTIS. I have no objection to the assertion except that I think it is useless. I do not deny that we have the right to come into the Union, but I do deny that this is the proper place to assert that right. We might just as well go on and enumerate in the Preamble, all the rights which are asserted in the Bill of Rights. All we want of the Preamble is merely to make it a caption for: the Constitution. Mr. MEEKER. I think with the gentleman who has just spoken, that the object of a Preamble is simply to announce the subject of what is to follow. Whether you go beyond that and announce a part of what might be placed in the body of the instrument, is a matter of taste. Hence in the Preambles to the Constitutions of' several of the States, you find the Boundaries of those States defined. But so far as the amendment now under consideration, offiered by the gentleman from Sibley, is conc erned, the only object I can see that can be attained by it, is the assertion of our right to be in the Union under the Enabling Act. I am in favor of holding Congress to its contract, and, if need be, to assert that contract here in the Preamble. If that is the object of the amendment, then I am in favor of it. Mr. BROWN. In moving this amendment I had two objects irn view, one was the recognition, here in the Preamble of our Constitution, of the'Constitution of the United States; and the other was not to infringe upon the powers and duties of any of the standing Committees of the Convention. The committee on the Name and Boundaries of the State, have recognized the Enabling Act in their report, but I am not aware that any of the Committees have recog-. 278 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. nized the Constitution of the United States. The amendment I have offered, merely asserts that we have the right of admission into the Union under the Constitution of the United States, of course recognizing our allegiance to that instrument, whenever we are admitted into the Union as a State. I claim that we have the right of admission into the Union because the Constitution of the United States reognizes the right to admit new States into the Union, and our Organic Act gives to us all the rights and privileges guaranteed to the original Territories formed out of the Territory ceded by Virginia prior to the Ordinance of 1787, in which it is provided that when a certain district of country shall contain a certain population, it shall be entitled to come into the Union as a free and independent State. Now, sitr, I claim that there is nothing in that amendment which in any way conflicts with the rights of any other Committee, and that it does contain a proposition which it is proper to state in this Constitution. I am strongly in favor of thus publicly acknowledging our fealty to the Constitution of the United States. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I agree with the phraseology of this Preamble, and I think we should put as little into the Preamble as possible. There is no use in reciting in a Preamble all the abstract rights which we claim. I think, however, it is important that we should recite enough to inform the Congress of the United States that we have cominplied with the Enabling Act. It is, in my opinion, necessary to assert that we who form this Constitution, are' the people within the boundaries prescribed within the Enabling Act, and that is all that it is necessary to insert. I move therefore, to amend the amendment by inserting after the word "MAinnesota," in the first line, the following: "within the boundaries prescribed by the act of Congress, entitled'an Act to authorize the people of the Terri tory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Goveinment preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing "with the original States.'" Mr. BROWN. I would state to the gentleman that the report of the Committee on Boundaries, recognizes the Enabling Act and quotes the boundaries at length. Mr. SETZER. I hope the amendment will prevail. If gentlemen will cast their eyes over the Bill of Rights which follows, they will find the identical clause under which the Free Soil Judges in Wisconsin decided the Fugitive Slave Law to be unconstitutional. Now, if we acknowledge the Constitution of the United States and intend to be governed by it, in view of these facts, it is im 279 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATRS OF THE portant that we should assert it in this instrument, and there is no, place more proper than in the Preamble. It was under a clause which follows in the Bill of Rights, that it was decided in Wiscon sin that fugitive slaves must have a trial by jury, thus, as far as they were concerned, annulling both the Fugitive Slave Law and the Constitution of the United States. It is to guard against suclh proceedings in Minnesota that I wish to announce in advance, in the Preamble which precedes the Constitution, that we intend to act under the Constitution of the United States. Mr. CURTIS. I am opposed both to the amendment to the amendment and to the amendment itself. I am not afraid to come out here and show my hand. I do not think this is the place for sach a statement, nor that such a statement is necessary or proper any where. Sir, what will be the effect of recognizing the Constitution of the United States in this Preamble or in the Constitution at all? That instrument will protect itself. It does not need any recognition or endorsement by this Convention. We are bound by the Constitution of the United States and we cannot escape from it if we wished. Again, Congress passed an Act enabling this Territory to comet into the Union as a State upon our complying with certain condi tions. Now, it is gravely proposed in a preface to the Constitu tion which we are to frame, to solemnly endorse the Constitution of the United States, and then to accept the Enabling Act. Why, sir, if any such endorsement were necessary on our part, it should be placed in the body of the instrument and not in the preface. It our endorsement is necessary, we should place it in an Article by itself. It should stand Section one of Article one. But, sir, rno such endorsement can have the slightest effect one way or the other, wherever it is placed, and it strikes me, isin bad taste to) insert it. Mr. GILMAN. I oppose the amendment to the amendment upon the ground that it accepts the Enabling Act, every portion of it, or it means nothing, and would render any report of any Committee on that subject unnecessary and useless. Mr. EMMETT. That is not the object of the amendment, nor do I think it goes to that extent. The object of the amendment is simply this: Congress has authorized the people within certain boundaries to form a Constitution. Now, what I wish to do, is that it shall appear upon the face of the instrument that we are the people authorized by Congress to frame a Constitution., otherwise, they may if they choose, consider and treat it as a bogus Constitution. How do they know that we are the people within the bonn 280 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. daries mentioned in the Enabling Act. The Preamble as it stands, gives no such information. It says, "we, the people of Minnesota." Who are the people of Minnesota? Congress has not authorized the people of the. whole Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution. I think it is necessary that we should state this much in the Preamble. We may then go on afterwards, if we choose, and suggest different boundaries for the consideration of Congress. The amendment does not go to the extent which the gentleman sup. poses. I do not pretend to accept the boundaries here in the Preamble, but merely to indicate to Congress what people we are who have taken upon ourselves to form this Constitution. Now the report of the Committee on Boundaries does not say who are the men assembled here, and how is Congress to know? I think it is important that we should assert this much in the Preamble. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. GORMAN. Section three of the Bill of Rights reads, 3d. Neither Slavery, nor involuntary servitude, unless for the punislhment of crimes, shall ever exist or be tolerated in this State. Now, sir, I would prefer that this section should be made to conform in phraseology precisely with the clause in the Ordinance of 1787. That clause is the point upon which the whole question of Slavery has clung. It is in the Constitution. It was adopted into the Wilmot Proviso, and has been used so extensively the public mind is prepared for just thatphraseology. It is true, the language used excludes Slavery as effectually as any language could do it, but I would prefer that the language of the Ordinance of 1787 should be used, and I move, therefore, to strike out the paragraph and insert the following: There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The amendment was adopted. Mr. FLANDRAU moved to amend the following section: 7th. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial Jury of the County or District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which County or District shall have been previously ascertained by law; the right to be heard and defended in person or with a counsel;'to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him, and to have compulsory process awarded. By adding thereto the words "for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The amendment was adopted. Mr. EMMETT. I move to amend by striking out of the section all after the word "favor." 281 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE I think as the section now reads it would be construed to give the prisoner, under any circumstances, the right to have counsel at the expense of the State. The practice has been, and I do not think we can change it for the better, to allow the prisoner to be heard by himself or counsel, and when the prisoner is unable to procure counsel, to have one assigned him at the expense of the State. As it now stands, I think it would, in every instance, require the State to incur all the expenses both of the prosecution and defense. Mr. NORRIS. 1 raise the question of order, that it is proposed to strike out the amendment which has already been inserted. The amendmeneit is therefore not in order. The CHIAIRMAN. The amendment proposes to strike out the amendment which has been added to the section, with a part of the section itself, and is therefore in order. The motion to strike out was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I ask whether the ninth section, which says "No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peace"ably to assemble to consult for the common good, to instruct "their representatives, and to petition the Government or any de"partment thereof," requires the Representative to obey the instructions of his constituents. The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, it forbids the passage of any law interfering with the right. Mr. SETZER. I move to strike out all after the word "press" in the following section 10th. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; aud if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact. Mr. MURRAY. The object of the Committee in reporting the clause which the gentleman proposes to strike out was, to repudiatethe common-law maximn: "the greater the truth the greater "the libel." Mr. SETZER. The prior clause of the section makes every person responsible for the abuse of the right to speak and write freely. That is all which is necessary to insert into the Constitution. What follows is mere legislation. Mr. FLANDRAU. The words proposed to be stricken out have become a settled provision of Constitutional law in all the States CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. whichl have recently formed Constitutions. The necessity for it lies in the fact that under the old common-law practice evidence of the truth of the matter charged as libelous could not be given tb7 the party accused. Now, it became evident that in a great anary instances where publications were made by editors and others of matter which in law might be considered libelous, the facts stated were such as the public ouglht to know, and were published only for the public good. It has therefore been provided, that where a person is prosecuted criminlally for tihe publication of libelous matter, he may bring evidence to prove the truth of the matter published, and if hlie can prove that it was true and published for justifiable ends and for good motives hlie shall be acquitted. It is subservient of a great public good: for it often happens that public ends are served by the publication of sulch matter. Mr. SETZtR. The object of the common-law maxim to which the gentleminan.hlias referred was, to prevent persons from entering the sanctity of home and of private life and holding facts up to public gaze. The object is a commendable one, and ough-lt to be sustained; but, sir, under this provision any evil-disposed person mnay hold lip to the public gaze facts connected with the sanctity of home which may do great injury to the person to whom they may, refer, and when hlie is called to account for it, if he chooses to say that the fact,s:weie true and were published with good motives and for justifiable fends, he miust be acquitted. MAr. BECKER,.It strikes me that the decisions of the Courts of Eigland' are much older than this clause. They have construed the commion-law,precisely as this Section construes it. I see no thing wrong in tie provision. M.fr. EMMETT. I hope the amendment will prevail, for the rea son that the clause which is proposed to be stricken out is legis lating in the Constitution. It is a provision which it would be veiCv well for the Legislature to enact as a law; but if we are to coiniience this kind of legislation, we might as well go on and per fct t code of laws in the Constitution. I hope the clause will be stricken out. AMr. BA.KEIRh. It (Toes n( triore than say whlat tlhei Courts slaTll decide. Mr. ELIN-ELTT. It goes flirthc r it even says what the juries shall decide. Mr. SIBLEY. I hope the atiendment will not prevail. I see nothing in the way of legislation in this clause at all. It is merely the enunciation of a great principle whiclh, in my opinion, ought to be provided for in the Constitution. It is an assertion of the prin 283 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF T-HE ciple that when a man publishes for justifiable ends a truth which the public good requires, he shall not be considered as having corm mitted a crime. It is a principle which is asserted in all the mod ern Constitutions, and it seems to me we shlould be taking five oi six steps backwards if we were to omit it. Mr. CURTIS. I do not think the opinion the gentleman has expressed is a correct one, that if ti,e clause is one that can as, well be provided by the Legislature, then it is not a proper one to bo inserted into the Constitution. If the principle be correct that persons shall be justified in the publication of matter which might be considered libelous, when they published the truth with good motives and for justifiable ends, I say it is a proper )principle t,c be inserted in the Constitution, whether the gentleman calls it legislation or not. I apprehend that in such an instance as' the gentleman from Washington mentions, the accused party would have some difficulty in co,nvincing a jury that tlhe publication was for justifiable ends. tf it were, thein T say heo shioiuld b:) acquitted. The motion to strike out, was not agreed to. MIr. FLANDRAU. I move to strike out the word criinal, in the first clause of the Section, which reads " In,)11 crimina'L prosecutions," &c. Now sir, under this Section as it stands, a man may be prosecuted for libel, and may give the truth in evidence, and if his motives were good he may be acquitted, but he is to have no such rights when the action is a eivil one, for damages. The idea is monstrous. M. EEEl t arpprehend the g.entlenan is.etting tMhiIg'i somewhat mixed up. This provision in Section 10, has no1 refei'ncc whatever to a civil prosecution, and was never so intended. It does not in any way whatever, affect the rights of parties suing' for slander. It has never been construed to have any such beariing. The necessity for the provision arises omt of circumstances, like these: Under the old Common Law of England, which is adopted for practice in the Courts of most of tile old States, a person indicted for libel by a grand jury, was subject to fine and inmprisonment, and what was called tile Common Law Right of the Crown, had been so much abused by refusing to the accused the right of bringing in the truth in evidence, that it has been found necessary to adopt a provision allowing the accused to give the truth in evidence and to establish the facts that his motives were good, and the publication made for justifiable ends. Under the old Common Law practice, if conviction followed the indictment, the party was liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment. It 284 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVETION. could therefore have no possible reference to suits for slander under the civil law, Mr. EMMETT. Mr. CHAIRMAN, the very fact of this discussion by the gentleman from Nicollet, (Mir. FLANDRAU,) and others, ought to admonish us that this part of the Section ought to be stricken out. The very fact of the difference which has arisen in this Convention as to what will be the effect of this legislation, ought to teach us that such legislation has no place in this Constitution. Leave the whole matter to the Legislature, and no need of further discussion is necessary. But insert the provision here, and then the question arises as to whether it includes civil jurisdiction as well as criminal. A typographical error has been corrected, which materially changes the sense of the Section, since the question was taken on striking out, and I presume the motion is again in order. I move to strike out this clause of the Section. Mr. MIEEKEPR. It is not in order. Mr. EMMETT. Is that decisive? [Laughter.] Mr. MURRPPAY. The Section has not changed by any action of the Convention, since the vote was taken upon striking out. The correction of a typographical error would not make the same motion again in order. Mr. EMMETT. Then I rmove to strike out all after the word, press." Mr. FLANDRAU. There seems to be somne misapprehension as to the character of this provision which it is proposed to strike out. I have announced on more than one occasion that I am opposed to putting anything like legislation into the Constitution. The gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. EMMETT,) insists that this clause had bet ter be left to the Legislature. Now, sir, it may be true that if this clause were stricken out, the Legislature would have the power to enunciate the principle; but sir, it is not legislation; it is a great principle, involving important rights of the citizen, and its proper place is in the Constitution. We ought to declare here in the fun damental law of the State, that in all prosecutions for libel, wheth er criminal or civil, where the libel has been promulgated with good motives and for justifiable ends, the truth should be allowed to be given in evidence. That is the principle, and no Legislature should be allowed to change it. Mr. SETZERP. Will the gentleman state what are justifiable ends? It seems to me the expression is entirely too ambiguous? Mr. FLATNDRAU. I will state an instance. Suppose it should be discovered that a man had committed forgery, and the man was about to leave the country, but the plot has not been fully discov 285 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBAT'1E, O)F THIE cred or made public. By ptublishing tthe fact in the niewspapers, the person is detected and brought to punislihment. Now, sir, to charge upon a man forgery, murder or anrty other criminal o'fijse is undoubtedly a libel uipo,:i his character. It may have been published through malice. If it has, the party injured would have it in his power to collect damages for defamation of his cha.racter. But suppose the party publishling the libel proves thlat the forgery has actually been committed and ithat his rmotives in publishing it were to detect and bring to justice the offCander, should he e' be allowed to bring thie truth in evidence? But, suppose the L(egislature should pass a law carrying out tile old common law maximi, "the greater the truth] the greater the libel," although the person publishing the libel may have it in his power to prove that the facts published were true, and that they were only published for the purpose of bringing the offender to justice, the plea would avail himrn nothing; all ite person charged with the crime would have to do, would be to prove that the publication had been made, and hlie would be convicted forthwith. Such a law would become simply an instrument of oppression. The principle ought to be clearly and unequivocally asserted in the Constitution, which shall prevent the Legislature from passing any such law, or the Courts flom establishing any such rule. That is why I want this clause to be embraced in our fundamental law, and I want further, that the principle shall not be confined to criminal prosecutions. The very discrimination in favor of criminal prosecutions may, by implication, prevent the Legislature from passing any law to include civil prosecutions. Now, sir, If I publish the fact that a person has been guilty of a crime, that publication is a libel upon his character. If I publish it in a newspaper or write it and post it in a handbill, it is a libel. If I speak it only, it is slander. The publication is a libel which is indictable. You can make a complaint to the Grand Jury, they can indict me for the crime, and I can be punished as a criminal. But tihe matter does not stop here. I may be indicted and punished criminally, and then the party may bring a civil action against me and claim damages for defamation of character. But, sir, uIIder this clause, if I establish the truth of the charge and the fact that my motives were good, I may be acquitted on the criminal prosecution, but I may be prosecuted by civil action, and if I am not allowed to bring the truth in evidence again, what is to prevent me from being mulcted in damages? There is nothing to prevent it. The very assertion that the truth may be brought in evidence in a crinminal prosecution, implies that the same rule shall not pre 8 (), CONSTITUTIONAL CON VENTION. vail in a civil prosecution. I insist that both should be placed upon the same footing. I hope, therefore, the section will be allowed to stand as it is, with the exception of striking out the word " criminal." Mr. WARNER. I would enquire of the gentleman from Nicollet, whether hlie would have the Jury determine the law as well as the fact in civil actions? Mr. FLANDRAU. In cases of libel I most certainly would. The motion to strike out was not agreed to. The question then recurred upon Mr. FTIANDTnAU's amendment to strike out the word "criminal." Mr. BECKER. I am opposed to the amendment. I do not iish to take up the time of the Convention, but it seems to men the gentleman is all wrong in his idea in reference to the proposed amendments. Suppose the party is indicted criminally for libel, he must plead guilty or not guilty. That is the only plea he can make. But in a civil prosecution the party prosecuted may put in any plea he chooses. I-e has the right to set up in defense, that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. There is nothing to prevent him as the matter now stands. It is only with reference to criminal prosecutions that any such provision is necessary to be incorporated into the Constitution. Mr. CURTIS. If it is law already, then it will do no harm to insert it in the Constitution. It is a great principle which should be always maintained, and it seems to me it would be well to insert it here in our fundamental~law, to stand for ourselves and our posterity. Mr. FLANDRAU. The gentleman from Ramsey (Mr. BECKER,); is mistaken in this. The clause does not treat of pleas at all. It does not say what the party may plead or what he may not plead. It treats of what he may prove. If he is prosecuted criminally, he may plead guilty or not guilty. If not guilty, then under this clause in the Constitution he will have the right to prove under his plea that the libelous matter was true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends; and if he succeeds, he may be acquitted. Mr. BECKER. That is all very true, but in civil prosecutions, he already has that right, because he may set up that plea in his defence, without any special constitutional provision giving it to him. Mr. CURTIS. He could not set up that plea, if the inference is. drawn from this Constitution that in civil prosecutions for libel, the 2ST' PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE truth may not be given in evidence. The Constitution would be construed as preventing him from setting up the plea. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend Section ten, by striking out all after the word "press" and inserting the following: But the Section shall not be construed to authorize the publisher or publishers of any newspaper or periodical to print or publish the testimony of any witness or witnesses given during the progress of any criminal trial or examination, until after the defendant therein shall have been convicted or acquitted. Mr. BECKER. tave not the Courts already that power in criim inal prosecutions? Mr. EMMETT. Not necessarily. The power is claimed by the Courts, but it has been disputed by the publishers of newspapers. And especially in New-York, and other large cities, the practice has grown up of publishing the evidence in criminal trials the next morning after it has been given, with such comments upon it as the editor may see fit to make, which goes into the hands of the jurors and of the public while still pending. The consequence is, that in all important cases the public have made up their minds long before the verdict of the jury has been given. I think such publication should be prohibited. Mr. BECKER. Have the Courts not frequently expelled reporters, and even punished them for publishing evidence in such cases? Mr. EMMETT. It has been sometimes done, but the evil still exists, and the remedy ought to be provided. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. MURRAY moved that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was disagreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU. The section now reads: "In all criminal "prosecutions or indictments for libel "-. Now if the prosecution is criminal, it must be by indictment. One word or the other is meaningless. I move to strike out the words "or indictments." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SWAN moved to amend the following section, by inserting after the word "State" the words: "or who shall have declared "their intentions to become citizens of the United States": 12th. Foreigners who are or who may hereafter become bonea fide residents of this State shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property, as native-born citizens. Mr. BAKER. If it is in order, I desire to inquire what atre privileges which it is proposed in this Section to bestow? 288 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will refer the gentleman to the Bar. Mr. BAKER,. Yes, sir; I shall resort there very soon. [Great Laughter.] Mr. GORMAN. I think the amendment should be adopted. There is a large body of men in the religious world who refuse to take the oath of allegiance. Now, I want foreigners to declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, because I want them to become citizens. I want foreigners who come under our guardianship and enjoy the benefit of our laws, to become citizens, and to interest themselves in our institutions. Mr. BAKER. I do not wish to detain the Convention, but I see no reason for making any distinction between the different classes of white men. As I said yesterday, I yield to whatever decision this Convention may come to. They must declare who are to be the voters; but I want no distinction made between foreigners and natives. And, so far as this Section is concerned, if the Prince of Wales chooses to come here and buy a town-lot, I want to know what is to prevent him? Mr. MURRAY. I hope the amendment will not prevail. It looks upon its face very illiberal to the foreigner, to require him to take the oath of allegiance before you allow him to hold property. This matter underwent considerable scrutiny in committee, and they have reported the same provisions which are contained in the Constitutions of Iowa, Wisconsin and several of the other States. I know it does not look well for a foreigner who may choose to come amongst us, to acquire property to the amount of one hun dred thousand dollars, who will not take interest enough in our institutions to become a citizen of the United States; but it would look like injustice to deprive any person who is a bona fide resident, of the power to acquire property, and I think the section is better as it is. Mr. GORMAN. The amendment requires no more than the laws of the United States require from those who purchase lands of the Government. No person is allowed to purchase land from the Government who has not declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States; and it is proposed only to apply the same rule under our Constitution. Mr. EMMETT. That requirement is made by the United States Laws for pre-emptors, but not otherwise. Any person can pur chase land subject to private entry, of the Government. Mr. GORMAN. Foreigners are not allowed to pre-empt land of the Government until they have taken the oath of allegiance. It 289 PROCEEDINGS ANI) )DEBATES OF rIHE is the policy of the Government, and it is a policy which our for eign born citizens with one voice demand, that persons emigrating here from foreign countries shall be required to take the oath of allegiance before they are permitted to enjoy the same rights and privileges with native-born citizens. They require it in resp)ect to voting, holding office, and everything. Mr. McGROPRTY. If it is in order, I wish to offer a substitute for the whole section. I am opposed in toto to allowing foreigners who have not taken the oath of allegiance, thle same rights respect ing the possession and inheritance of property which citizens en joy, and so I believe are all my countrymen in Minnesota. Mr. GORMAN. I am certainly right in my position, and amy colleague (Mr. MURRAY) is wrong. The position he has taken is in defiance of the unanimous wishes of the foreignr-born popula tion of the Territory, and of the wishes of the masses of the peo ple. 1I do not want foreigners to come here and acquire property and enjoy the protection of our laws until they declare their inteintion to become of us. Our foreign-born citizens will never submit to it-the masses of the country will never submit to it. I-t is not consistent with equal rights. The amendixenit is right land should be adopted. Mfr. EMMETT. I think this amenidment is just right as it com( from the hands of the Committee. It seems to me that my colleague (Mr. GORMAN,) has shown a rather strange protection to foreigners in his remarks upon this subject. I will will ask him what is to become of our foreign holders of railroad stocks, if this amendment is adopted? We invite themi here to take stocks in our railroads, and to furnish us money to build them and carry them on, yet the gentleman proposes by a Constitutional provision, to prohibit them from enjoyment of any benefit from them, or at least of the right to transmit such property to their heirs. Suppose a gentleman comes over here with his family and dies. His widow pre-empts a piece of land and then dies, who does the land go to, if this amendment is to prevail? Her heirs, her father, mother, brother, sister, or children. come here to attend to the property and after enduring all the hardships and expense of the voyage, find that under your Constitutional Law, the property cannot be transmitted by inheritance. Gentlemen have referred to a provision in the Pre-emption Law, requiring all foreigners who shall avail themselves of its benefits, first to declare their intention to become citizens. Sir, the provision is a proper one, because the government is legislating for its citizens. But not so when the Public Lands have been exposed 290 COXSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION[. for public sale. Persons from Canada, and from the European States, are invited to come here and invest their money in governmenet lands, and the faith of the government is pledged that when they shall thus become possessed of property within our domain, they shall enjoy it, and be protected in their rights equally with our own native born citizens. Now sir, one of the conditions to which we pledge ourselves when we come into the Union, is not to interfere with the primary disposal of the soil, and I very much doubt whether we have the power to say, that foreigners who have thus aquired property from the General Government shall not enjoy and transmit it, under the same restrictions and in the same manner as citizens. Mr. SETZER. I ask thie gentleman whether there is not a United States Law, which prevents foreigiers from inheriting real estate property? Mr. EIMMETT. No sir, I know of no such law. I believe there is no such law, and for us to make one which shall apply to those purchasing, lands of the General Government, would be an interference with the primary disposal of the soil. Mr. BROWN. The Section as it stands, certainly do)es not suit me. It is bad enough that we should have citizens of our own country, allowed to come here and purchase and hold large tracts of land, to the injury of the actual settler. But it would be much worse for the residents of a foreign country, to be allowed to come here and purchl)ase large tracts of land, to be held by tloem for their increase in value, caused by the labor of our own people. Large tracts of land in Wisconsin, and Iowa are now held in this way. In Wisconsin, SIR C(ARI,ES MURRAY, one of the houshold of Queen Victoria, owans and holds several thousand acres of very valuable land in Wisconsin, which is increasing in value 1)y the labor of those who reside in the neighborhood. Is such a state of things right? Is it right to allow citizens of a foreign country to enjoy the same rights and privileges, in respect to the possession and inheritance of property as our own citizens? Mr. G()ORAMAN. Do they not pay the same tes on their property? Mr. BRIOWN. Taxes do not pay for the labor spent by the residents in increasing the value of the property. It is the state of things which requires our actual settlers to labor for improvements, the value of which is shared by the nonresident property holder in the increased value of his property, of which I complain. Mr. MUPRRAY. Does the gentleman pretend to say that utinder this Section as reported, a non-resident foreigner can send here 19 291 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE and purchase and hold five hundred thousand acres of land? Sir, the Section only allows that privilege to foreigners who are boa fide residents. And I think the gentleman must be mistaken in the case stated by him in Wisconsin, for this provision is copied vgrba tin from the Constitution of Wisconsin. I doubt very much whether SIR CHARLES MURRAY or any other non-resident foreigner, can pur chase and hold five or ten thousand acres of land in Winconsin. Mr. McGRORTY. I will state in reply to the case stated bythe gentleman from Saint Paul, (Mr. EMAMETT,) that the law does not require women to take any oath of allegiance. I will further state, that when a man comes here with his family and becomes naturalized, his wife and his minor children are also considered as naturalized. The case of the widow obtaining land under the pre emption law, would therefore have no application. Mr. BAKER. In that case the widow's husband was supposed to be dead. [Laughter.] Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BRowN,) says, the non-resident property holder enjoys the increased valtie of his property, in consequence of the labor of the resident. Now, I understand that the property of the non-resident is assessed higher, and taxed higher just in proportion to the increase of the value of his property. He pays increased taxes as his property rises, just the same as the resident. But if that does not compensate for the labor of the residents, then why not tax his property higher in consequence of his being a non-resident? Mr. BROWN. You cannot do that under the law. Mr. GILMAN. You can tax him to the full value of his property. Mr. BROWN. I will state to the gentleman that there is a proposition submitted by Congress to this body, that we shall not tax the property of non-residents higher than that of resi(,ents. When you put a building upon an eighty acre lot, you increase not only the value of that lot, but of the lot alongside. Now, sir, if the person owning the property alongside is a non resident and refuses to make any improvement on his property, the mere fact that his property is taxed higher in consequence of the improvements made by his neighbors, is no compensation to them. Mr. A. E. AMES. As has already been stated, a foreigner can not come here and enjoy the benefits of the pre-emption law without first declaring his intention to become a citizen; but such is -not the fact relative to those who purchase lands of the Government which are subject to private entry. Now, si, when the resident of a foreign country comes here and purchases lard of the Government, the faithi of the Government is pledged to him that he 292 OONSTTUmONAL OONVENTION. shall hold the land and enjoy it, and have the right to dispose of it or transmit it to his heirs, to the fullest extent. If, therefore, this Convention were to make a law in contravention of that provision, I doubt whether it could ever be carried into effect. I am in favor of protecting the rights of the actual settler to the fullest possible extent, but we cannot protect them by laws or Constitutional provisions which interfere with the primary disposal of the soil upon the part of the general Government. Mr. FLANDRAU. It seems to me that this Section involves a good many important principles. Now, sir, I would suggest whether the phraseology of the Section is not objectionable in this respect. It speaks of the property of foreigners without distinction. I think it should be confined to real estate property. There is no objection, I apprehend, to the Prince of Wales, or any other foreigner, owning cattle or horses in this country. But there is an objection to afoothold being obtained within our State bypartieswho owe no allegiance to our government, and who have nothing in common with us. It is the same doctrine with that which has become a part of the settled policy of the country, known as the Monroe doctrine, that foreigners as such should have no foothold in the country. Mr. M. E. AMES. This has reference to private property only; and ,is hardly a parallel case with the Monroe doctrine. Mr. FLAiNDRAU. The principle is precisely the same. Mr. MEEKER. Will the gentleman allow me to correct him? He speaks of foreign proprietors. Now, sir, the Section speaks only of resident proprietors. Mr. FLANDRAUI. the principle I am speaking of is that of al lowing persoTi resi,rlg abroad in England, Ireland, or any other foreign country, whu havte surplus property with which they desire to make good investments, to come here and take up our lands and establish a foreign proprietorship amongst us. It seems to me that if this is allowed to go on, we subject ourselves to all the evils of a non-resident proprietorship from which so many countries have suffered. Now, I propose to prevent any such condition of things by providing that in order to enjoy the same rights and privileges in respect to the possession and inheritance of real estate with ourselves, foreign property-holders must reside amongst us and acknowledge allegiance to our institutions by declaring their inten tion to become citizens. Now, sir, there are persons abroad possessing large property, who may come here and purchase of private citizens or of the gov ernment at your land offices, immense tracts of land, and hold them 293 PROCCEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE making us pay tribute to them. I do not want to see a system of tenantry established in our State upon the lands of foreign residents. Every State has the right to make her own regulations respecting the title to and inheritance of property within her own limits. I have no doubt that this is one of the reserved rights under the Constitution of ie United States to the people of the States; and believing that we have the power clearly in our hands, I think we should exercise it for our own protection. Mr. MEEKER. I do not wish to detain the Committee for a moment, but, sir, it seenms to me this whole discussion has no relevancy to the question under consideration. The Section refers to foreigners who are bona fide residents and can by Io possibility have anything to do with foreigners residing abroad. I hope the question will be taken. Mr. BECKER. There is a great deal to be said upon this question. It is a question of much importance, and should not be disposed of hastily. In order to give gentlemen time to reflect upon it, therefore, I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was agreed to, and the Committee acecordingly rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the Convention then, at a quarter past one, adjourned until half past 2 o'clock P. M. AFTERNOON SE QSION. The Convention met at half-past 2 o'clock. ENROLLING CLERK AND SERGEANT-AT-AP,MS. Mr. KINGSBURY made the following announicement on behalf of the Secretary: "I am requested, in behalf of the Secretary, to inform the Convention that he has employed R. L. THoMPsoN as Enrolling Clerk, at a compensation of three dollars per day, in pursuance of a Resolution yesterday adopted by this Convention." Mr. MURRAY moved that JOBN BELL be elected Sergeant-atArms vice Mr. TESAROW. Mr. SETZER moved that the motion be laid on the table. Which motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, Mr. BELL was eljected Sergeant, at-Arms. 29,1 OONSTITrTIONAL OONVENfION. BOUNDARIES. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention resolved itself 'into Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee on the Name and Boundaries of the State, Mr. EMMErr in the Chair. The following is the report of the Committee: SE,CTION 1. This State shall be known by the name of the State of Minnesota, and shall consist of and have jurisdiction over the Territory embraced in the following boundaries,to wit: Beginning at the point in the centerof the mainchannel of the RedRiverof the North,where the boundary linebetween the United States and the British possessions crosses the same; thence up the main channel of said River to that of the Boles des Sioux River; thence up the main channel of said river to Lake Traverse; thence up the center of said Lake to the southern extremity thereof; thence in a direct line to the head of Big Stone Lake; thence through its center to its outlet; thence by adue south line to the north line of the State of Iowa; thence east along the northern boundary of said State to the mainr channel of the Mississippi River; thence up the main channel of said River, and following the boundary line of the State of Wisconsin,until the sameintersect the St. Louis River; thence down the said Riverto and throughLake Superior, on the boundary line of Wisconsin and Michigan, until it intersects the dividing line between the United States and British possessions; thence up Pigeon River, and following said dividing line to the place of beginning. SEc. 2. The State of Minnesota shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the Mississippi, and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said State of Minnesota, so far as the same shall form a commnon boundary to said State, and any other State or States now or hereafter to be formed by the same; and said rivers and waters leading into the same shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to other citizenus of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost, or toll therefor. Mr. FLANDRAU offered the following, amxllihncnt to section one of said report, to-wit To strike out after the words' to-wit" and insert " beginning at the point where the 46th parallel of North latitude crosses the main channel of the Missouri River, thence down the main channel of said river to the mouth of the Big Sioux River, thence up the Big Sioux River, to North Line of the State of Iowa, thence along the North Line of Iowa to the main channel of the Mississippi River, thence up the main channel of said river, and following the Boundary Line of the State of Wisconsin until the same intersects the said 46th parallel of north latitude, thence west on said line to the place of beginning. Mr. FLANDRAU. That, gentlemen, is an East and West line. Mr. CHAIRMAN, as gentlemen seem to doubt the power of the Conventin to make a Boundary different from that laid down in the Enabling Act of Congress, I propose to say a word or two upon the subject before the question is put upon the adoption of the amend ment. Mr. BAKER. I call the gentleman to order. The gentleman says he is going to prove the power of the Convention to establish a new Boundary. Now sir, we yield him that point and I want 295 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE to know whether it is in order to speak to the point which weo have given up? (Laughter.) Mr. FLANDRAU. I ask if Mr. BAKER speaks the sentiments of the whole Convention? If they have delegated him to speak for them upon this subject, I have not seen it upon record. Now, sir, I maintain that we have the power to establish any Boundary which the Convention may see proper to designate; and that the State comprised within the limits we shall fix, if ratified by the people, will be just as good and just as much a State, as if we had followed the line designated by Congress. Mr. CHAIRMAN, the people in the Northern section of the Territory prefer that they shall be left in a Territory by themselves, where they can enjoy some of the benefits of their Territorial condition, which have heretofore been monopolized by other sections of the Territory. They want a condition in which they can arrange their matters and not be overborne by the more populous South, which has always preponderated in the Territory and has always appropriated all the Federal donations, and all the Federal patronage. By pursuing such a course, you will tend to open up the Northern country, and develop it to an extent it can never reach, if it remains united to the South. By dividing the State in this way, we not only improve the condition of the Northern country, but we greatly enhance the value of the Agricultural and Commercial interests of the South. We enjoy all the advantages of the navigation of the Mississippi River on the one side, and of the Missouri on the other. We have the connection between these two rivers entirely within our own State. But divide the Territory in the other direction, and you entirely cut off all connection with the Missouri River, within the State; and it seems to me that the Southern portion of the Territory, especially that portion of it lying west of the Mississippi River, should certainly be in favor of an East and West Line, for reasons, different in their nature, but quite as strong and conclusive as those operating to make the members from the North favor such a decision. But, sir, this is a matter which every gentleman has already weighed in his mind, and I do not propose to go into any detailed argument upon the subject. This matter has heretofore been thoroughly discussed in the Legislature, and throughout the Territory. The minds of men are made up, and I am well aware that nothing I can say would change them. I shall vote for dividing the Ter ritory by an East and West Line. Mr. BAKER. I am satisfied with the gentleman's positions all: 296 OONSTITU'IONAL CONVE NTIO.N. except one. What does he mean when he speaks of the Federal patronage of the Territory? Mr. FLANDRAU. Was not this Capitol, in which we are in, builtl with funds from the Federal Treasury? And have they not sustained our Territorial Logislature, our Territorial Courts, built our roads, and defrayed all the expenses of the Territorial Government? These are advantages which the North has never enjoyed, because the Federal appropriations have been expended in the South. Mr. GORMAN. I desire that the vote shall not be taken upon this question until I can have five or ten minutes of the time of the Convention. I wish to place before my constituents, before the people of the Territory and of the country, my position upon this subject. I am sure I shall be justified ill the few brief remarks I shall make, by way of explanation rather than ar,igument, for the reason that I have been attacked in as violent a manner, perhaps more so, than any other man in the community, over this question. A gentleman, occupying a position which he regards as one of distinction, has seen fit to invade the private sanctity of my social civilities to him, to learn from me my private sentiments, and draw from me expressions of opinion, argument and reasons, in favor of a particular line of policy respecting this division of the Territory an East and West or North and South Line. He has sat quietly at my table, and enjoyed the hospitalities of my house night after night, for the purpose of purloining opinions from me that he might expose them to the gaping crowd. Mr. FLANDRAU. Name him. Mr. GORMAN. He did not name me except by a perversion of language, and I leave him to look at the picture I shall draw. I will say, however, that he does not occupy a seat in this Convention, nor in the Costitututonal Convention of the Territory of Minne sota. I said to him on these occasions, in private life, many things that no one but one who was willing to expose his own infamy, would have so desecrated the obligations of private confidence and of social life, as, under any circumstances, to have gone further than mention them individually, instead of exposing them to the world, and letting them go forth upon the records to the country. Sir, I did, before the passage of the Railroad Grant, entertain opinions which I expressed private and in no other way, favorable to the division of the Territory, by an East and West line. I gave to that gentleman individually, my reasons, and they were the reasons on which he acted. Hle has no opinion upon the subject 297 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE that was original. These reasons as thus given, he has repeated, parrot-like, over and over a thousand times, and has retailed them for the benefit of his constituents ard the public. Sir, if I dare trespass upon the confidence of private conversa tions held by him with me, I could reveal things that would make his infamy itself blush; but my tongue shall cleave to the roof of my mouth, my right hand shall forget her cunning before I will so far forget the obligations I owe to honor and to the sanctity of social life, so to hold these things so obtained, up to the public gaze. It is true, that before the passage of the Railroad Grant, I was in favor of an East and West line, but when I went to Washington and found that Granthad passed, I said at once that there was not a possi bility of adopting that line, that the State of Minnesota would not for a moment suffer the sacrifice she would have to make. I said to every gentleman with whom I conversed, after my return from Washington, then we have a grant of railroad land five hundred miles in length, two thirds of which, if we have an East and West line, in the parallel of 45 degrees 10 minutes, or 45 degrees 20 minutes, or 46 degrees, we shall lose jurisdiction over; we shall lose the right to tax it, and Minnesota will give to a new Territory a grant of land worth from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000. Instead of the Government making a grant of lanid to Minnesota, Minnesota with this East and West line, would make an immense grant to a new Territory, over which she would have nojurisdiction and no power of taxation. Therefore, such a division of the State would involve a loss on the part of the State to which the people would never cunsent That was the opinion I expressed to all with whom I conversed upon the subject. Any constitution that would establish an East and West line, thereby involving the loss $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 worth of land with all the taxation, population and commerce which it would invite, would destroy itself before the people-it must be given up. I challenge any man, woman or child to say that I ever uttered an oppinion in favor of an East and West line, after the passage of the Railroad Grant. These are the facts, but sir, I shall never get justice from men who are determined I never shall have justice, The moment I returned from Washington, I said to my friends that my reasons for an East and West line had failed. It was originally supposed that a grant of land would be given to a road running west from Winona by St. Peter to the Missouri, and to another road running from St. Paul, by St. Anthony, west to the Missouri, and the grant running to Pembina or the 298 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. region of the Red River of the North was not hoped for. Indeed, the grant was much better than the most sanguine dared to expect. With these expectations, supposing that nearly the whole grant, comprising these two great lines of emigrant travel to the West would be included in the State with the proposed East and West line, I was for that line. But when the grant was finally made and I found that we were to give up all this immense grant of land with all its attendant advantages of wealth, population, taxation and commerce, by the establishment of an East and West line, I at once gave it up. But, sir, I will not enlarge upon this subject. I only hope that no other person may be cursed by the intimacy of a private friend as I have been. "Wise men change their opinions; fools never do." This is an old remark, but those who read the history of the times, and especially the only person to whom I allude, will find the application staring him in the face without the aid of a looking glass. Now, sir, was I right in principle? Is it wrong in the public estimation, when in the progress of human events, ne,v issues arise, and new circumstances are presented, for a person to govern his position accordingly? If it is wrong, then it is a crime for a man to be right. When the State effects was presented, I said to my constituents that it would be suicidal to further insist on an East ani West line. I used the same arguments to them, while a candidate for this Convention, which I have used to-day, as my colleagues present will bear me out ini saying. When my friends, one of whom is now upon this floor, called upon me to learn my views, I gave them precisely as I have given them here to-day, Here is the history of this wonderful "mares nest" that has been found by the gentleman who has seen proper to herald it forth to the world as treason treason to Southern Minnesota,' as a be. trayal of principle. It would be out of order and out of place, it would be compromising my own dignity and self respect, were I to travel out of the record now to allude to other statements that he has made, combining a semblance of truth, with such perversion of facts as to give them a coloring worse, indeed than a downright lie, I have felt myself called upon to make these remarks because there are gentlemen in the other end of the Capitol occupying positions, by which they are able to perpetrate all the slanders which are brought against me by those who dislike me, and placing them in a form where they can do the greatest amount of injury. I said-that I would not trespass beyond the line marked out before me, and I will speak of no other matter to which he rcferred, 299 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIHE save the one now under consideration-the Boundary Line. I might however in this connection, perhaps very properly allude to the subject of my approval, as Goveinor of the Territory, of the Minnesota and Northwestern Rail RPoad Charter. It is said that I betrayed my friends, and I am held up before the country as a traitor. Sir, in reference to that bill, the Legislature had given the percentage to the State which I had asked. They had yielded one great point. I had vetoed this Railroad Bill twice. Some of those vetoes had been overruled by a two-thirds vote, as was the right of the Legislature under the Organic Act, and I did not feel like putting my will everlasting in opposition to the will of the people as expressed through their Representatives. It would be to subvert the great fundamental principle of popular government, and establish the one man power. I did not think the power ever ought to be exerted except for the best reasons and in cases impe riously demanding such interposition. In this instance, I yielded and signed the bill, and I would do the same thing again and again, if I was Governor of the Territory or future State of Min nesota, under similar circumstances. I believe I did what was right and proper in that instance, and reference to this Boundary Line, I shall only repeat what I have said that in pursuing the course which I have seen proper to take, I have followed the lights of experience, and the dictates of my judgement. I shall vote for a North and South line, and obey the will of my constituelts. Mr. FLANDRAU. I will not detaini the Committee by offering any arguments in favor of an East and West line, more than I have already done, but I desire to combat to some extent, the argument of the gentleman who has just taken his seat. The gentleman has said, that "wise men change their opinions; fools "never." I do not know whether he intends the inference shall follow that he is a wise man, because he has changed his opinion upon the subject of the North and South line, and that everybody who still retain their preference for an East and West line, are fools. Mr. GORMAN. That is terrible! absolutely intolerable! in my friend. I expressly confined the application of the remark to the gentleman in the other end of the Capitol who had assailed me. I hold up the mirror I had drawn for him to look at. Surely I never intended it for the gentleman from Nicollet. Mr. FLANDRAU. Well sir, I have merely to state, that if I can show that the arguments which the gentleman has given as the reasons for the change in his views upon this subject, are fallacious, then perhaps the wisdom does not attach alltogether to those who 300 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. have changed their views in fovor of a North and South line. The gentleman says that it is wise, to change your views when the circumstances so alter as to justify such change, and none but fools refuse to do so. Now sir, the converse of that proposition must be true, and as most of the constituency of Nicollet county adhere to their original views, with the same facts before them as the gentleman has had, I feel it my duty to vindicate them from the logical consequence of the proposition as stated by the gentleman, the bases of his charge, these Railroad grants to the Territory. Now sir, Congress can make no more land in this country than already is here, by grants to the Territory, to private individuals or to Corporations. These grants were originally made to the Territory, and so long as they remain in the possession of the Territory or future State, they add to its wealth as such, but when the Territory or State grant them back to Corporations for Railroad purposes, it does not gain any advantage of taxation over these lands, that it would not have had if the lands had gone into the hands of these persons by pre-emption or purchase, or in any other way. No matter whether the land belongs to corporations for railroad purposes, or to individuals for agricultural purposes, it is all taxable by the State just the same in one case as in the other. If then, we do not lIe any land granted for Railroad purposes by establishing an East and West line, wve retain as much actual land within our limits by the one as by the other, and after the land passes into the hands of private individuals, what I ask, do we gain or lose on the subject of taxation by these Railroad grants. But sir, I ask gentlemen who base their arguments for a North and South line, on our Railroad grants, to look at the subject in another point of view. The line of road of more importance probably than any other which received a grant of lands, runs from Winona west to the Big Sioux river, south of the 45th parellel of north latitude, bringing its western terminus outside the boundary of the State, if the North and South line is adopted. This road will be the great thoroughfare of emigration, going westward, for westward it will continue to go. At the terminus of the road will inevitably grow up one of the largest towns in the west, but which must be without our limits if we adopt the North and South line. Another route second in importance only to the one I have mentioned, leaves the Mississippi near St. Anthony, and following the Minnesota Valley, also finds its terminus on the Big Sioux river, west of the North and South line, both of these routes I regard as much the most important in the State, because they will be, and 301 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE must continue to be the great channels of communication between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, carrying emigrants westward and returning with produce. The termini of these roads will be lost to us with a North and South line, and what great advantage shall we gain from the Railroads of the North? I hold sir, that if the passage of this Railroad grant by Congress, is to have any effect upon the division'of the Territory, the argument is in favor of an East and West line. The area of land is the same, the power of the State to tax those lands is the sanme as if the grants had not been made. It is the same whether the lands are in the hands of Corporations, or private individuals. I hold therefore that the argument of the gentleman from Ramsey do not justify the change in his position upon this question. Mr. CHAIMNAN. I represent a large constituency, comprising some ten counties, but I represent more particularly, the county of Nicollet where I reside, and in which I was nominated. There are gentlemen on this floor representing nearly every one of the other counties in my district, and of course they can speak as to the wishes of their respective constituents better than I can. But sir, in my own county, the voice of the people is almost unanimous in favor of a division of ttie Territory by an East and West line; and I feel myself bound to express upon this floor of this Convention, the wishes of that constituency upon this important subject. The arguments I have advanced are such as in my judgment, should be sufficient to induce not only the Representatives here from the northern portion of the Territory, but everywhere in the south-west of the Mississippi river, to go for an East and West line. Mr. GORMAN. I regret that the gentleman started out as lie did, by making the illustration I used for another gentleman apply himself to. Mr. FLANDRAU. The gentleman misunderstood me entirely. The remark was made by him as having emenated from one of the wisest of Statesmeu, that "wise men change their opinions; fools " never." The necessary inference was that if the circumstances to which the gentleman alluded were sufficient to make a wise man change his opinion upon the subject of this East and West line, the same circumstances acting upon myself and mny constituents who have remained stationary in our opinions, must place us in the other category. Mr. GORMAN. I merely speak of an abstract principle. But sir, one word in respect to the argument of my friend from Nicollet, (Mr. FLANnRAU,) he says that whether the grant is made to Railroads or not, the lands will remain the same, and taxation will 302 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. remain the same. Now sir, I shall not hold him up in any unfavorable light, but I will simply show that taxation will be increased by the grant of lands to Railroad Companies, for the reason that the construction of Railroads will increase the value of taxable property in the sections of country, through which they run. The gentleman will not deny that. Sir, the construction of railroad lines into this northern country, will have the effect of bringing emigration to that country and increasing the resident population there. Population brings wealth and wealth brings power. These three clements, population, wealth and power, constitute the glory and importance of a State. That is what will give us additional taxation on these lands in consequence of the Railroad Grant. But the advantage arising from that grant, does not stop with taxation. The population which'must be attracted to this northern country, will give us representation. That representation will give us additional wright in the Congress of the United States. This addition to our population will reflect itself through all the various ramifications of government. No one can calculate its importance. It will build up cities, it will build up villages, it will encourage agriculture and commerce. Is that true? If it is, then I am right. If it is not, then the gentleman from Nicollet is right. But the gentleman says the termini of these roads will be lost to us with a North and South line. Why, sir, the grant only extends them to the Big Sioux river, and if these are the termini to which the gentleman alludes, they are within the Territory of Minnesota. I presume that the gentleman means that if these roads had extended on to the Missouri River, then their termini would have been lost to Ius. Mr. FLANDRAU. No, sir. I said that a North and South line would place the termini of these roads west of the State boundary. Mr. GORMAN. The termini of these roads are at the Big Sioux River and the boundary proposed for the State is in part, the Big Sioux River. If the road had extended through to the Missouri River, the gentleman's argument would have been good. Mr. FLANDRAU. If the gentleman supposes that the Big Sioux River is the Western Boundary of the proposed State, he is geographically mistaken. The line as originally proposed, did extend to that point, but that would not have left one foot of the ceded lands within the new Territory. They would not even have a place left to build their Capitol on without first treating with the Indians for the lands. The line was therefore removed further east, and is laid down in the Enabling Act, as commencing with the Red 303 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE River of the North at the British Possessions, thence running up said River to thie Bois des Sioux River, then to Lake Traverse, then to Big Stone Lake, and then in a straight line to the North-western Boundary of Iowa, having some seven hundred thousand acres of ceded land between the line and the Big Sioux River, and before any gentleman takes the word of any man for this statement, I desire they should take the map and compare it with the Enabl)lilgu Act, and see if we would not lose, by a North and South Line, the termini of two of the most important Rail Roads. Mr. GORMAN. It is true that the Big Sioux River is not entirely the line, but it is substantially the line, and these roads meeting that river south of the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, their termini must be within the Territory, and within the proposed State. There is no escape from it. But even if the gentleman was correct in his statement, what is the.argument hlie seeks to derive from it? It is that the State would have the taxation and the power which would result from an increase of population and wealth, but we shall gain still mnore in these respects, by the North and South Line, and therefore his argument amounts to nothing. Before I set down, I desire to ask my colleague, (Mr. BECKER,) whether the views I have expressed to the Convention, to-day, are not the views which I distinctly announced to my constituents during the canvass, prior to the election of delegates to this Convention? Mr. BECKER. If the gentleman refers to me, I will state that the position assumed by him to-day upon this floor is the position taken by him in canvass before the people, as I understood it. Mr. SETZER. Mr. CHAIRMAN, this question has been fully discussed before the people, and the mind of every member was fully made up when he came into this Convention. I do not thiink it is proper, therefore, to take up time with further discussion upon the subject. I take it for granted, that a majority of the Convention are in favor of a North and South Line. I hope the question will be taken without further debate. The question was then taken, and the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. WAIT moved to amniend section one, by adding tlhereto tohe following: "The Seat of Government of this State shall be established at St. Cloud, in "the county of Stearns." (Laughter.) The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BUTLERP. I do not know whether it is necessary, but inasmuch as the Mississippi is mentioned as a Boundary, I supposo 304 CONSTITIONAL OONVENTION. it would be proper that the St. Croix should also be mentioned. I move, therefore, to amend in the 11th line of section one, by insertinrg after the word "river," the words, "to the St. Croix River, "and thence up the main channel of said River." I will merely remark that the St. Croix River is a part of the Boundary between Minnesota and Wisconsin, as is the Mississippi, and I suppose if one river is mentioned, the other should be. Mr. BECKER. The gentleman mentioned the amendment which has been offered, to me this morning. If there were any necessity for it, I should willingly support it. The description of the Boundary, however, in my judgment, is as fill without as with the amendment, and inasmluch as the report follows thle language of the Enabling Act, I presume the amendment had better not be adopted Mr. BUITLERP. I think the Boundary Line, as defined with this amendment is more distinct. I remarked that I do not know that the amendment is necessary, but I submit that if you put in one river you ought to put in the other. The amendment was disagreed to. On motion of BECKER, the Committee, rose reported the Article back to the Convention without amendment, and recommended that the report of the Committee be concurred in. Mlr. FLANDRAU moved to amend the report of the Committee in the first section, as follows To strike out after the words, "to wit," and insert "Beginning at the point "where the forty-sixth parallel of North latitude crosses the main channel "of the Missouri River, thence down the main channel of the said Riv"er to the mouth of the Big Sioux River, thence up the Big Sioux River to "the North line of the State of Iowa, thence along the said line of the State of 4 Iowa to the main channel of the Mississippi River, thence up the main channel "of said RPiver and following the Boundary Line of the State of Wisconsin, until "the same intersects the said forty-sixth parallel of North latitude, thence west "on the said line to the place of beginning." The yeas.and nays being called for and ordered, on Mr. FLA, DRAU'S amendment, there were ayes 6, nays 36, as follows YEAS-Messrs. Barsen, Day, Flandrau, Stacey, Streeter and Swan-6. NAYS —Messrs. A. E. Ames, IM. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Baker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Emmett, Gilbert, Gorman, Gilman, Holcomrb3, Kingsbl)ury, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, McGrorty, McFetridge, McMalhan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Wait, Warner and Mr. President-36. So the amendment was adopted. Mr. FLANDRAU renewed the same amendment, changing the parallel of latitude to forty-five degrees, thirty minutes. A1. WTAIT moved to amend the amendment by striking out "forty-five degrees thirty minutes," and inserting, "forty-five do 305 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE "grees fifteen minutes," and demanded the yeas and nays upon the amendment to the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken and it was decided in the negative. Yeas 10, nays 32, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Baascn, Day, Flandrau, Gilman, McFetridge, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Tenvoorde and Wait-10. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Baker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Emmett, Gilbert, Gorman, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, MeGrorty, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Taylor, Warner and Mr. Presiden-32. So the amendment to the amendment did not preavail. Mr. SETZER moved to amend the amendment by inserting "fortythree degrees thirty minutes. The amendment was no,t agreed to. Mr. STREETER moved to amend the amendment by inserting "forty-five degrees, 10 minutes." The motion was disagreed to. The question then recurred upon Mr. FLANDSAU's amendment. Mr. GILMAN moved a call of the Convention. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. FLANDPRNU called fo)r the yeas and nays upon his amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken and it was decided in the negative. Yeas 9, nays 33, as follows: YEAsS-Messrs. Baasen, Day, Flandrau, Gilman, Stacey, Streetelr Swan, Tenvoorde and Wait-9. NAYS —Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Baker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Emmett, Gilbert, Gorman Holcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, McGrorty, McFetridge, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Setzer Sanderson, Taylor, Warner and Mr. President-33. So the amendment did not prevail. The question being upon concurring in the report of the Committee of the whole, and the ayes and nays being called for and ordered, there were ayes 32, nays 9, as follows YEAS —IMessrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Baker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Emmett, Gilbert, HIolcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, MeGrorty, McFetridge, McMahan, Ncrris, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Taylor, Warner and Mr. President 32. NAYs-Messrs. -3asen, Day, Flandrau, Gilman, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Ten-,oorde and Wait-9. So the rer)ort of the Committee( on the Whole was concurred in. 306 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. AUDITING COMMITTEE. Mr. Becker, oni leave, introduced the following resolutions, which were adopted. RSOLVED, That a Committee of three be appointed to audit the expenses of this Convention, and that the Treasurer of the Territory be authorized and directed to pay out of the funds appropriated for the use of the Constitutional Convention, warrants signed by the President and countersigned by the Secretary of this body. RESOLVED, That the Secretary be directed to furnish the Territorial Treasurer with an authenticated copy of these resolutions. On motion of Mr. SETZER, at half past four, the Convention adjourned. TWENTY-SECOND DAY. FRIDAY, August 7, i 857. The Convention met at nine o'clock, A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. The PRESIDENT informed the Convention that JOHN BELI.L has declined the office of Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. KINGHORN having tendered his resignation as Assistant Secretary of the Convention. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, the said resignation was accepted. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, Mr. KINGHORN was declared elected Sergeant-at Arms, vice BELL, declined. On motion of Mr. EMMETT, Mr. GASOWAY was declared elected Assistant Secretary, vice KINGHORN, resigned On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. HOLCOMBE in the Chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on the "Bill of Rights." The question pending, being oil the amendment offered by MrSWAN, to insert in the 12th Section after the word "State," the words, "and have declared their intentions to become citizens of ' the United States." Mr. BROWN. I am opposed to the Section as reported, but objectionable as it is, I think the amendment makes it still more so. Gentlemen will see by reading the Section, that it does not cover the ground which they desire or anticipate it shall cover. As the Section now stands, it reads: Foreigners who are, or may hereafter become bona fide residents of this State, 20 307 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THIC shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment, and inheri tance of property as native-born citizens. It reads, "Foreigners, who are or who may hereafter become "ona fide residents." The amendment adds, "and have declared "their intentions to become citizens of the United States." Now, the only construction which can be given to that Section, is that there is a distinction recognized between the future residents of the State. It asserts by implication, that the Legislature may pass a law depriving a certain portion of the residents of the State, of the righlts which citizens enjoy in respect to the possession an inheritance of property. Sir, I am opposed to any such provision being incorporated into the Constitution. I am opposed to any thing which shall recognize the possibility of doubt, as to the right of every foreign born resident of the State, to enjoy every privilege in respect to property, enjoyed by the native born citizens of the State. Gentlemen will see by examining the phraseology of the Section, that it does not cover the subject which I presume it was the intention of the Committee who reported the Article, to accomplish. It was not to prohibit foreigners who reside out of the State, and who reside out of the United States, from holding and possesing property. It makes no prohibition whatever. It merely says that foreigners who reside in the State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession and inheritance of property as citizens. Sir, is this Convention going to recognize any principle of that kind? Are we going to establish a distinction between foreign and native born residents of the State? I hope not, and I move to amend the article by striking the whole Section out. Mr. SIBLEY. I rise to a question of order. It is not in order to move to strike out a Section, until it has been perfected. Mr. BROWN. I believe it would be perfected best, by striking it out. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thinks the amendment is not in order at this time. Mr. BROWN. I think there are members of the Convention who have substitutes drawn utip for this Section, some one of which I should be glad to see adopted. I have merely made the motion to strike out the Section, to see whether this Convention is ready to recognize a distinction between native and foreign born citizens. AIi. M. E. AMES. I think this Section is right as originally rep)rted by the Committee. I have seen no amendment which in my opimii()I), w)ild improve it. And again, I think that such a provision should be inserted in the Constitution, will not admit of 308 CONSTrrUONF AL (3)0ION. .a doubt in the mind of any one, upon reflection. The Section as originally reported, contains the qualification of actual residence upon the part of those who are to enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens in respect to property. I think that is the only restriction which it is wise to make upon the possession, and enjoyment, and inheritance of property in this State. Mr. BROWN. Does the Section as it now stands, prohibit foreigners who reside out of the State, from holding property in the State? Mr. M. E. AMES. Most certainly; not in direct terms, but in language that is unmistakeable. It says that foreigners who are -,ona fide residents of the State, shall enrjoy the same rights in respect to the possession and inheritance of property as native born citizens. Now sir, a great deal was said in the discussion yesterday, and someting has been said this morning about nonresident foreigners coming here, and purchasing large tracts of land, and enjoying all the rights and privileges of citizens while residing abroad. Why sir, no such conclusion can be legitimately drawn, because the premises on which it is based, do not exist. The Section itself assumes that foreigners could not enjoy these rights and privileges without permission. The gentleman from Sibley, is certainly wrong in the conclusion to which he comes, though I would on no account impugn his motives, because I know his integrity and his clear-headed honesty, would prevent him from intentionally leading the Convention to wrong conclusions. Mr. BROWN. Small favors, thankfully received. [Laughter.] Mr. M. E. AMES. Now Mr. CHAIRMAN, I believe that provision is right in princil'e. If I recollect correctly, it is the same as that embod(ed in -e:e Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. It was adopted there upon the fullest consideration. It was debated by the best talent in the C(onvenition, and after a very full discussion upon the subject, the Convention settled down upon this provision. Now sir, I am opposed to the English doctrine of Escheats, which the amendment seeks to incorporate into the Constitution. I am here prepared to say that principle which has been engrafted into the Constitutions of several of the States, was borrowed from the English Common Law, anid that it had its origin in the feudal system of England. It stands there now a relic of barbarism of the middle centuries, comilig down to us from the dark ages. Sir, it should have found no l,lace in the Organic Laws of any of these American States, because it is Anti-Republican aitd Anti-Democratic in its nature and cffects. I do not believe there is a single member 309 t, PROCEEDIGS AND DEBATES OF THE in this Convention who, when he comes to understand it, would see: it incorporated into the Constitution of Minnesota. Mr. SETZER. It is for the reason which has been expressed, by the gentleman who has just taken his seat, that the section, as reported, contains all the,ialifications which ought to be prescribed, that I most sincerly hiope the amendment will not prevail. Now, it was remarked by the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. GORMAN) yesterday, that bodies of men might come here and settle down amongst us, enjoying all the rights and privileges of citizens, without becoming citizens, or taking any oath of allegiance as a certain set of men belonging to a certain religious denomination have done in Indiana and Ohio. Well sir, suppose they do; they simply deprive themselves of many of the privileges which they might otherwise enjoy. They cannot exercise the right of franchise, and that it seems to me is a sufficient restriction. If they come here and become bona fide residents, I see no objection to allowing them to hold and enjoy property the same as citizens. They have to submit to the payment of taxes and assist in sustaininrg the burthens of the government and I see no objection to allowing them all the rights of citizens in respect to the possession and inheritance of property. Mr. SIBLEY. I am decidedly opposed to the opinions advanced by the gentleman from Saint Paul, (Mr. AMEs.) He seems to think there is not a member of this Convention who will not, upon reflection, concur with him. Now sir, for one, I certainly dissent from any such opinions. Mr. M. E. AMES. I said I did not believe there was a member of this Convention, who would, upon reflection, uphold the English doctrine of escheats. Mr. SIBLEY. I am decidedly in favor of what I believe ninetynine out of every one hundred of our fore igi'born population in the new States, are in favor of of requiring all foreigners who come to live amongst us, and hold property amongst us, to take the iniative step towards becoming citizens of the United States. It is not right to allow persons from other countries to come here and hold property amongst us, who have no interest in common with us; who owe no allegiance to the country in which we live, and who only come here ifor the purpose of speculating and making monrey, to take away and enjoy in the country from which they came. Such a propositioni, in my judgment, ought not to be entertamned by any member of this Conivention for a moment. Now sir, it is very true that the effect of such a provision might operate hardly in sorme instances. It is impossible to frame such 310 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. "a provision, as shall, in every single instance, provide proper re~strictions, and at the same time protect all innocent parties, but the rule is a good one and will operate well. But the gentleman says, they pay taxes the same as citizens. Now sir, the mere fact that these men pay taxes entitle them to no special privileges. We all pay taxes, but that is no reason why we should adopt a principle which will allow foreigners to come here and seize our lands and hold them until they have made money enough on them to suit their purposes, and then take the money and carry it out of the country. The whole principle is insane and should not be entertained for a moment. When men come here and are allowed to purchase and hold lands and enjoy the rights and privileges of citizens, respecting property, they should be required to take the initiative. of becomingi citizens of the United States. But, while I would thus protect ourselves, I would, at the same time, make no provision which should operate harshly upon innocent parties. It is better, if we can, to adopt somne middle ground, which, while it affords us sufficient protection, will do justice to all. I understand the gentleman from Washl-ington, (Mr. SETZER,) has prepared a substitute which will, perhaps, relieve the difficulties which seem to be in our way. Mr. BAKER. I believe there is ni medium ground. I think the section is precisely right as it is. At the same time, I know very well that great injury has been done by the possession of land by parties whom we never see and who never appear here except by their agents. Other people till the soil and in many cases, the only remunerative they ever receive is ground enough to furnish them a final resting place. Such has been the fact to a very great extent, in respect to all the companies for trading among the Indians. But sir, while I desire to protect our actual settlers, I deny the right to prohibit any man from coming here and purchasing property of me, if I have it to sell. The c_ause means too much, or it means nothing. It is too strong, or it is boys play. Mr. M. A. AMES. I rise to a question of order. The gentleman is personal in his remarks. Yesterday, he made us a magnificent speech on the otherside of the question. I submit, therefore, that the gentleman is reflecting personally upon the speech he made yesterday. (Laughter.) Mr. BAKER. That is magnanimous. I believe no man is required to testify against himself But sir, so anxious am I to have the point correctly and rightly put before the people, that I should be willing to stiltify myself to accomplish that object. I believe 311 PROYE INGS AN DDATe OF TIIB the remark has been made by a member of this Convention, that fools never change. (Great laughter.) But sir, I want to pin the gentleman down to this point. I ask him when a man has come here and entered a piece of land, and before he has declared his intention to become a citizen, is killed, whether his heirs are not to be allowed to inherit his property? I want to know whether any man in this Convention is prepared to go before the people and support that doctrine? I want it distinctly understood that my vote is against it. Tho whole thing in my opinion, is wrong. The people of Minnesota will sanction no such doctrine. Something has been said about a substitute, which the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZER,) is going to offer. Sir, that will not improve the matter a whit. Mr. SETZER. I call the gentleman to order. He has no right to refer to substitutes which have not been offered. Mr. BAKER. I ask the gentleman's pardon. I will not refer to it again. I always want to be in order. But I say again, that you have no right to deprive foreigners of the right to hold prop erty amongst us. Some of them have acquired rights at a veryearly day, through their agents. They have never been here at all. But what right have you to deprive them of their property? The whole principle is wrong. Mr. CURTIS. I am in favor of the proposition as originally incorporated into the Bill of Rights. I have listened attentively to the discussion upon this point, and I have failed to hear any reason given, or any argument adduced, why a person of foreign birth, who comes to reside amongst us, should not enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession and inheritance of property, as a native born citizen. Much discussion has taken place in regard to the introduction of foreign capital, and I think the whole question in reference to such introduction, has been (not designedly,) misstated. But sir, I regard all this discussion as outside the question before us, and out of place in this Committee upon any subject which is before us. It ought not to be introduced here to prejudice the real ques. tion before us. Now sir, the grounds of objection urged against this section by different members of the Convention, have been various. One gentleman objects on the ground that the section recognizes a distinction between an alien and a native born citizen, and hopes it will not pass for that reason. Another gentleman asks whether you will allow a man who will take no part in the making of our laws, and who will not make his declaration of intention to becomee 31,2 OONSTUTIONAL CONVENTION. a citizen, the same rights and privileges with another person who consents to pass through this ordeal. Now, I would like to have any gentleman place his finger upon one provision in the section, as originally reported, and say to this Convention that it grants to foreigners residing amongst us, one privilege which he, as a member of the Legislature would vote to pass a law to prohibit? Mr. BROWN. We do not wish to make any distinction whatever. Mr. CURTIS. The gentleman does not wish to make any distinction. The Section simply gives to foreigners who are bona fide residents the same rights and privileges respecting the possession and inheritance of property with native-born citizens. If there is any gentleman here who would be willing to pass a law denying them that privilege, let him put his finger upon the point in the Section that he would change. If you would exclude these people from any right in that respect, what is it? If any gentleman would deprive bona fide residents of any of these rights, I should like him to tell us just what it is that he would deprive themn of. Another gentleman has spoken of the doctrine of eschleats. Now, sir, when a foreigner has acquired land from the General Government, I deny that we can incorporate anything into oar Constitution which will deprive him of that land, or that will deprive hirrmof the right to transmit the title to his heirs. The patent which he receives from the Government grants him the land for his benefit and for the benefit of his heirs, and any provision incorporated into this Constitution in derogation of the rights given him in that grant would be void. But, sir, I apprehend that the real object of this Section has been overlooked. It is not for the protection especially of large foreign capitalists. It is not to hold out inducements to foreign capitalists to come here and invest their money and still remain foreigners, and, as was remarked by another gentleman, when they have had sufficient money, transfer it to another country. The main object was, to encourage emigration to the country. There is a large country within our limits yet to be settled, and the object of the provisions which have been reported in this section was, to throw around the foreigners who should come among us and become bona fide residents the shield and protection of law-to assure them that if they come and acquire property here, and die before they have complied with our laws upon the subject of naturalization, their property shall go to their heirs and not escheat to the State. In regard to the other view which was ,taken by one gentleman, that you sliould prevent the offering of a premium to non-residents, by taxing their property higher than 313 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THI that of residents, I have simply to say that such a provision could not be carried out, because it is ill opposition to a proposition which this Convention will accept in the Enabling Act; and if you make this restriction against the boan fide residents which the amendment contemplates, you will in fact offer a premium to non residents tie very thing which all of us are anxious to avoid. I hope the amendment will not prevail. I believe the object of the original section is beneficial, and that it will have the effect of do ing an act of simple justice to the foreigners who come to reside amongst us. Mr. SHERBURNE. I have not heard all the discussion which has taken place upon this subject, but I find myself compelled to disagree with the views expressed by some of the members who have spoken. Mr. CHAIRMAN, I have some respect for the opinions and laws from which we derive principally, and almost exclusively, our institutions. I think there is something in the Con stitution and Laws of the United States whilch iay serve as a profitable guide for us ini this Convention. If this proposition is passed as originally reported, there is no distinction made between the people of this country and those of any other country. Under that Section, any man from Germany, England, France, or China, may coIme in here with money and purchase real estate within our limits. He cannot purchase it of the Geineal Government, because under the Laws of the General Government he is required first to become a citizen of the United States. Mr. BROW-N. That is not necessary where the land is subject; to private entry. Mr. SHERBURN E. It may be so.' I am niot very familiar with the Laws-of the United States upon the subject of purchasing lands; but whether it is so or not under the United States Laws, it is so in England, and it is so in most of the States of this Union. I hold that there should be a distinction, and that the man from England, from France, or from Germany, should not be allowed to come here for a week or for a month, just long enough to comply with the terms of the law in making him a bona fide resident, -invest his money in our lands for the purpose of speculation, and tlhen, when he has made money enough, return to his own country with his wealth. Such men should not be placed upon terms of equality with our own citizens. I hold that there should be a distinction. It is due to the foreigners who have become citizens that a distinction should be made. I do not believe you can find a single foreignborn citizen in the country who would be willing that foreigners should be allowed to come here and, without declaring their inten 314 t CONSTrrUTIONAL CONVENTION. tion to become citizens, be placed upon terms of equality with those who have declared their allegiance to our institutions. Mr. CURTIS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him one question? It is this: What specific right would you deny the foreigner? Mr. SHERBURNE. I would deny him the right of holding the fee-simple to real estate, and the right of inheritance. I state distinctly that I would deny him that right until he has shown by a compliance with the forms of law, that he intends to become one of us, and to acquire the rights of citizenship until he has shown that he intends to become a citizen, and his children after him if you please. Until he has thus shown his intention, he has no right and ought to have none by our Constitution, to hold real estate. He has no right to become the proprietor of the lands of our domain. I say, again, even upon the policy for which we have shown too; nmuch disposition, to pander to the foreign vote, it is for tllhe interests of the foreigners amongst us that the restriction should be made. I believe, if it were to be submitted to the foreign voters of the country they would not permit men to come here and enjoy equal rights with us who had no sympathy with our institutions and had no intention of becoming citizens. I do not like the amendment which has been proposed exactly, but I think it is much preferable to the original section. Mr. A. E. AMES. I sympathize with the gentleman in the object which he wishes to accomplish, but I say as I have already said, I do not believe we can carry out such a purpose as he wishes to see carried out, without interfering with the primary disposal of the soil. Mr. SHERBURNE. We cannot interfere with tihe primary disp,sal of the soil. The Laws of the United States will stand, of course; and we have no power to interfere with their operation. But I spoke of regulations for our own protection. Mr. BECKER. I have taken no part in this debate, for the reason that I have not been able to come to any satisfactory conclusion in my own mind as to what is proper, in connection with the subject. This is an important question; we have come to the consideration of an important part of our Constitution, and I am exceedingly anxious that this Convention should take such action upon it as shall redound to the prosperity of the future State of Minnesota. Now, sir, there are a great many evils connected with this question, look at it in what light wou will. I believe it is the settled policy of Minnesota to invite capital here from whatever quarter it may come -whether foreign capital or home capital. For this 316, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE reason the Legislature have abolished all laws in relation to usury They have said to capitalists, "You may come here and invest your "money and receive what it is worth." The law as it now exists, I think, is firmly enthroned in the hearts of the people. If the question were to be submitted to-day, I believe it would receive an almost unanimous vote to retain it as it is. Now, it is a question in my mind, if we adopt the amendment proposed, or adopt the section as it came from the Committee,- whether it will not restrict the in flux of foreign capital amongst us. I have in my mind now one gentleman, a member of the British Parliament, who desires to send money to this country for investment in lands. I know of an other in Glasgow who desires to send fifty or a hundred thousand dollars here for investment. But what course can we take so as to secure this capital to be used amongst us, and at the same time protect ourselves and our citizens? That is what we want to get at. Mr. CHAInMAN, I do not desire to see anything adopted here which looks like an exclusive system-which savors of the exclu sive policy of the Eastern countries, manifesting itself in high pro tective tariffs which fetter commerce and restrict trade. It is the principle of exclusion which, when carried to its fullest extent, would make this country what the Chinese have made their Em pire. Sir, I do not want the policy adopted of considering all out siders barbarians. I want capital to come here for investment. I do not care whether it is Queen VICTORIA'S money, Louis NAPOLEON'S money, or whose it is. We want the capital to come here for in vestment. Again, I suppose it is possible that wealthy men in Europe may desire to come here for a residence perhaps for a short time, perhaps for a large number of years. I know that Lord BROUGHAM has what he calls his country-residence in France. Now, sir, shall we shut out every class of foreign gentlemen who may be willing to come here and place their lives and fortunes under the protection of our laws, because they do not cl-hoose to renounce their allegiance to their native country? It seems to me this is an exclusive doctrine, which I shall not be willing to adopt I am opposed to all exclusive doctrines. I am opposed to fettering the commerce of the world. For these reasons I have not been able to see anything satisfactory either in the amendment pending or in the original section. There have been some grave objections urged against allowing foreigners who will not declare their intion to become citizens, to hold real estate amongst us, and there are as grave objections to the adoption of an exclusive policy toward that class of persons. But I do not apprehend any very serious difficulty from this class of foreigners who will choose to 316 CONSTITUONAL CONVNTION. come and live among us. It seems to me, the mass of foreigners who will choose to come here and become citizens must always largely preponderate, and I can see no very serious objection to allowing them to come and invest their money and not require them to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I frankly confess, however, that I have not been able to make up my mind definitely upon the subject, and am not prepared to submit any proposition which shall relieve even my own mind from the difficulties which I can see before me. I have merely thrown out these suggestions for the consideration of the Convention. Mr. SETZER. The range of debate upon the part of those who have advocated the original proposition, as reported by the Committee, has been so large, embracing so many subjects, that I shall not attempt to reply, except to two or threee points which have been made. The gentleman from St. Paul, (Mr. BECKER,) tells us that foreign capital should be invited to invest in our lands; and that men who reside in England may send their capital to purchase our lands. That would be reached under the original Section, which provides that the foreigners who are to enjoy equal privileges with ourselves, shall be bona fide residents. But the gentleman from Washington, (Mr. CURTis,) wants any gentleman to point out any specific right which he would have foreigners deprived of. Now, sir, so far as I am concerned, I would have them deprived of the right of inheritance of real estate. I am perfectly willing that the alien should hold property here, during his life. We cannot prevent that, in fact, if we would, for the primary disposal of the soil vests in the United States, and as long as they conform to our laws, we cannot interfere with them during their natural life, but we can prescribe that subjects of Queen VICTORIA shall not iihereit real estate within our limits. Mr. MEEKER. What is the evil apprehended of which gentlemen have been speaking to-day, and about which gentlemen were speakingyesterday? It is that a foreigner residing abroad should acquire large landed property within our borders, and transmit it to his heirs, also, non-resident foreigners, and so on to the latest degree. That is the evil apprehended. Now, what is the remedy which we, sitting here, propose to apply? Have we it in our power to root it out totally? If so, I am in favor of adopting that course. For one, I would like to see the evil provided against beyond the possibility of its occurrence. But, sir, it cannot be accomplished. The laws of the United States, passed in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States, reserve to the general Government the right 317 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE of the primary disposal of our entire public domain. We cannot, therefore, even, as a Constitutional body, interfere to any extent whatever with the primary disposal of the publio domain within our limits. Foreigners, non-residents, can go into our land offices and enter all the lands subject to private entry within the State which they can pay for. They can hold these lands to the exclu sion of actual settlers; and there is the additional evil, that the money which they pay does not remain in the Territory, but goes into the National coffers. There is the great drawback upon us, and upon any new country. I would gladly get rid of it if I could; but, how is it to be accomplished? The evil applies to non-resident Americans, as well as foreigners, who come here and purchase up large tracts of lands, which lie unoccupied for many years, much to the injury of the actual settlers. But, sir, there is no help for it. We cannot get round laws passed by the Congress of the United States in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States. The patent issues to the pur chaser and to his heirs and assigns. Hie can hold the land through his natural life, and then he can transmit it to his heirs. The evil is a great one. It is one from which we have suffered from the earliest of the Territory, but it is one past our power to remedy. The question now arises, whether, under the laws of the United States, wve can impose anly restrictions upon the non-resident purchaser. It is very likely we can, but where shall we begin? The right of the assignment sale and inheritance of property is deiived from the general Government. Mr. MURPRAY. I wish to ask thie gentleman wietlher the regulation of the title to property acquired by a foreigner under the general Government, does not vest in the State where it is located, and if it has not been decided in the Supreme Court in a case, the name of which I do not now recollect? Mr. MEEKER. Not so as to infringe upon any right acquired under a law of the United States. Such a law would be declared unconstitutional. Why, sir, what would be the meaning of a law which would allow a foreigner to come to a land office and purchase land of the general Government, which would be insufficient to protect him in his right to the property thus acquired afterwards? It would be tantalizing and disreputable. The thing never can exist. The law once entered upon the Statute book of the United States, if passed in pursuance of the Constitution, is the supreme law of the land, and no act upon the part of any State authority can interfere with it. No, sir, the only thing we can do, is to discriminate between property acquired by foreigners from other 318 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. sources than the United States, and that acquired by citizens. But, would such a discrimination be wise? Would it be good policy? That is the question for us to consider. To that extent the power of this Convention extends. But, mind you, the remedy does not touch the great body of the evil of which our people so much cormplain-that of foreigners being allowed to come into our Territory and purchase vast tracts of land at the unimportant sum of a dollar and a quarter per acre. But, again, is it policy to invite foreign capital to our borders for investment? We are now inviting it from whatever quarter it may come, whether from Massachusetts, from England, or from whatever source it can be obtained. Is it policy to require the foreigner to disavow his allegiance to the mother country before we allow him to purchase property of our private citizens-for we cannot help his purchasing of the Government? Would the people of this country like to have such a restriction put upon their actions? Would they like to be prohibited from selling their property to the best purchaser, if that purchaser happened to be an Englishman? Is that a proper or wise restriction to place upon our countrymen, in this free and enlightened age? I leave it for the Convention to decide. Mr. SIBLEY. I think the gentleman who has just taken his seat is like a certain personage we read of, who fought wind-mills. He has erected certain paper fortifications of his own manufacture, and then succeeded in demolishing them. Now, sir, we are not dealing with precisely the state of things which exists at the present time exclusively. Gentlemen have found an insurmountable obstacle in the United States laws. We do not pretend to say that as far as the primary disposal of the soil is concerned, anything that we can do will invalidate an act of Congress. But the simple question before the Convention is, whether all the world shall be put upon a par with the citizens of the United States, or with the men who have declared their intention to become such? It is whether you are to allow the residents of England, France or Ger many to come here and purchase whole townships of land? Mr. MEEKER. You comprehend it. Mr. SIBLEY. You cannot prevent them from purchasing from the Government, of course. But the law of the United States, I apprehend, does not regulate the right of inheritance in Minnesota. Mr. BECKER. I ask how you are to prevent the property pur chased by a foreigner from descending to his heirs? Mr. SIBLEY. You cannot, but I applrehend we can say who shall be his heirs. 319, PROCiEDINGS AND DEBATES OF IHE Mr. BECKER. I wish to ask the gentleman whether we have the right to prevent, by the passage of any law, the land purchased by a foreigner of the Government, from descending to his natural heirs? Mr. SIBLEY. I do not pretend to say, nor do we propose by a.ny act of this Convention to say,who his heirs shall be. But I appr hend we have the right to regulate the laws of descent. But, sir, I did not intend to refer to this view of the subject at all. The state of things now existing will be of short duration. We can look for ward to a very short period in the future, when the laws of the United States with reference to the primary disposal of the soil, will have no application to Minnesota. We are framing a Consti tution, not for the present alone, not for the next year or two, but for all future time, unless the people of the State shall interfere to change it. And I still hope that this Constitution will take it upon itself, by the adoption of some sound and wise principle, to make that discrimination, which I consider necessary, between the citi zens of the United States, or those who have declared their intention to become such, and those who owe no allegiance, and will ac knowledge none to our Government or institutions. Sir, there should be a distinction. Not even the plausible reasoning of my .friend from Ramsey, (Mr. M. E. AMEs,) can convince me that such a distinction does not and ought not to exist. Mr. BAKER. I will refer the gentlemen to a single case. In 1852, a man with his wife came here directly from Ireland. He went up the river and purchased with his property about six square miles of land. He has since died, leaving one child, having neglected to declare his intention to become a citizen of the United States. Now, I ask if that property is to revert back to the State? Mr. SIBLEY. There is no doubt at al], that whatever we do with reference to fixing certain great principles, there will arise cases of great and peculiar hardship under them. But I take it for granted that we are not to establish any rule from mere isolated cases. There may be exceptions of considerable importance, but they weigh nothing against the importance of the rule itself. Mr. BECKER. I hope the Convention will indulge me in one remark, merely in reply to the gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. A good deal has been said of the danger of foreigners coming in and buying up large tracts of land and holding them merely for speculation. Now, sir, the experience of every man tells us that the policy of the General Government on the subject of public lands, would prevent anything like this. The only way in which any desirable lands can be obtained in the Terrritory, 320 OONSTrIMONAL OONV1 oN. or have been obtained for the last three or four years, is by preemption. Under the policy of the pre-emption law, lands are opened to pre-emption for years before they are brought into market and exposed topublic sale. Nearly all the better portion of the lands are by these means, taken up by citizens and those who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, before they are opened for speculation. If this policy upon thepart of the General Government prevails in future, we shall have no instances such as the gentleman from Sibly, (Mr. BRowN,) yesterday feared, of foreigners coming here and taking up whole counties of our best lands for purposes of speculation. Mr. SIBLEY. I would like to ask the gentlemryi. whether he has any assurance that the policy of the General Government with reference to pre-emption, will be continued? Mr. BECKER. I am pretty certain that they will continue it. Mr. SHERBURNE. I have but a single remark to make. It seems to me that the policy recently adopted by the General Goverernent is the very thing from which we have reason to apprehend danger. Persons will come here and purchase lands by pre-emption, and we cannot prevent it. Then what is there to prevent foreigners from' coming here and purchasing lands of pre-emptors? I have known a whole county settled up within sixty days, and what is there to prevent a foreigner with large means, from going there and purchasing the whole county of the pre-emptors? I know that entire townships of land in other States, are owned by men residing in England, which are and have remained unimproved for the last half century, while the country about it has been settled up. I know of no means by which such property can be taxed higher than that owned by residents, and I shouild depricate such a policy if it could. But the effect is, that the country around is necessariiy so thinly settled, that the inhabitants suffer largely from tlie owner, ships of these non-residents. I know of a numiber of such'ni,tances and I know an instance of a man who came to this countty ard became naturalized for the purpose of securing large landed prop erty and then returned to his native country, where he remains. I would be opposed, if I could prevent it, to having large amounts of land go into the hands of individual citizens, but we can and ok,,ht to prevent it from going into the hands of non-resident foreigners. Now, sir, the only argument I have in favor of leaving so-t such a restriction, is, that it will prevent capital from abroad froi-i comin. ing into the country. Now, sir, it is true that some of s neced money, but I am not certain that because we rneed money we asre justified in adopting a great Preamble into our Constitutiol which 321 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE we hope is to last for a very long time. I hold that we should look to the future as well as the present. It may be that we may lose a few dollars which would otherwise be invested here. It may be so and it may not. I apprehend that the financial ability of our capitalists will be able to devise means by which they can obtain money from abroad without the adoption of a principle into the Constitution which would enable non-resident foreigners to become possessed of our lands. It seems to me that it is a principle which we are seeking to adopt merely for our temporary advantage, which gentlemen will regret afterwards. Mr. M. E. AMES. I will trespass upon the attention of the Con vention for only a very few moments. From the range the debate has taken, I beg leave to call the attention of the Committee to one or two points only, presented by my colleague who has just spoken and by the gentleman from Dakota, (Mr SIBLEY,) who very properly seemns to regard this matter as one of considerable interest. My candid and dignified colleague, (Mr. SHEFBURnaE,) says this is a question whether we shall open the fiel d to the whole world by a provision which we shall adopt in our Constitution, to come and take possession of the lands of our Teroitory. Well, sir, that is one mode of stateing the question. But, sir, if the opinion had not been uttered in a grave and serious manner to this Constitutional Convention, I should have thought he was talking as lawyers sometimes find themselves compelled to talk for the interests of their clients. But, sir, this opening one whole Territory for the possession of outside Barbarians, is really a novel proposition. Mr. SHERBURN-E. My proposition was merely to express my assent to the opinions of those who had manifested enough interest in our future prosperity to express their opposition to foreigners coming here with no intention of residing, purchasing and holding unimproved, our lands. Mr. M. E. AMES. Thesenrtimentiscertainlyaverylaudableone, but I call the attention of the Committee to one circumstance in which we are placed, which will have a tendency to prevent the occurrence of any disastrous consequence from any such irruption from outside Barbarians. We are supposed to have at the present time, at least 200,000 actual, bona fide residents in the Territory, most of them are located in the agricultural districts and are in the possession of more or less landed property. The lands already occupied by tlhese 200,000 settlers cover a great portion of the Territory, and the General Government, as has been suggested by my colleague oni my-left, (Mr. BECKER,) has adopted the policy, which we have every reason to suppose they will continue, of 322 CONPTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. openimug up the lands for several years to pre-emptors before they are brought into market. I venture to say, that at the present time, there is scarcely a section of land worth having in the Territory which is in the market, subject to private entry and which could be entered by an alien Then I ask my colleague, (Mr. SHERBURNE,) I ask the gentleman from Dakota, (Mr. SIBLEY,) how in the name of common sense a German prince or any foreign capitalist, is to come here andwithhis thousands andhundreds ofthousands of dollars to buy up whole townships of our domain? I apprehend the thing is entirely impracticable. Then as to their coming here and purchasing lands at second-hand of our citizens, why, Mr. CHAIRMAN, I have sufficient confidence in the shrewdness of our people to believe they would make bargains such as would enrich them to an extent that would compensate for the inconvenience we should be likely to suffer in consequence of the purchase. I concur entirely in the views expressed by my colleague, (Mr. BECKER,) and I have risen merely for the purpose of seconding his views. I will state another case. The gentleman says that the effect of failing to adopt the restriction which tho Committee have under consideration, would be to extend an invitation to foreigners to come here and purchase our lands and to hold them while they refused to take an oath of allegiance to our institutions or to re nounce their allegiance to the powers that be, in the country from which they came. And the consequences he deduces from it, is that they would obtain and hold an amount of real estate dangerous in the extreme to our prosperity. Now, Mr. CHAIRMAN, with all the respect which I entertain for my dignified friend from Dakota, and with all the'confidence which I have in his excellent jiudgment upon matters of this kind, I must confess that it stru-'( me his reasoning was not entirely new. It was the same argumuient which was very freely used in the days of the elder ADAMS. It was urged then, that there was a dangerous set of men in our midst-men who owed io allegiance to our coun try and had no sympathy with our institutions, and it was under the effect of such reasoning that the Alien Law, of which the coun try at the present day is not proud, was passed. I do not say cer tainly that his argument goes to the same extent as those which were used in support of the Alien Law, but I do say that if the gentleman will reflect, and if every member of this Convention will reflect for a moment, they willL:see that,tlle system of reason ing is precisely the same; and hence it is fthat I am surprised to hear such arguments from so distinguished a Democrat upon -the floor of this Convention. Now, Mr. CHAIRMAN, I apprehend that 21 323 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE we can have no reasonable ground for fear, or that there exists the slightest ground for fear, that we shall have so large a number of' aliens among us, the holders of real estate, as even to endanger the peace and prosperity of the State. Mr. SETZER. They have in Utah. Mr. M. E. AMES. I wo-Ld suggest to my friend from Washington, that they have some other things besides in Utah. They have some domestic institutions in Utah which we have not, and I hope to God, never shall have in Minnesota. But, sir, I object to the incorporation of such a restriction in this or any other provision of the Constitution. The principle is bad; the policy is dangerous, and I predict that if we engraft such a principle upon our institutions, making so invidious a distinction between citizens and aliens we shall find when we go before the people, it will not result to the credit of this Convention, nor in the support of our Constitution. Sir, the principle of restriction is wrong. It is one which we have procured in our American Constitutions from the common law of Great Britain, and has descended, as I said before, from the old' feudal customs of the Middle Ages. But here, in the middle of the nineteenth century, I submit that it is time we should pause before we engraft such a provision upon our institutions. I submit that it would not be creditable to us to send forth to the world a Constitution with such encumbrances engrafted upon it. It can serve no purposes of utility to us, and it would result in the grossest injustice and hardship to others. It would rob families of the property acquired by the labor of men who had neglected to take the incipient steps towards becoming citizens of the United States, and consign them to destitution and poverty. Suppose an alien comes here-and I have known of a dozen such. instances-and at once goes out and takes up his quarter-section of land and makes improvements upon it before declaring his intention to become a citizen. Now, suppose he sends for his family, and before he had declared his intention of becoming a citizen, the man dies; if this provision is to be incorporated into our Constitution, what becomes of his property? It escheats to the State of Minnesota, and the widow and orphan children are left without a dollar for their support. I could go on specifying similar instances where the grossest injustice would result from the adoption of this provision, almost ad infititum, while on the other hand, I can see no desirable protection to the other classes of community, which would be afforded by' the enuniation of such a principle. Mr. SIBLEY.. I will not detain the Committee by a further contimiance of this discussion, but I wish to say a word in reply to 324 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the gentleman who has just addressed the Committee. The gentleman seems to think I have made use of precisely the same argument which was used in advocating the Alien and Sedition Laws of the elder ADAMs, and he seems to think I am trying to secure something of the same sort for Minnesota. Mr. M. E. AMES. I said nothing of the kind. The gentleman's Democracy in Minnesota is too well established to be questioned from any source. Mr. SIBLEY. I thank the gentleman for his explanation. But, sir, I intend to reply in very few words to the particular branch of argument to which the gentleman adverted in his remarks. The gentleman pre-supposes a case in which the operation of the principle which I have advocated, would work injustice to aliens. The gentleman seems, in his zeal to protect the aliens who may acquire property in the State, to quite forget that there are rights also due to our citizens and to those foreigners who have come among us, and have taken the oath of allegiance to our country. He would allow that class of foreigners who come here simply to make money, who have no10 sympathy with us, and who will not take any oath of allegiance or declare their intention to become citizens, the same privileges with those who have left their native country and have adopted ours, who have renounced their allegiance to all foreign powers and have declared their allegiance to our country. Is that right? I care nothing about the bona fide residence. A person may become a bona fide resident in three days, or three minutes after he arrives, according to circumstances. But what I wish to do, is to make a distinction between those who come here and identify themselves with us by declaring their intention to become citizens, and those who refuse to identify themselves with us and come here for the sole purpose of speculation. Mr. CURTIS. I rise for the sole purpose of drawing the attention of the Committee to one fact, which I think has been overlooked in this discussion. The original proposition gives to foreigners who are bona fide residents, the same rights in regard to the possession and inheritance of property with citizens. Tile amendment is to require that they shall first declare their intention to become citizens before they shall enjoy that right. These are the simple questions before the Committee. It seems to me the discussion has taken a very wide range outside the questions before the Committee. MAr. GORMAN. Since the few remarks which I made yesterday upon this question, I have consulted Vatell's Laws of Nations. It treats of the laws which are common to a]] the civilized nations of 325 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIHE the Earth, and I think will settle some of the questions which have divided this Committee. He says that every nation has the right to prohibit the possession or inheritance by aliens of all lands and immovable property. But under the laws which regulate all civilized nations, we have no rgiht to prohibit foreigners from possessing and enjoying movable property-to contract debts or be contracted with, to sue and be sued. The right to sue is expressly granted under the Constitution of the United States. The right to make a will while residing in a foreign country is regulated by international treaties. But I read from Vatell Every State has the liberty of granting or refusing, to foreigners, the powers of possessing lands or other immovable property within her territory. If she grants them that privilege, all such property possessed by aliens, remains subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the country, and to the same taxes as other property of the same kind. The authority of the sovereign extends over the whole territory, and it would be absurd to except some parts of it on account of their being possessed by foreigners. If the sovereign does not permit aliens to possess immovable property, nobody has a right to complain of such prohibition, for he may have very good reasons for acting in this manner, and as foreigners cannot claim any rights in his territories, they ought not to take it amiss that he makes use of his power, and of his rights in the manner which he thinks most for the advantage of the State. And as the sovereign may refuse to foreigners the privilege of possessing immovable property, he is doubtless at liberty to forbear granting it except with certain conditions annexed. Since the foreigner still continues to be a citizen of his own country, and a member of his own nation, the property he leaves at his death in a foreign country, ought naturally to devolve to those who are his heirs, according to the laws of the State of which he is a member. But notwithstanding this general rule, his immovable effects are to be disposed of according to the laws of the country where they are situated. Now, the laws of nations gives to the foreigner the absolute right to hold personal and movable property, to sue and be sued, to contract debts and be contracted with, and therefore, the only question, which this Constitution can effect, is the question of fee in lands and of inheritance. Mr. BECKER. While my colleague is upon this subject, I will call his attention to a provision in the Enabling Act which forbids this State from any interference in the primary disposal of the soil. I would suggest that inasmuch as foreigners can purchase lands of the general government, this Convention cannot prevent them from obtaining and holding any fee in lands. Mr. GORMAN. By the laws of Congress and by our international treaties, foreigners are permitted to purchase any kind of property of the general government. Now then, the question arises whether the State, being independent and sovereign, has the right to control the possession of such property by for 326 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. eigners within its limits. By the Constitution of the United States, all powers not expressly granted by Congress, are reserved in the people of the States. Therefore the State has full power to prohibit foreigners from purchasing immovable property within'its limits of private individuals. But the laws of Congress and our international treaties permit foreigners to purchase property of the United States; therefore, we cannot prevent the lands belonging to the general government, from going into the possession of foreigners, if they acquire it of the government. But we have full power over the laws of inheritance and descent, and the only practical question before us is, what provisions we shall make in reference to the laws of inheritance and descent. This is the real question before us, if I am right; and I think I am. It is important that we should be right in respect to the pro visions which are vested in us, for the laws of Congress and the international law and our international treaties are paramount, and we should understand what they are. Mr. SIBLEY. I wish to ask the gentleman a question before he takes his seat. We, who support the amendment which has been offered, do it partly on the ground that Congress has recognized in the pre-emption law, a distinction between a foreigner who has declared his allegiance to the Constitution of the'United States, and one who has not. Will the gentleman state what were the reasons which induced Congress to make that distinction? Mr. GOiRMAN. I will reply to the gentleman before I get through. Or, perhaps, I may as well reply to him right at this point. The gentleman asks the question, upon the supposition that I disagree with him in the position which he has taken. I do not disagree with him upon this,point. The Constitution of the United States says that uniform laws upon the subject of naturalization, shall be passed. And what do they mean by it? They mean that the Constitution upon that subject shall be conformed to by persons coming from a foreign country, or they shall not become citizens. And sir, in my opinion, that compliance ought to to be made a requisite to the permission to possess and inherit immovable property. I not only think it ought to be made imperative, but I think that when Congress made the iniative step in its compliance, a requisite to the right of a foreigner to avail himself of the benefits of the pre-emption law, it was upon a great principle of public policy-it was upon a principle of equality-up on the principle of equal rights to all. It gives you, who are a native citizen, the right to avail yourself of the benefits of the pre-emption law. It gives the foreigner no more and no less. It 327 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE should give him no more, and he should not ask to have more. He has that right, But, without complying with the requirements of the laws of Congress on the subject of naturalization, whether the foreigner who acquires what may be called a bona fide residence, of three or four or twenty days, as the case may be, shall be al lowed to enjoy equal rights with citizens, in respect to the rights to possess and enjoy property and to devise it by will, is the ques tion before the Committee, as I understand it. Sir, I answer no. He should be required when he comes here either first or last, to comply with the laws on the subject of naturalization before he should be allowed to devise property by will. Does anybody believe that the foreign born population want more privileges than are given to the native born citizens? Sir, the right to come here and acquire a fee to property and to inherit it without taking any steps to become a citizen, gives to him a right superior to that possessed by native born citizens. Mr. BECKER. Does not the gentleman consider it a privilege to be a citizen? Mr. GORMAN. It is a political privilege to be a citizen. It is a political privilege to be allowed to vote, to hold office and to participate in tile affairs of government. You give him the privilege under certain regulations, and you should prescribe clearly and unequivocally iln this Constitution, what those regulations are. Otherwise, who knows but a Know Nothing Legislature may come into power and prescribe that before a foreigner shall be allowed to vote, he shall have resided in the country for twenty-one years? But, I see the point my friend is at. It is this: The right to vote is a political privilege. The right of inheritance and fee in the soil is a different thing. It does not belong to any class of political rights. Well sir, to answer the question of the gentleman directly: it has been a rule among American statesmen to regard political rights as blessings conferred upon our foreign born population. And sir, I apprehend that it is a blessing and a right which no member of this Convention would deprive him of. I apprehend that every member of this body would support the proposition that every foreign born person who has made his declaration to become a citizen of the United States, and has resided in the State for six months, or for whatever time is prescribed for American citizens, shall be entitled to all the rights and immunities that belong to our political system. But we must not confound political rights with the rights of property. His political rights are protected by the general government to a certain extent. He enjoys the protection of the flag of 328 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. our country, and he enjoys that protection from the moment when he has taken the oath of allegiance-when he has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States. That is the ground Democrats take. Now sir, shiall we permit a foreigner to come in here and refuse to recognize our government. You require Americans to do it. You required each one of' us, when we entered this hall, before we proceeded to business, to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. You required it of us as Americans'. And is it proposed that we shall place foreigners in a position, in respect to property, superior to ourselves? You, Mr. CHAIRMAN, are a citizen by birth. My colleage, (Mr. McGRORTY,) is a citizen by adoption, and yet you stand upon terms of perfect equality, and all the Democratic party say "Amen" to it. But if you allow foreigners to come here, and without even pretending that they ever intend to become citizens, without taking any of the initiative steps to become such, to enjoy the same rights in regard to the possession and inheritance of property, you place them upon a position superior to that which you assign our native or adopted citizens. Mr. M. E. AMES. How superior? Mr. GORMAN. You allow him the same rights and privileges without imposing upon him the obligations of a citizen. Mr. BECKER. Is it not a privilege to be a citizen? Mr. GORMAN. The General Government requires it in case of pre-emption. Now, will you allow a man to come here and take the oath of allegiance or not, as he pleases, and yet allow him the enjoyment of all the rights and privileges in respect to property, that you allow to citizens? I say if you allow him all these rights and privileges, he should be required,to take the oath of allegi ance. Mr. BUTLER. He ought to be put in irons until he takes the oath. Mir, GORMAN. Well, I do not think he should be. I think 6ur laws ought to induce him, by fair, persuasive, common sense reasons, to become a citizen at as early a day as possible. But, sir, I do not apprehend any very serious calamity to this country from foreigners who come and live amongst.us, who will not become citizens. They have the right to come here. Our international treaties give them the right to come here, independent of your laws, and hold, and enjoy, and possess every species of property, unless forbidden to hold real estate by the Laws of the State. Mr. BECKER. I want to ask the gentleman this one question. Learned as he is in'international law, I want to ask him, when a 329 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE foreigner comes here to our Land-Offices and purchases a quarter section of land of the General Government, whether the future State of Minnesota can deprive him from having that property de scend to his child? M1r. GORMAN. That is the precise point to which I was com ing. By our international treaties, a foreigner may come here and purchase land of the General Government. Now, sir, we do not pre tend to interfere with the primary disposal of the soil. If we come into the Union as a State, we are forbid from so interfering. I answer, therefore, we cannot prevent a foreigner from devising by will the property which he has acquired of the General Govern ment. Mr. BECKER. Then what do we want of the declaration that foreigners who may be bona fide residents shall enjoy the same rights and privileges respecting the possession and inheritance of property with citizens? Mr. GORMAN. My opinion is, that the whole thing does not amount to three rows of pins. I am willing to leave the whole subject to the Constitution of the country and our international treaties, and the laws of Congress. But if you are to go further, why not leave it to the Legislature? It is a legitimate subject of legislation. It is an act of sovereignty connected with legislation. It is mere legislation and nothing else. But if you are to put anything into the Constitution with reference to it, the question before us as I understand it, is, whether foreigners without being citizens, shall own immovable property. I say no. It is bad policy. It is unjust to our adopted citizens, to require that they shall file their declaration in cases of pre-emption, and yet without making that declaration, enjoy all the rights and privileges respecting property under the State Government, with adopted citizens. Mr.. SIBLEY. There is another duty which we impose upon those who have made their declaration to become citizens, which the gentleman has overlooked. By our military organization, these foreigners are required to bear arms and perform mrilitary service. Mr. M. E. AMES. And are allowed corresponding additional rights and privileges. Mfr. GORMAN. I want our friends to bear in mind this distinction, for it is an important one: This is in no sense a political question. The subject of political rights we are all agreed upon. It is simply a question affecting the rights of foreigners to hold real estate property, and leave it to their children or heirs. The honorable gentleman from Washington, (Mr. SETZnR,) has an amendment respecting the subject of inheritance, which, under the 330 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. circumstances, I think it would be well to adopt. The question suggested by the gentleman from Dakota, (Mr. SIBLEY,) is one of importance. This is a Government founded for the protection and benefit of the people. When a foreigner takes the oath of intention, we can then compel him to bear arms, to fight our battles for us, and to do divers other things which we cannot impose upon a resident who has not taken that oath. Let me make one other suggestion, and I will close. Supposing the Legislature should provide that every free white inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in the State for twelve months, shall have the right to vote. The State has the right to say who shall be the voters —and suppose that provision should be made, for such a thing would be very possible in the political chances-you might have seven or eight thousand Mormons coming here to vote, or Scotch Covenanters if you please, who refuse to take the oath of allegiance, as a body of seven or eight hundred of them did in my county in Indiana, under an express prohibition of their Church, on the ground that the United States had made a covenant with Death, in tolerating Slavery. Why, sir, I should have been beaten seven years in succession for the Legislature, if this body of men had been allowed to vote. But I will tell you what they did there and what they will do here if you allow them. They will come here in large numbers. They will colonize in your State, and they will spend more money and more time in the cause of Abolitionism and no more union with Slaveholders, than you could well imagine. They will preach in their pulpits and they will talk on the streets, by night and by day, and in every prayer they make they will call down God's denunciation upon the whole Catholic Church. This is the last Amen to their prayers. I confess I have a prejudice against them. They are all Know-Nothings, every man of them. Yes, sir, that portion of our foreign-born population are the rankest Know-Nothings that the Lord Almighty ever permitted to live upon this earth. They do not love your country nor your institutions. It may be prejudiee, but that is my opinion of them. Now sir, when I have said that I am in favor of giving all foreigners who will identify themselves with us equal privileges with ourselves, I have said all I am going to say. But when foreigners ask me to give them more rights than our native-born citizens, I will not do it. Upon the last point, I have a little prejudice, I am free to confess it. But I will not detain the Committee. Mr. MURRAY. I should like to ask my colleague a question. I should like to know whether he is for or against the proposed amendment? 331 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. GORMAN. I acknowledge to my colleague, upon my word and honor, that I do not know what the amendment is. I did not know there was one pending. (Great laughter.) I am against this Section as it reads, and it is upon the Section that I have been speaking. Mr. MURRAY. I hope the amendment will be read. The amendment was read. Mr. GORMAN. If compelled to choose between two evils, I should choose the amendment. If the Section is to be retained, then I am for the amendment. Mr. BROWN. I am opposed to the amendment. I hope the gen tleman will understand that before I commence, and I am opposed to the whole Section. I think the Section is sufficiently objection able as it stands, but would be more so with that amendment. By a clause in the Constitution we acknowledge the right of the Gen eral Government to the primary disposal of the soil. By a law of Congress, every person of foreign birth who has declared his inten tion to become a citizen, has the right to purchase the soil of the Government under the pre-emption law, and he has the right to pur chase land subject to private entry at a dollar and a quarter an acre, whether he has filed his declaration or not. Now, in my judgment, the simple question before this Convention connected with this Section, is whether we shall make a distinction between our foreign and native born citizens. It is not whether we are go ing to allow capitalists from Europe to come here and purchase lands. It is not whether we shall allow a foreign prince or million aire to come here and purchase up large tracts of land which we want to leave in the hands of actual settlers. That is not the question in controversy, though such has been stated to be the fact. It is simply a question whether we shall make a distinction in the Bill of Rights forming a portion of this Constitution, between our native and foreign-born citizens of this State? Now, it is well known that unless prohibited, foreigners can possess and enjoy, and devise by will, real estate in this State. If we do not prohibit it, then we say they shall have it, for we have said in the second Section of this Declaration of Rights that: No member of this State shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges, secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. The term "citizen" I presume may apply to voters. But if we have said in another section that all citizens of the United States shall be upon the same basis, what is the necessity for repeating it here? As I have said, I am opposed to the amendment and opposed to the whole Section. Its adoption would be very muchlike 332 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. saying in the Bill of Rights that every foreigner might eat his dinner at 12 o'clock. Sir, do not foreigners already possess these rights which you propose to bestow upon them in this Section? Do not they already possess the right of possession and enjoyment and inheritance of property? And if they did not, has it not already been conferred upon them in a Section already passed? Then why, I repeat, is it necessary to adopt this Section unless it is intended to make a distinction between foreign and native-born citizens. I say that is the question, and the only question really before the Convention. Mr. SIIERBURNE. I have but a single remark in reply to the gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BROWN.) The question is not one of distinction between native and foreign-born citizens, but it is a question as to who shall be allowed to hold real estate. I am in favor of no distinction between citizens. But, sir, we impose certain obligations upon those who are citizens. They form our domestic police. They are liable to be called out to perform military duty, and in return we allow them to hold real estate. There is no distinction among citizens, but I am opposed to allowing foreigners the privileges of citizens if they are not required to perform the obligations of citizens. Mir. BAKER. Shall we prohibit the property of a foreigner from going to his heirs? Mr. SHERBURNE. I have made ino uchi remark. I believe the gentleman from Dakota did say something of that kind, but it did not come from me, and is not in accordance with my opinions. Mr. SIBLEY. May I ask what the remark of the gentleman from Dakota was? Mr. SHtERBURNE. I understood the gentleman-and I really hope I did not understand him correctly-to say that foreigners purchasing lands of the General Government, if they had not de clared their intention to become citizens, ought not to be allowed to transmit their property to their heirs. My own opinion is, that there should be no difference in the descent of property rightfully obtained, between foreigners and citizens. Mr. SIBLEY. I wish not to be misunderstood in this matter. I merely stated the general proposition, that the State had the right to regulate the Law of Descent, but I said nothing in reference to what that law should be. I did not go into particulars, because whenever a law is framed upon this subject it should be very precise in its details, so as not to do injustice to any class of individuals. Mr. NAStH moved to amend the amendment by adding the fol lowing thereto: 333 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE PROVIDE), however, that nothing in this section shall be so construed as to: invalidate the descent of property in possession of any actual settler of this State, at the time of his death. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I am so unfortunate in respect to a seat, that I seldom succeed in being recognized by the CHAIRMAN, until nearly every one else has spoken, and I am therefore compelled, when I do obtain the floor, to detain the Convention at inopportune mo ments. Mr. CHAIRMAN, I have listened in the hope that something would be said by some one, showing some reason for the adoption of either the original section or the amendment, but I have listen ed in vain. I had intended, if I could have obtained the floor earlier in the session, to have spoken somewhat at length upon this question, but I will not now detain the Committee for but a moment. It seems to me that the whole matter connected with this section is one with which we have no right to interfere at all. I shall, therefore, vote both against the section and the amendment. I said yesterday that I was in favor of the section without the amendment, but I had not then weighed it carefully. It reads, Foreigners who are, or who may hereafter become bona fide residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property, as natural-born citizens. I did not notice at that time, the words, "bona fide residents of this State." If there is to be a distinction made at all, it should be in favor of the amendment, because when a man comes amongst us, and refuses to take the oath of allegiance-refuses to make the declaration of his intention to become a citizen, I am afraid of that man. I say that if any class of foreigners are to be excluded from the right to hold property, it should be those who come to reside amongst us, and who have not love enough for our institutions to take the initiative steps for becoming citizens. But I take the ground that we have no right to exclude aliens from the right to hold real estate at all. No new State, to my knowledge, has ever constitutionally done it. Why, sir, how does such a provision look in here? We, in the first instance, pass a law accepting the proposition of the Enabling Act, that we will never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil. Sir, with this provision before us, gentlemen can hardly be serious in the propositions which are now under consideration. If you undertake to prevent the descent of property belonging to a certain class of persons who have purchased their property of the Government, do you not interfere with the primary disposal of the soil? Certainly you do. 334 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The question has been very well stated by my colleague, (Mr. GORMAN,) only he did not go far enough, by saying that it resolved itself into merely a question of inheritance. He has told you what is the law with regard to personal property. My recollection of the law with regard to real estate is, that it follows the law of the State or Territory in which it is located. Now, we can pass a general law of inheritance, prescribing what shall be the law of descent in Minnesota, but it must be a general law applicable to all. If an alien holds property by virtue of the laws of the United States, secured to him by our contract with the United States, when we accept the provisions they tender to us, his heirs have the same right as the heirs of citizens of this country. We have no right to interfere to make any distinction in the application of the laws to aliens and to citizens, because any such distinction would be a violation of our contract, not to interfere with the primary disposal of the soil. We cannot make any law requiring special rules to be applied to aliens, without doing great injustice, or without a violation of solemn obligations, entered into with the United States. It is true that non-resident land-holders are the bane of our Territory, but does it make any difference, whether the man who owns the quarter section opposite your farm, and reaps the benefits of your improvements, resides in England or New York? Not a whit. You cannot make a distinction. The evil you complain of, applies as well to the non-resident who lives in the United States, as one who lives in a foreign country. I consider that the United States laws and the Enabling Act, cover the whole ground, and that we should be doing a very foolish thing to place in this Constitution any such provision as is contained in this section, even as it is proposed to amend it. Now, sir, gentlemen talk about extending privileges to aliens, in distinction from thosu who are residents, and the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. GORMAN,) spoke of imposing the obligations of naturalization as if it were a hardship which foreign-born citizens were compelled to endure. Sir, I very much mistake my fellow citizens of foreign birth, if they do not deem it a privilege to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. Do they take such an oath because they are required to do it? Do they not seek it? I say again, that it should never be spoken of, and never can be truly spoken of, as an obligation imposed upon them. It is a privi lege extended to them, and so they regard it. I do not understand what gentlemen mean when they talk about extending privileges to aliens, in respect to the enjoyment and inheritance of property. 335 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE It is already their right, and when you seek to deprive them and their heirs of their property, and make it escheat to the State, you seek to deprive them of their right. They ask you to extend no privileges to them. The question is, how can you strip them of their property and their heirs of it, when they die? That is the only question before this Committee. An alien comes here with barely money enough to carry him across the ocean: he takes up a quarter-section of land under the Pre-emption Law-he labors hard to pay for it, to provide a home for his wife and children: he dies of the hardships he has undergone for their benefit;- and I ask if any man in this Convention would deprive that wife and children of the property which has been thus ac quired? Yet this is the protection which gentlemen propose to extend to the aliens who come amongst us. If they die before they have taken the necessary steps towards becoming citizens their property escheats to the State, and their families are left penniless. Sir, there are hundreds, and, I dare say, thousands of foreigners situated just in this way; and it would be, in stead of a protection, the grossest injustice to them to establish any such principle as gentlemen have advocated on this floor to' day. But, we are told that our foreign-born citizens desire it. I am sorry to hear it. I do not think there is any necessity for their manifesting their devotion to our Government and institutions by any such sacrifice. We do not ask any such proofs of their de votion. They are citizens amongst us, and they should not wish to apply any harder rule to their children and relatives whom they leave behind than is applied to those who have come with them. There is neither justice nor common sense in it; and I hope no such provision will be incorporated into this Constitution. Mr. SIBLEY. At the risk of being considered unnecessarily teina cious in this matter, I, for one, do not choose to listen to the imputations which have been cast upon those who hold the same views with myself: as if there were some portion of this Convention who were sitting here with a fixed purpose of devising some plan by which the relations of aliens who may choose to come to this country may be despoiled of their possessions. Now, sir, I for one do not choose to listen to any such language in silence, coming from any quarter in this Hall. I say that no gentleman has the right to cast any such imputations upon the motives of any portion of this body. A portion of the members of this Convention have taken the position that a distinction should be made between foreign-born residents who have taken the oath of allegiance and those who have not. But, while we have felt it our duty to take this position, we have 336 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. at the same time, expressed our wish not to do injustice to any one. But, sir, the gentleman from Ramsey (Mr. EMMETT) rises in his place, and seems to think he monopolizes all the common sense in this Convention. Mr. EMMETT. The gentleman does me injustice, as well as himself. I charged no such views or motives as the gentleman imputes to me. I merely said the effect of the position taken by the gentleman would be such as I described. I made no imputation against the gentleman's motives. Mr. SIBLEY. I certainly did not intend to misrepresent the gentleman, and I am glad hlie corrected me; but I also understood him to say there was neither justice or common sense in the proposition before this Convention. Now, sir, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I do not choose to be misrepresented before this Convention and the country. This is a proposition which has been adopted into the Constitutions of many of the States, and has been considered by the statesmen there who have advocated it as containing both justice and common sense. I say, (againi that I would be the last man on this floor to do injustice to any portion of the people who may reside in Minnesota. But, sir, I have maintained, and I now urge upon this Convention, that the distinction which is made in this amendment is one which justice to our foreign born citizens requires. It is a distinction which is due as a matter of justice to those who have taken the oath of allegiance to our country and its institutions; and when the gentleman imputes a want of common sense in the arguments of those who have advocated this position, I think he is discourteous towards us. Mr. EMMETT. I will say that in the use of the words "common "sense" I certainly meant no discourtesy to the gentleman from Dakota, or to any gentleman upon this floor. I merely drew my own conclusions, as I have the right to do, without being discourteous to any one. Mr. SIBLEY. I am glad the gentleman has disclaimed any discourtesy, for I certainly understood him to use the language I have quoted. Mr. EMMETT. I believe I said there was neither reason nor common sense in the proposition. I meant no discourtesy, and if the gentleman takes exceptions to the language I will withdraw it. Mr. MURRAY. I move the Conmmittee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion' was disagreed to. Mr. GORMAN. I must ask the indulgence of the Committee for 33T PROCEEDING$ AND DEBATES OF THE two or three minutes. I understood my friend from Ramsey who has just spoken, to say that he was for the amendment. Mr. EMMETT. I said, if there must be any distinction made I was for the amendment. Mr. GORMAN. Now, Mr. CHAIMAN, I want gentlemen in this Hall to hear what I am about to say: for I do it for a particular reason, which I cannot tell just here. I say then, first, that the foreigner has the right under international law to come here and to become possessed of'property personal and real when the title is acquired from the United States, and of personal property which is acquired of individuals. He has the right, secondly, to sue and be sued, the same as a citizen. He enjoys these rights indepen dent of any rule which we can establish. All we can do is, to make some rule relative to inheritance. Mr. SIBLEY. I ask the gentleman if the Section may not go further, and prohibit the transfer of property during the natural life of the owner? Mr. MURRAY. If I understand it, foreigners may purchase property here under Statute law. That right is not acquired under international law. Mr, GORMAN. He has the right bylaws with which this State cannot interfere. He already possesses every right which this Section confers, except, perhaps, in reference to inheritance. That is regulated by our own Statutes. Mr. MURRAY. If the gentleman will permit me, I will just state the reasons which induced the Committee which had charge of this subject to insert the provision into this Article. They thought the time might possibly come in the future when the Know Nothings might have control over the Legislature, and it was thought wise to have a provision contained in the Constitution which should protect our foreign born residents in their property. Mr. EMMETT. It is protected by international law, and by our contract with the general Government. Mr. MURRAY. I believe each State has the right to make its own laws regulating property within that State. Mr. GORMAN. This is the law of nations on that subject. I "read again from VATELL: Since a foreigner still continues to be a citizen of his own country and a mem:ber of his own nation, the property he leaves at his death in a foreign country, ought naturally to devolve to those who are his heirs, according to the laws of the State of which he is a member. But, notwithstanding this general rule, his immovable effects are to be disposed of according to the laws of the country where they are stiuated. That is unquestionably the law, and now it is for us to deter 338 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. mine in our own minds whether we have the power in this Convention to make any regulations on the subject. It is for us to consider whether the Constitution and laws of the United States do not regulate the whole question. So far as the purchase of property from private individuals is concerned, that is another question. But what restrictions can we place upon the right to hold immovable property? I think it is a question which we may very well leave for the Legislature to provide for. I do not think it had better be decided by this body. I move that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. MURRAY. I more that the Committee rise and report back the Article to the Committee without amendment. The motion was disagreed to. The question was taken upon Mr. SWAN'S amendment, and it was decided in the negative. Mr. McGRORTY offered the following substitute for Section 12: Szc. 12. Foreigners who have, or who may hereafter, declare their intentions to become citizens of the United States in conformity with the naturalization laws of the United States, and every such person residing in this State, or who may hereafter come into it while a minor, shall enjoy the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property as native born citizens. Mr. SETZER offered the following amendment to the substitute: Sec. 12. The laws of descent and inheritance in this State shall not apply to the real estate held by aliens, who shall not have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, but all such real estate shall escheat to the State. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. STACEY moved that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was disagreed to. Mr. BROWN. I do not believe the amendment is in order, but as it is in order upon the same principle on which the last amendment was received, I move the following as an amendment to the substitute: "All bona fide residents of this State shall enjoy the same and equal rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment, inheritance, transfer and descent of property in this State." The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to. The question recurring on Mr. McGRonrTY's substitute, it was rejected. Mr. BAASEN offered the following substitute for Sec. 12: SEc. 12. Aliens shall enjoy in this State the same rights in respect to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property as native born citizens. 22 339 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Which substitute was not adopted. Mr. A. E. AMES moved the following as a substitute for Sec tion 12: No hereditary emoluments, privileges or honors shall ever be granted or conferred in this State. Mr. MEEKER. As I believe the Constitution of the United States has not been repealed by this Committee, I shall vote against the amendment as unnecessary. Mr. GORMAN. I would suggest that the amendment may be found in the Constitution of the State of Ohio. Mr. A. E. AMES. The amendment is not exactly relevant to the Section under consideration, but as in my opinion it ought to be embodied in the Constitution somewhere, and as I am opposed in toto to the Section as it stands, I hope the amendment will be inserted in its place. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU moved to substitute the following for Sec tion 12: SEC, 12. No alien who shall knot have declared his intentions to become a citizen of the United States, according to the naturalization laws, shall be capable of holding the fee of any lands within this State by inheritance. Mr. BECKER moved that the Committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. The motion was disagreed to. Mr. FLANDRAU. It seems to be the desire of the Convention on all sides, that aliens who reside abroad or aliens who reside here, but who have not declared their intention to reside in the country permanently, or to become citizens of the United States, should not have the right of holding the fee of real estate in our State. Mr. MURRAY. The gentleman from Nicollet may have mistaken the inheritance for purchase of lands, in his amendment. Mr. FLANDRAU. No, sir, I have made no such mistake. If foreigners choose to come here and purchase lands of the general Government, we cannot prevent them. But if it is desirable to prevent them from holding land in the States, the only way in which we can reach the object, is to prevent them from holding it by inheritance. We cannot prevent them from purchasing it and holding it during their natural lives, without interfering with the contract which we make with the general Government not to infere with the primary disposal of the soil. Mr. EMMETT. Is it not an interference with the primary disposal of the soil to prevent the title from descending by inheritance? 340 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. FLANDRAU. I think not. They may purchase as much :land as they please from the Government. We cannot prevent that. They may purchase and enjoy property among us the same -,as if they were citizens, during their lives, but if they fail to dispose of it during their lives, let it escheat for the benefit of the State. Mr. EMMETT. Thus the patent given by the Government only extends for a certain number of years. Mr. FLANDRAU. No, sir, the foreigner may purchase the absolute fee of the land. He may dispose of it in any manner and to any person he may see proper during his life, and he may transmit it to his posterity for all future time, or to his heirs, if they are residents and citizens of this country, but the amendment is to prevent land from descending through a succession of generations of aliens. Now, sir, I say that this amendment will accomplish all that we can accomplish in this matter. It is the wish of Qur native born citizens and foreign born citizens that the lands within the Statd should be in the possession of persons who reside amongst us and who are identical with us; and I know ol no means by which that object can be more effectually accomplished, than by the adoption of such a provision as this. Mr. MEEKER. The effect of the amendment, if it could be carred out, would be to make the fee to property a mere life estate. It would be to narrow down what purports, to be the absolute -grant of land by the Government to a mere life estate. Does any man suppose we can do that? Does any man suppose that when the general Government gives the fee of land to an individual, that it will not protect him in his right to dispose of it in his life time, and to transmit it t(, his children and to his children's children to the third aimd fouiirt. generation? The proposition contained in the amendment is simply impracticable. Mr. CURTIS. As far as the effect of the substitute is concerned, it is simply a motion to strike out the word "heirs" in the patent which is given by the United States Government to aliens. The substitute was not agreed to. Mr. BROWN moved that the Section as reported by the Comn mittee, be stricken out. The motion was agreed to. On motion of Mr. EMMETT, the Couimittee here rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. 341 .1. ..1.... I... 4.,.. PROCEEDINGS AD DEBATES OF THE ENGROSSED ARTICLES. Mr. AMES, from the Committee on Enrollment, made the following report: Your Committee on Enrollment report, as correctly Engrossed, the following named Articles, to wit: Distributing of the Powers of Government. On the Militia. Corporations having no Banking Privileges. A. E. AMES, J. H. SWAN, Committee. C. P. BUTLER, On motion of Mr. BROWN, the Engrossed Articles were referred to the Committee on Revision and Phraseology. On motion of Mr. KEEGAN, the Convention at one o'clock, adjourned until 221 o'clock P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met at half past 2 o'clock. The PRESIDENT appointed Messrs. KENNEDY, TUTTLE and STURGIS as the Auditing Committee authorized under the resolution of yesterday. BILL OF RIGHTS. On motion of Mr. STACEY, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. HOLCOMBE in the Chair, and resumed the consideration -of the report of the Committee on the Bill of Rights. Mr. SWAN moved to strike out all after the word "peace" in the following Section: 15th. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, in any civil action on mesne or final process, unless in case of fraud, and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace. A reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability incurred, and the amount of such exemption shall be determined by law. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. GORMAN. I move to amend the same Section by inserting after the word "fraud" the words "of which he shall have been duly convicted." Mr. MEEKER. I would enquire whether that would not imply a criminal prosecution? Mr. GORMAN. If a man is to be imprisoned for fraud, it ought to be on a criminal prosecution. I think the amendment is an im 342 7:'i. I..1 I CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. portant one. I do not want any provision to remain in this Constitution under which a man who bears ill will towards another, merely by charging him with fraud, of which he may be innocent, to have him arrested and imprisoned. If we are to imprison men for fraud, it should not be done, in this enlightened age, until the party shall have been found guilty. Mr. MEEKER. I hope the motion will not prevail. I think a man ought to be imprisoned for contracting debt by means of fraud as the man who takes my property by theft or robbery. I know of no distinction which should be made. Mr. BROWN. I ask the gentleman whether he would allow a man to be hung for murder before he had been convicted? Mr. MEEKER. Conviction, I believe, generally precedes hanging. But this has no reference to any criminal proceedings. The Section reads: No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action, on mesne or final process, unless in case of fraud. Now, sir, there is hardly a State in the Union which has not laws against embezzlement, against defrauding the public Treasury, and against obtaining money under false pretences, or contracting debts under false pretences. Where there is a prima facie case of fraud made out, it is the duty of the prosecuting officers to proceed at once against the offender. Now, I am unwilling to have the Legislature of Minnesota trammelled in its efforts to suppress fraud, by any such Constitutional provision as the gentleman from Ramsey proposes to insert, and I hope the amendment will not prevail. Mr. STACEY. If it would be in order, I should like to offer a substitute for the amendment, by striking out the words, "unless "in case of fraud." Mr. GORMAN. I do not believe the Convention will put in that word..If you are going to abolish imprisonment for debt, do it, and do not "whip the devil round the stump." The question has been discussed a thousand times over, land I do not wish to detain the Convention with it. The Section punishes a man before con viction. Mr. MEEKER. I would inquire, whether the words, "final pro cess," do not imply conviction. Mr. GORMAN. No sir, they do not. You can give it no such construction. Fraud must be made a misdemeanor before the party ean be imprisoned for its commission. But here you propose to put a man in Jail in the first place, and then try him afterwards. In most of our Western States, a regular jury trial is provided for 343 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE cases of fraud, Has he fraudulenly concealed his property? Ias; he committed a fraud upon his creditors by withholding the truth, by the suggestion of falsehood; or has he committed a fraud by misrepresenting the value of his property, and his ability to pay. If he has, and you can convict him of it, he may be imprisoned after conviction has taken place. But the language of this Section is, that he "shall not be im "prisoned on mesne or final process." The final process against a man sued for debt is after the trial, and the judgment only extends to the levy and sale of his property, unless the laws of the State allow his body to answer the debt. Now, if you are going to al low his body to answer the debt upon any process, by putting him in prison, then say so, and do not have it in the power of the Le gislature to give that construction when that is not your professed object: If you wish to make cases of fraud an exception, then provide that he may be imprisoned for fraud upon due conviction, and do not leave the courts the power to imprison a man upon a mere preliminary or expcarte hearing, or perhaps upon a mere exparte affidavit of a person actuated by caprice or ill will, to put a man in Jail. iA mere prejudice perhaps, growing out of a thousand things, may induce a man without conscience, to imprison one of our fellow citizens whose only crime is poverty. Sir, I say again that if you are going to establish the right of imprisonment for debt, say so, and your Constitution may "bid farewell to every "fear, and wipe its weeping eyes," before the people. Mr. BROWN. The gentleman seems to think there is some per son here present, who is in favor of imprisonment for debt. Mr. GORMAN. How happened you to think that? Mr. BROWN. I could not come to any other conclusion from the gentleman's remarks: I merely want to say that I don't think there is any member of this Convention who would for a moment, sanction any such proposition. The only question is whether a man shall be imprisoned for fraudulent transactions. Mr. MEEKER. I am as much opposed to imprisonment for debt, as the gentleman from Saint Paul, (Mr. GORMAN). I look upon it as a relic of barbarism which should not be tolerated in this enlightened age. But sir, there is an offence against good morals and common right, which is greater in my judgment, than the mere commission of violence. A man who has committed a fraud upon his fellow man, ought in my opinion to be arrested as soon as the fraud is discovered, and held vi et armis until satisfaction is rendered. I am in favor of the Section just as it stands. I do not want to encourage rogues to come here, and if they should happen 344: CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION'. to grow up spontaneously upon our own soil, I want the means to get at them. I do not want to allow a man to escape from his liabilities, by saying, "I have nothing," when his pockets are distended with your means or mine. Mr. EMMETT. I ask the mover of the amendment, how he expects to convict a man of fraud? Mr. GORMAN. Upon trial. Mr. EMMETT. I am opposed to this amendment for several reasons which occur to my mind. I am as much opposed to imprisonment for debt as any man on this floor. I think it is a barbarous custom, handed down from the dark ages. But I think we should provide effectual means for the punishment of fraud. We ought to be able to hold in prison, the defendant who we have reason to believe intends to escape from justice. Every one who has had any experience in the practice of the law in this Territory, knows the difficulties under which we labor from our own laws as they now exist. But my collegue, (Mr. GORMAN,) says, that under this Section a man may be arrested and imprisoned before he has been tried. I can only say in reply, that he would be placed in the same situation with any other man charged with crime. He may obtain security and be released on bail. There is a hardship in imprisoning any man charged with crime before he is convicted, but there is a necessity for it, and so there is in this case. If a party is charged with fraud in contracting a debt, there is no more hardship in requiring him, if he cannot get security, to be imprisoned, than if he had committed a crime. I hold that any man who will commit fraud in contracting-or evading a debt, ought to answer for it with imprisonment. I know no difference between being defrauded of a thousand dollars, and being robbed of the same amount. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. KINGSBURY moved to amend by striking out the first clause of the Section, and inserting in lieu thereof: No person shall1 be imprisoned for debt in this State. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WAIT moved to amend the 15th Section, by striking it out. Mr. BAKER. I have a little personal interest in that. I do not want a sentence passed upon me before I am tried. LLaughter.j Mr. MEEKER. I hope the gentleman will be heard before he is executed. [Renewed Laugter.J The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. SWAN moved to amend Section 15, by adding thereto the following: 345 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE "Provided this shall not prevent the seizure of property for the purchase money thereof." Mr. FLANDRAU. If we desire that there shall always be an exemption in favor of the sovereign people, it is certainly proper that something more specific should be put in the Constitution, than this amendment would provide for. If we require that a reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure for debt, we should make provision for the Legislature to carry out the purpose. I think the debts for the purchase of such necessary articles as the Legislature may exempt from seizure, should not be made exceptions to other debts mentioned in this provision. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I move to amend the Section further by inserting after the word "State," in the first clause, the words, "unless in case of fraud," so that the clause would read: No person shall be imprisoned for debt in this State, unless in case of fraud. Mr. GORMAN. These words have just been stricken out. I suppose the amendment is not in order. The CHAIRMAN. They were stricken out in connection with others. The amendment is in order. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. EMMET moved to amend Section 16, by adding thereto the words, "first paid or secured." The Section as amended would read Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefor first paid or secured. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved to amend by striking out, "fifteen," and inserting "twenty-one," in the following Section: 18th. All lands, within this State are declared to be allodial and feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural land, for a longer period than fifteen years, hereafter made, in which shall be reserved any rent or service of any kind, shall be void. Mr. FLANDRAU. I move to amend the amendment by inserting "thirty-two." This restriction of leases of agricultural lands, I think is detrimental to the agricultural development of the country, if confined to too short a period. In the State of New York it was confined to 12 years, and leases were found to be wholly worth less for that time. The lessee would not consider it worth his while to make the necessary improvements on the land for that length of time. The old custom of granting leases for ninety-nine years, was a bad one. They should be limited, but I think they should be limited to the average lifetime of a generation. 346 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. BROWN. I think the section is exactly right as it stands. By reading it, gentlemen will see that the restriction is in cases where service is reserved. Where there is no service reserved, you may make the lease as long as you choose. Mr. FLANDRAU. The idea of making the restriction at all, is to get rid of these interminable leases of ninety-nine years or nine hundred and ninety-nine years, where the party cannot get a title for several generations, and the lesee is compelled to pay rent from generation to generation. But if you restrict it to fifteen or twenty-one years, you make it of so short a duration that the party will not make improvements on the land, and it is consequently disadvantageous to the agricultural interests of the country. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. SWAN moved to strike out the latter clause of the section. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BAKER moved to amend the following section: 19th. All lands within this State, the title to which shall fail from defect of heirs shall revert or escheat to th~ people. By adding thereto, "for the use of the University of Minnesota." Mr. A. E. AMES moved to amend the amendment by inserting "for the use of the Public Schools." Mr. BECKER. I would suggest to the gentleman that it should read "escheat to the State for the use of the public Schools." Mr. A. E. AMES. I will modify the amendment as the gentleman suggests. The amendment to the' amendment was agreed to, and the amendment as amended adopted. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to insert the following as an additional section SEC. 20. No hereditary emoluments, honors, or privileges, shall ever be granted or conferred by this State. The amendment was not adopted. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to insert the following as an additional section: SBac. 21. Any citizen of this State who may hereafter be engaged, either directly or indirectly in a duel, either as principal or accessory before the fact, shall forever be disqualified from holding any office under the Constitution and laws of this State. Mr. BECKER. I would suggest that the gentleman add after the word "duel," assault and battery or fist fight. [Laughter.] The motion was not adopted. Mr. MURRAY moved the following as an additional section: 347 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE SEC. No distinction shall ever be made by law between resident aliens and citizens, in reference to the enjoyment or descent of property. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. McGRORTY offered the following as an additional section: SEc. No alien shall have the right to hold or transfer property until he has first declared his intentions to become a citizen of the Uuited States, agreeably to the laws on the subject of naturalization. Mr. SIBLEY moved to amend the section by adding after the word "naturalization" the words "except so far as such right is "'guaranteed to him by the Constitution and laws of the United "States." The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was then rejected. .,r. M. E. AMES offered the following additional section, to be called section twelve Sec. 12. All actually residents of this State shall, at all times, have and enjoy equal and uniform rights in respect to the possession, inheritance and descent of real property. Mir. McGRORTY moved to amend the section by striking out the word "resident" and insert "citizen" in lieu thereof. Which motion did not prevail. Mr. MI. E. AMES' amendment was not adopted. MNlr. CURTIS moved to insert the following as an additional sec tion. SEC. All persons resident within this State shall enjoy equal rights in reference to the descent of property. Which motion did not prevail. On motion of Mr. -N. E. AMES, the Committee rose, reported back the article to the Convention with amendments, and asked concurrence of the Convention in the report and amendments. The amendment to the Preamble was then concurred in. The question now being on adopting the substitute for section three, and the yeas and nays being called for and ordered, there were yeas 38, nays none. Yeas-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Baker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Baasen, Curtis, Chase, Day, Emmett, Faber, Flandrau, Gilbert, Gorman, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Lashelle, Murray, McGrorty, lvlcMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Sanderson, Sherburne, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Taylor, Tuttle, Wait, and Mr. President. So the substitute was adopted. The amendment to section seven was then concurred in. The question recurring on striking out section twelve, on motion of Mr. GORMAN, the previous question was ordered, whereupon the recommendation to strike out section twelve was concurred in. 348 OONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The question next being on concurring in the amendment to section fifteen, Mr. GORMAN moved to insert after the word "frauds" in said amendment, the words "of which he shall have been duly convicted." And the yeas and nays being called for and ordered, there were yeas 21, nays 16. So the amendment was adopted. Mr. EMMETT. I move further to amend by inserting after the word "debt" the words "or crime." If a man cannot be'imprisoned for fraud until after he shall have been convicted, I see no reason why he should be imprisoned for crime until after hlie shall have been convicted. Mr. GORMAN. I move the previous question on the amendment. The previous question was ordered. The amendment was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. BECKER, a call of the Convention was ordered. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, the report of the Committee was laid on the table until to-morrow. REPORTS ORDERED TO BE PRINTED. Mr. BUTLER offerred the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the Secretary order 100 copies of the reports of the various Committees, as amended and adopted by the Convention up to this date, printed for the use of the Convention. Which resolution was adopted. Mr. KINGSBURY moved that the Convention resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the report of the Committee on Amendments to the Constitution. Pending which, on motion of Mr. BROWN, at ten minutes before 5 o'clock the Convention adjourned. TWENTY-THIRD DAY. SATURDAY, August 8, 1857. The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read, corrected and approved. 349 PROCEEDINGS AID DEBATES OF THE LIMITATATION OF DEBATE IN COMMITTEE. Mr. WAIT offered the following resolution, which was considsidered and adopted. RESOLVED, That hereafter no member in Committee of the Whole shall speak more than once on the same subject, nor longer than ten minutes at one time. COMMITTEE ON COMPROMISE. Mr. SHERBURNE offered the following preamble and resolution: WHEREAS, The persons who were elected by the people of this Territory to represent them in a Constitutional Convention, having met at this Capitol on the day appointed by law for such meeting, and having disagreed upon some immaterial questions which arose in the course of forming a temporary organization, separated and formed two distinct conventions, in numbers nearly equal, and are now forming two separate and distinct Constitutions, to be presented to the people; and, WHEREAS, Proceedings so extraordinary in their character will have a tendency to injure the reputation of our people-to lessen the confidence of the other States in our integrity, stability and position, and place us in a false position before the world: therefore, RESOLVED, That a Committee of five be appointed by the President of this Convention to confer with a Committee of an equal number (if appointed) of the duly elected members of that portion of them who are acting separately from us; and that it shall be the duty of such Committee to consider and agree upon, if practicable, and report some plan by which the two bodies can unite upon a single Constitution to be submitted to the people. Mr. SHERBURNE. It is perhaps due to me and to this Convention to state that this resolution has been presented without consultation with any of its members, and that if it is wrong in principle or in practice, I alone am responsible for it. The situation which we now hold in both ends of the Capitol, and also the effect it is having upon the people of the Territory and the States, is, I suppose well understood by the members of this body. It is unfavorable to us, not as a party but as a State or Territory; and I think that it is extremely desirable for us, as far as we can, to take some measures to disabuse the public mind-not at home, where we know the facts, but in the States abroad, as to the real position we occupy. It is not true, Mr. PRESIDENT, that we are in a state of anarchy. It is not true that there is ill feeling or ill blood between the members of the respective Conventions: nothing-but a feeling of kindness exists. Every one deprecates the position in which we find ourselves. Every man I meet in the street uses the same language. And this feeling is not confined to the Territory; men in the East who are doing business here-men who are interested in our welfare, and who have the means of knowing the public sentiment from day to day, tell us that the people misunderstand the 350 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIO0N. position in which we are placed, and that it is necessary, for the purpose of making ourselves understood, that we should adopt some measure by which we should show to the world that we are men and not children, and that we can meet together according to parliamentary usage. It is for this purpose that I have introduced the resolution. I have offered it in this body because I think we are right. I so stated in the outset, and I think the facts will show that we are legally the Constitutional Convention. We can therefore afford to be magnanimous-we can afford to extend the olive -branch we can afford to take the initiative, by making some proposition to the body sitting in the other end of the Capitol, by which there shall be but one Constitution submitted to the people. If we can agree and come together like good citizens, all will be well; if we cannot agree, no injury will have been done. Mr. SETZER. I move a call of the Convention. This is an important proposition, which should not be decided except in full convention. The motion was agreed to, and a call of the Convention was ordered. On motion of Mr. SANDERSON, Mr. NORRIS was excused for the day, having been suddenly called home. Mr. BROWN moved that Mr. M. E. AMES be excused for the day, he having important business to attend to. The motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. GILMAN, Mr. LEONARD was excused for the day, Mr. L. having gone home. Mr. CHASE moved that all further proceedings under the call be dispensed with. The motion was agreed to. Mr. CHASE moved that the resolution be laid on the table, and made the special order for Monday next. Mr. KINGSBURY moved that the resolution be indefinitely postponed. Mr. BROWN. This Resolution involves a very important subject one which this Committee should not dispose of without mature deliberation. It is well known that the Democratic members of this body have taken the only means in their power legally to form a Constitution for the future State of Minnesota; but, as stated by the gentleman from Ramsey, it is also well known that the position occupied by the delegates legally elected to the Constitutional Convention is, to some extent, doing an injury to the people of the Territory. But, sir, a large number of the members are absent today, and this subject should not be disposed of finally until a full' 351 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE house is present. I hope, therefore, the subject will be laid over until Monday, and that it will be considered maturely and deliberately. Mr. SETZER. The very entertaining of the resolution before us, acknowledges the existence of another body in this Capitol which I, by my vote, shall never consent to recognize. Are we going to appoint a Committee to wait upon a meeting of citizens assembled in the other end of the Capitol? Are we going to acknowledge the existence of another Constitutional Convention? They know that this Convention has been open for weeks, and that if others were elected members of this Convention than are sitting with us, all they have to do is to come here, present their credentials, let them be referred to the Committee on Credentials, let that Committee report, and then let them take their seats as all of us have done. If they are not willing to do that, I say let them stay away. For my part, I am not going to invite them to come here and join us. We are the Constitutional Convention-we have acted from the first, in a parliamentary and orderly manner. They are revolutionists, and shall we invite them, as such, to come here and join us?-not if I can help it. Mr. GILMAN. I think the resolution had, at least, better be amended. There are a large number of those sitting in the other end of the Capitol, who have no right to sit in any Constitutional Convention. I should dislike very much to have any resolution pass this body recognizing such men as legally elected members. But what need is there of any resolution on the subject being passed? Those men who are legally elected, have already been invited by the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. GORXAN,) in a speech, which was endorsed by every mall in this body. I think they need no other invitation, and I am opposed to the resolution. Mr. MEEKER. I am somewhat surprised at the resolution which has been offered by the gentleman from Ramsey. We have now been four weeks in the transaction of the business for which the people sent us here. We have been, as I supposed, and as all of us supposed, acting as the legally constituted Constitutional Convention of Minnesota. We were aware that there were other members legally elected to the same Convention, who have refused to come in and take seats with us-we were aware that this act of disorganization, of secession, of revolution, had been perpetrated and perpetrated by them-we were aware of all this, but in these acts of disorganization they have acted upon their responsibility. We have heralded these facts from one end of the country to the other-to the great national/ party with whom we act. 352 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. We have notified them of the facts which exist. They have heard us, and they are ready to sustain us. Now, sir, if this proposition had been presented here in the form of a petition coming from these people outside, I should have been ready to have received it, to have referred it to some proper Committee, and to have given it a proper consideration; but for it to have come from a member of this Constitutional Convention, and presented here in the form of a solemn resolution, I am opposed to it tetotally. I am heartily with my friend who moved to indefinitely postpone the subject. If these men are members of this Constitutional Convention, there is the door, open wide enough for them to enter. When they have presented their claims to seats duly certified, when those claims have been passed upon by the proper Committee, the Convention are ready to admit them, and for one, I am not, before. Mr. A. E. AMES. I am not in favor of postponing this subject. I hardly think that is the most prudent course. Although I am not exactly satisfied with the wording of the resolution, with the principle I am satisfied. I hold as others hold, that this is the Constitutional Convention, and the only Constitutional Convention which is engaged in forming a Constitution for the future State of Minnesota; but while I hold that, I also hold that it would be magnanimous on our part to do what we can to secure peace and harmony upon this subject. I shall therefore vote for the resolution with some amendment, but I think it would be better to postpone its further consideration until Monday, perhaps, and act with deliberation upon it. I believe with the gentleman from Sibley, (Mr. BRowN,) that this is an important subject and should not be hastily acted on. I should like to see it referred to a Committee of three or five, whose duty it should be to consider it and report it back to the Convention with such amendments as should seem expedient. Mr. MEEKER. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he does not consider this body as the legally organized Constitutional Convention. Mr. A. E. AMES. I have so stated. Mr. MEEKER. Then I ask the gentleman whether he is willing to vote for sending a Committee to confer with a body of men who are outside this Convention, in reference to the great business which the people have sent us here to transact. Mr. A. E. AMES. I will answer the gentleman that I am willing a Committee should be appointed to confer with men, who, I have no doubt, were legally elected by the people to represent them in the Constitutional Convention. 35' PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIHE Mr. STREETER. For one, I am opposed to that resolution, and to every sentiment contained in it. I am not willing to place myself in a position before my constituents which that resolution proposes to place every member of this Convention. I came here and met with the Democratic party of this Conven tion. I have followed them step by step, and have endorsed them in the course they have pursued in its organization. I believe that we are the only organized Convention. I believe we occupy that position in the opinion of a great majority of the people, and that we are unanimously sustained by the great Democratic party. Sir, on my return to my constituents in the Southern portion of the Territory, I was met with a unanimous voice of approval. They said, "You are right. All we ask of you is, that you will perse "vere, and we will sustain you." Now, sir, in what position would we place ourselves by the passage of that resolution? Would it not be virtually acknowledging that we were in the wrong? Sir, I am in favor of not only indefinitely postponing this resolution, but of eternally postponing it. I cannot believe there are five men on this floor who will vote for such a resolution. The Republicans are perfectly aware that they can come in here and take their seats if they are duly elected. No one has ever denied them that right. But, sir, to crawfish to them- to retract the honorable position in which we have placed ourselves-and to come down and ask a body of men to unite with us whom we have never recognized as having a legal existence, I will never do. Sir, what are they? Have you termed them a Convention? You have not. You have termed them a camp-meeting; and now, I want to know if you will invite a camp-meeting to come in here and assist us in the formation of a Constitution? I hope the resolution will be indefinitely postponed. Mr. WARNER. I am in favor of a reconciliation, if one can be accomplished upon fair terms. This is not any very serious matter; I am surprised that the gentleman should take it so hard. He is not going to lose his seat by the operation; neither is the gentleman from St. Anthony, (MAr. MEEKER) I am in favor of the resolution, because I believe it may accomplish some good without jeopardizing any of our rights. What does it propose? That a Committee shall be appointed to confer with men who are undoubtedly elected members of this Constitutional Convention. If they will come in and take seats here with us, I have no objection whatever. I have no objection to receiving them here, and no good Democrat should have. If there is a man in the body now sitting in the other end of the Capitol entitled to a seat in this Convention, I have no objection to his being admitted here. 354 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. STREETER. If there is one entitled to a seat here, let him come and take it. Mr. WARNER. Let him have some authority that he shall be received. Let a Committee be appointed to extend an invitation to him. For one, I have no sort of doubt that if the facts could be fairly placed before the country, we could clearly establish our position that the Democrats have the majority of the Convention. But sir, we lose nothing by giving an invitation to those who have transgressed, to return and take part with this Convention in forming a Constitution for the future State of Minnesota. I am acquainted with a number of the members of that body, and I know them to be honorable men; men who would not intentionally do a wrong act. I am in favor of the resolution. Mr. MEEKER. Either we are right, or we are wrong. If we are wrong, I propose that we shall repair to the other Hall and claim our seats without an invitation. If we are right, then let them come here and contend for their seats. The very act of recognizing them here, sends forth to the world the implication that we have some doubt as to the correctness of our position. It would virtually be saying to them: we are inclined to think we are right, but you may be right, and we will treat with you upon terms of equality; the very fact of conference admits the equality of the conferring parties. If we are prepa,red to take that step downwards and backwards, then the course proposed is the proper one, but if we know we are right as we have hitherto asserted, then I say the course proposed by the resolution is a most impolitic one. Mr. STACEY. I am opposed to sending in the white flag. We are not so hotly pressed as to make such a step necessary. I can ieadily appreciate the motives which prompted the gentleman who offered this resolution, but they are not motives which will be appreciated by our opponents. No sir, pass this resolution and the Republicans will herald it to the country, that the Democratic Con vention are backing down from their position, that they have acknowledged that they are wrong. I care not what may be our motives in passing it, these are the motives which will be attributed to us by our opponents all over the country. For one, I do not feel disposed to place myself in that position before the country. I am opposed to the resolution. If there is a spirit of conciliation in the body in the other end of the Capitol, let the proposition come from there. I anm in favor of a reconciliation if it can be effected on honorable terms. But to send a Committee to ask them to treat with us, would be to acknowledge that we are'vrong, which I will not consent to do. 23 356 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. CHASE. The reason why I made the motion to postpone until Monday, was that the resolution might be properly considered. 1 am opposed to it myself, but I do not think it will do any harm to consider ito. .Mr. GORMAN. Since this resolution has been introduced, I would rather have it acted on directly. I think in point of policy it had better be acted upon. I think the resolution itself can do no possible harm in the world. If the opposition are telling the truth, when they proclaim to the world that this is an unfortunate split, if they are telling the truth when they are trying to impress upon the country that somebody is wrong, let us see who is in the wrong, and give them an opportunity of placing themselves right. My friend from St. Anthony, (Mr. MEEKER,) does not surely imagine that we are going to give up our organization, with the record before us, placing us in the right according to all parliamentary custom and usage. That would be suicidal. Since the motion is before the world, I say let us have the conference; with such a Committee as the Chair will appoint, let me assure gentlemen there is not the slightest danger that they will allow our opponents to take any advantage of us. Personally, I should like to have seen the resolution introduced originally elsewhere, but now it is here I am for it, and I appreciate fully the motives which prompted it. They were founded in the public good, independent of all party; motives dictated by higher considerations than those of mere party. Sir, I have been urged again and again by citizens of the Territory, by Democrats, Merchants, and the substantial men of the city, to see if something could not be done to affect a reconciliation. I have replied that I believed we were right, and that if our opponents wished to effect a reconciliation let them send in a proposition for that purpose. The resolution as it comes before us has assumed an official form. The plan I should have proposed would have been for a conference to have originally taken place upon the subject between the respective parties, if a reconciliation was to be effected. But sir, the proposition is before us, and I say let us adopt it. I have said from the beginning, and so announced in this Hall that I would not consent that any person should be admitted into this Convention, unless it is to recognize the voice of the people at the ballot box. I am willing to recognize that voice, by admitting those men to come and take seats with us if they are entitled to seats, but I will never consent to recognize their organization. Mr. SETZER. You do recognize it, by entertaining this resolu tion. 356 CONSTITUTIONAL 001'ENTION. Mr. GORMAN. If that was the effect of the proposition, I would yield immediately. But sir, such is not my view of the resolution. I have no doubt that if the Conference is authorized, it will be responded to by the body sitting in the other wing of the Capitol In conversation with a member of that body I will name the person. In a conversation with Judge Mantor, the subject was incidentally mentioned; I said to him that if such a thing were proposed, it would be better that the arrangements should be made between the respective parties outside, but now it is here, I will say to our friends in this body, that it is feared the split in the Convention may effect the Capitalists of the Territory disadvantageously. It is feared that the credit of the Territory may be injured. The only question that can come before our constituents if a reconciliation should take place would be: are we right? I say we are right, and before I would recognize that organization in the other end of the Capitol, I would be beaten forty times. I say we are right, and therefore I do not think the resolution can do any harm. Mr. SETZER. We have been told on the floor of this Convention, that the resolution before us does not recognize the organization in the other end of the Capitol. I contend it does. Has any member upon this floor been notified officially that such a body is in existence? With whom is your Committee to confer when they are appointed? with a Campmeeting? Gentlemen tell us that there are legally elected members of the Convention sitting in that body. What authority have they for the assertion? Hlave they ever seen any credentials? Our credentials were presented here in this Convention, referred to a Committee, examined by that Committee and reported baci to the Convention. That is the way we obtained our seats here; al 1 niow it is proposed that a Committee shall be appointed tQo coifce with men whom it is stated are legally elected to this body, and that they shall be asked to come in here and take seats with us. Sir, if they have been legally elected, let them come and claim their seats. I say that to pass this resolution is to acknowledge the existence of another organized Constitutional Convention sitting in the other end of the Capitol. Mr. PRESIDENT, we have gone thus far legally and right. We have prosecuted our business with diligence, and we intend to present to the people of Minnesota a good Constitution and a Democratic Constitution. Why then should we invite the assistance of others, and of others who do not desire to come in and join us, for their actions show that they don't? I am fully convinced that this is the Constitutional Convention, and I for one am not going backwards. If gentlemen here determine to appoint a Committee to 357 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIHE go and beg other men to acknowledge us, I want no further connection with the Constitutional Convention. SEVERAL MEMBERS. Nor I, nor I. Mr. BAKER. I have only to say in reference to this resolution that I was not surprised to see it here, for I heard a week ago that it was coming. I want no postponement; I am as ready to vote to lay it on the table and there let it lay, as I shall at any future time. If it is parliamentary to say it, I cannot see one word of truth in the resolution. I think it is all wrong. You acknowledge that body in the other end of the Capitol to be a legally organized body, when as every man knows they are there without the least semblance of authority. Now, Sir, how far capitalists may press upon my colleague, (Mr. GORMAN,) I do not know, for I have none, and as far as credit is concerned, I do not know either, for I have very little to lose; but I shall not go for a proposition which has no better semblance of right than this. Sir, the proposition for amalgamation in my opinion, is most inopportune. I once asked an old lady what she should think of seeing the blacks and whites intermarry. "Ay," said she, "you may live to see it." I may live to see such a con summation, but I would rather not be at the marriage feast. But, gentlemen tell us that there are persons legally elected who belong to this body in the other end of the Capitol. If there are such persons, they have known for weeks that the Constitutional Convention is regularly in session and has been sitting here from day to day. They could have come here and claimed their seats at any time, and I hope we shall not so forget our position now, as to appoint a Committee of five to go and confer with them. I am opposed to the resolution and hope it will be indefinitely postponed. Mr. BUTLER. My belief in the correctness of the position assumed by this Convention has become, and is now, a part of my conscience and my faith, and sir, with such a conviction, to recede from our position at this time, would be anything but pleasant to me. If this resolution is to prevail, or is not this morning indefinitely postponed, I shall be inclined to regard it as prima facie evidence that we acknowledge the incorrectness of ourposition. The remarks of the gentleman from Houston, (Mr. STREETER,) suit me exactly. This is the Constitutional Convention, and to make any concession to outsiders, is placing a doubt upon our own integrity. I hope the motion indefinitely to postpone will prevail. Mr. BROWN. It appears to me that gentlemen look at this matter very differently from what I do. I do not suppose that we are to retract one hair's breadth from the position we have hereto 358 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. -fore occupied by the consideration of this resolution. Now, sir, I have no hesitation in saying that I am not for the resolution in its present shape. But still, I would vote for some proposition that should have for its object the bringing about of a reconciliation or som earrangement by which there should but one Constitution go before the people. Mr. PRESIDENT, I will not take one step backward. I will not by my vote, sanction any measure which can justly prejudice the position which we occupy as the Iegally constituted Convention of the Territory. I can see no such injury which is to result from the adoption of the resolution which is before us. I would merely provide that a Committee shall be appointed to take into consideration in what manner one Constitution shall be placed before the people, instead of two. Such a res'olution I would willingly support. I believe that it would be for the best interests of the Democratic party and of the Territory, that we should have but one Constitution, and that a Democratic one, and that matters should be placed in such shape that our future elections, our future legislation, and the whole paraphranalia of government shall not be trammelled by separate and distinct organizations. If that can be effected, I think it is our duty to effect it. I can see nothing in such a proposition to show that we have doubts as to the position we hold as the Constitutional Convention of the Territory. I hope the motion to postpone indefinitely will not prevail, but that the subject will be laid over until Monday for consideration. .Mr. SHERBURNE. I have been somewhat amused, though perhaps not very much surprised, by the manner in which t his proposition has been received by the different members upon this floor. It seems to be supposed that the passage of the resolution before us, is to take out of existence all the facts which have transpired in the last three or four weeks. I had never doubted until I heard the remarks which have been made here this morn ing, that we are the Constitutional Convention. If we are such ~ Convention, I suppose we shall remain so until we have closed our business. I suppose the same facts which made us a Convention will continue us a Convention until the end, and I cannot conceive why gentlemen are so much troubled in regard to the effect of the simple proposition which appears upon that paper. Mr. PRESIDENT -I had always supposed that a proposition of compromise should come from the conquering party. I think that will be found to be the fact in the history of Napoleon Buonaparte ;that when he had conquered and held the power inhis own hands, 359 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF IHE he came forward with propositions of compromise. Now, sir, I do not desire to make a speech, but I do desire to make an explanation for the purpose of setting myself and the members of the Convention right upon this subject. I stated in the outset that this resolution was not offered upon consulation with a single man. It has been stated by one gentleman hero that he knew a week ago this proposition was coming. Well sir, I will not call in question the veracity of that gentleman, but I think no one will call in question my veracity, when I state to the Convention that last evening was the first time it occurred to me, and then while I was alone. I never consulted with a human being on the subject, and when the gentleman knew a week ago the proposition was coming, he must have been in a mesmeric, or perhaps some other superhuman state. Sir, we occupy a position which is injurious to the best interests of our Territory. Gentlemen may get excited as much as they please about a mere matter of etiquette as to who is right and who is wrong. It is a known fact that the position we hold as a Convention is injurious to the Territory. Mr. SETZER. Why should not they who have produced the injury take the consequences? Mr. SHERBURNE. I do not understand the gentleman, and perhaps it is immaterial that I should. I repeat that the position we hold is injurious to the Territory, and if there is no other man here who has the boldness or honesty to rise above a mere matter of etiquette for the purpose of relieving ourselves from the injuries of the position which we occupy, I have. From the first I have been one who upheld the organization of this Convention. I think we were right: But, sir, there is another body composed of about the same number of legally elected members who call themselves a Convention, who assert their rights with quite as much strength, and who are now engaged in making a Constitution. Gentlemen say, how do we know these facts? Mr. PRESIDENT, you know that what I have stated are facts, the papers are full of it; it is in the mouth of everybody throughout the length and breadth of the land; the remarks of gentlemen upon this floor, which are spread upon our record, are full of it. I am perfectly willing, if the form of the resolution does not meet the views of gentlemen, that it should be changed in any manner whatever to meet the views of the Convention. My only wish is, that;the object shall be attained. One gentleman has told us that this should not be the body to hold out the white flag. Sir, there is no reason why the strong man should not show the white flag. If he is in that position and fails to do it, it shows his cow 360 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ardice. If we refuse to do it, it shows a want of confidence in our position. If we know we are right, why should we fear to make this offer of compromise? I hope the Convention will assert its dignity and show enough of fearlessness to carry out some proposition by which the object of this resolution shall be attained. Mr. STREETER demanded the yeas and nays upon the motion to postpone indefinitely. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative; yeas 23, nays 19, as follows YEAs-Messrs. Butler, Baker, Burns, Bailly, Baasen, Cantell,Day, Faber, Gilman, Jerome, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Meeker, Rolette, Setzer, Stacy, Streeter, Sturgis, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Vasseur and Wait. [ NAYs-Messrs. Ames, Becker, Burwell, Brown, Chase, Gilbert, Gorman, Lashelle, McGrorty, McFetridge, McMahon, Nash, Prince, Sanderson, Sherburne, Swan, Tuttle, Warner, and Mr. President. So the resolution was indefinitely postponed. On motion of Mr. BAKER, at half-past ten o'clock, the Convention adjourned until Monday next. TWENTY-FOURTH DAY. MONDAY, August 10th, 1857. The Convention met at nine o'clock, A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of Saturday was read and approved. Mr. SHERBUNE from the Committee on the Judicial Department of the State, submitted a report which was laid on the table. COMMITTEE ON IMPEACHMENTS AND REMOVALS. Mr. MEEKER stated that the subject of Impeachments and Removals from office, had been referred specially to no Committee, and as it did not legitimately come within the province of any one of the Standing Committees, he moved the appoinment of a Committee of Five upon that subject. Mr. SHERBURNE thought such a Committee should be appointed. The motion was agreed to. BILL OF RIGHTS. The business first in order, being the consideration in Convention, of the report of the Committee of the Whole, on the Bill of Rights. 361 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. SIBLEY (Mr. SETZER in the Chair,) moved to suspend the Rules, so as to admit a reconsideration of the vote, by which Mr. GOr3N's amendment to Section 15, was adopted. The motion was agreed to, and the rules were accordingly suspended. Mr. SIBLEY. I now move to reconsider the vote by which that amendment was adopted. I find that I voted for it hastily, without a due appreciation of the effect it would have on the whole subject. Now sir, so far as this Convention are concerned, I believe they are unanimous in the opinion, that when a fraud has been commit ted, the party should be punished; but the gentleman from Ram sey, took the ground that no man should be restrained of his liberty, upon the mere affidavit of an interested individual. That is to say, that no person should be allowed merely upon his affidavit, that another person had committed fraud, to obtain the imprison ment of that person without a trial first being had. It was upon that view of the case that I voted for the amendment. But sir, upon reflection, I can see that the idea of waiting on final process for conviction, before the fraudulent debtor can be apprehended, would be pregnant with great evils to the community. Now sir, this amendment proposes to exhonorate from imprison ment, a man whom the community at large are satisfied has committed fraud, until the necessary steps for his conviction have been taken before a Judicial tribunal. It seems to me such a provi sion would render any attempt to punish fraud useless. The fact that no arrest can be made until the whole question has been adjudicated on final process in the Court, it seems to me, will enable every prisoner to escape from the meshes of the law, and get beyond the reach of that punishment to which, if guilty, he is amenable. My first impressions were that to allow a man to be arrested and, imprisoned, merely upon affidavit that he had committed fraud, would subject him to unnecessary hardships, and it was under that impression that I voted for the amendment of the gentleman from St. Paul. But upon reflection it seems to me that in consideration of the pains, and penalties of perjury, to which the man who willfully swears that an innocent person is guilty, subjects himself, the hardship is all upon the other side. I therefore submit the motion to reconsider the vote, by which the amendment was adopted. Mr. MEEKER. I have no doubt that when the amendment of the gentleman from St. Paul was voted into this Constitution, many other members voted under a similar misapprehension. I appre :362 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. hend that that amendment would have the effect of restricting the Legislature, in the passage of those remedial laws for the punishmsnt of fraud, which in every State are found necessary for the protection of the public. I am, with the gentleman from St. Paul, and so is every other member of this Constitution, in opposition to imprisonment for debt. The idea of incarcerating a man merely because he is poor and unable to pay a bonefida debt, which he has honestly contracted, is barbarous in the extreme. But sir, the power of punishing fraud is one which every State, so far as I have any knowledge, has wisely vested in the Legislature. But sir, what is imprisonment? It does not necessarily mean incarceration in the jail or penitentiary. The keeping of a man under arrest is imprisonment. But power should certainly be given to arrest. Why, sir, under this amendment, a man may take your property or mine, by means of fraud, and there would be no power that could hold him even to bail for his appearance, and no man would ever be arrested after conviction. The Legislature would be stricken down, utterly powerless, to provide any remedy against fraud. Mr. GORMAN. I am not going to make a speech, but I rise to a point of order. I want to know if this matter can be considered upon a motion to reconsider, the previous question having been ordered upon it. The PRESIDENT. The previous question was exhausted when the vote was taken on the amendment. Mr. MEEKER. I was proceeding to say that I don't think we are wiser than every body.and everything which has preceded us. I think that what other States have deemed to be necessary, wise and prudent provisions of Constitutional law, we ought not to re-, ject without consideration. We ought, at all events, to debate and take time to consider before we reverse the principles which they have deemed it wise to adopt. Now, sir, nearly all the States have made provision for imprisonment in case of fraud. Section 19 of the Bill of Rights, in the Constitution of the State of Kentucky, reads That the person of the debtor, where there is not strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in prison, after delivering up his estate for the benefit of his creditors, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. The provision on the subject in the Constitution of Tennessee is similar. That of Ohio is in different terms but in stronger language. The State of Illinois-a very-good Democratic State-has a similar provision, the effect of which is, that not until the debtor shall come up frankly and surrender his property and his means to the extent of his ability, shall he be exempt from liability to arrest. 363' PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. MURRAY. I wish to ask the gentleman if the Constitutions to which he is referring, were not adopted some time in the last century? Mr. MEEKER. I think the Constitution of Ohio was adoptedin 1837; that of Kentucky, about 1849; that of Tennessee, I think, in 1844; that of Illinois, in 1818, and that of Maryland, which has a similar provision, 1851. Why, sir, if the State is to be restrained from passing these rem edial laws, you offer a premium to perjury. Any man may coinmit the blackest fraud, and you cannot compel him to respond to any process of law. You may indict him for the fraud, but before the process of trial can have been gone through with, he will place himself out of the reach of the law. Mr. SIBLEY. I merely wish to state, that in making this motion to reconsider, I am as much opposed to imprisonment for debt as any member of this Convention, or as any man can be. But the reason why I have made the motion is, that I am satisfied its effect will be to enable the prisoner to get beyond the reach of the law, before any process of arrest can issue. I, however, do not wish to detain the Convention, and if no one wishes to debate further, I will move the previous question. Mr. BAKER. It strikes me that we are proceeding rather peculiarly. I hear from gentlemen of age and experience on my right and left, that we should profit by the experience of the past, and at the same time cautioning us against tramnmelling the Legislature in its provisions for the imprisonment of fraudulent debtors. Now, with great deference to these gentlemen, I submit that in the decisions of the last ten years, the cases of imprisomnent for fraud have dwindled down to nothing. I do not want to have any provision put in this Constitution by which a man may be imprisoned unjustly. I think it is the duty of men in business transactions to provide against fraud. If A, B or C, comes here from abroad to purchase property on credit, it is the business of those with whom he deals to ascertain who he is and who his endorsers are. There need be no such thing as fraud in civil transactions, if men use the proper amount of caution; and I am opposed to any constitutional provision which may allow a man to be unjustly imprisoned. The previous question was ordered on the motion to reconsider.< Mr. GORMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays upon the motion. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The qustion was taken and it was decided in the affirmative. So the vote was reconsidered and the question recurred upon the 364 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. amendment to insert in Section 15, after the word fraud, the words "of which he shall have been duly convicted." Mr. SIBLEY having moved the previous question thereon, and the same having been ordered, and the yeas and nays being called for and ordered, there were yeas 9, nays 30, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Cantell, Day, Gorman, Jerome, McGrorty, Rolette, Stacey, and Sturgis-9. NAYsMessrs. A. E. Ames, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Brown, Baasen, Chase, Davis, Emmett, Faber, Flandrau, Gilman, Kingsbury, Keegan, Murray, Meeker, McFetridge, McMahan, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Sherburne, Streeter, Swan, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Vasseur; Wait, and Mr. President-30. So the amendment of Mr. GORMAN was rejected. Mr. GORMAN. I now move to amend the first clause of the section so that it will read: There shall be no imprisonment for debt in this State except for fraud first proven. Mr. SHERBURNE. There is an objection it seems to the amendment which I will suggest to my colleague who offered it. It is as to what construction shall be placed upon it in case it is inserted. How proven? Upon the affidavit of the Sheriff or upon the affidavit of witnesses in open court? If the latter, then the amendment the amounts to about the same as that first offered, because if you use expression in its technical sense, it amounts to a conviction of the offender. If you take it, however, in its more limited sense, I have no particular objection to it, except that I desire to see every provision of the Constitution put in such language as will have no room for the courts hereafter to doubt the construction intended to be given. But I can see, and I think my colleague will be able to see, that there will be great difference of opinion arise as to the construec tion to be given to the language used in the amendment. I will not make any motion upon the subject, but if the amendment is to be adopted I hope he will change the phraseology somewhat. Mr. GORMAN. I dislike to trouble the Convention further upon this subject, for every gentleman understands it perfectly. I offered the amendment in the shape in which it now stands, for this reason: The first amendment which I offered was in these words, " of which he shall have been duly convicted." By the use of that word it presupposes final judgment in the case. By the language which I now use, I imply nothing more than that the evidence shall be such as to satisfy the'authority ordering the arrest and imprison ment. It may be by affidavit or by whatever evidence the court may prescribe. I offered this as the next best proposition. I my self preferred the first amendment which the Convention has rejected. Mr. SHERBURNE. If the gentleman will pardon me, I will 365 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE suggest a modification of the amendment so that it shall read "first proven to the satisfaction of the court having power to issue "the process." Mr. BECKER. I wish to ask my colleague if lie deems such a provision ill the Constitution necessary? Mr. SHERBURNE. I say, no. Mr. BECKER. Then I hope the gentleman will vote against it. Mr. GORMAN. I will modify the anmendment so that it shall read, "first proven to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the "writ." I have in the course of my legal practice, seen so many instances of parties making affidavits against others through ma lice, through ill-will, or through a prejudice which was stronger than malice or ill-will-and I have seen so many of our fellowcitizens incarcerated in prison through such means, that I for one shall be exceedingly cautious how I confer an unlimited power to imprison upon the mere statement of an interested party, that fraud has been committed. Now, sir, I want something more than such an affidavit. I rant him to say how the fraud was committed, and I want him to satisfy the court or satisfy somebody besides himself that it has been committed. I want somebody else besides the creditor to be satisfied that fraud has been committed before the debtor is imprisoned, and I shall insist that some provision to that effect shall be inserted. Mr. SHIERBURNE. The question was asked whether I consider such a provision necessary to be inserted into the Constitution and I answered distinctly, no. Now, sir, I am in favor of proper precaution against unjust imprisonment, but I think the details of the matter ought to' be, and may safely be left to the Legislature. -I am, therefore, opposed to the amendment being incorporated into the Constitution. Mr. FLANDRAU. The amendment, as it now stands, as I understand it, is, that the fraud shall be first proven to the satisfaction of the Court, before the party shall be imprisoned. Now, sir, it seems to me that the gentleman from Ramsey, who offered the amendment, (Mr. GORMAN) has been fighting an imaginary foe. The precaution that the fraud must be first proven to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the process, would not be necessary even as a Legislative enactment. Any person at all acquainted with legal proceedings must see at once that without any statutory or constitutional requirement to that effect, the fact that the fraud has been committed must necessarily be in the possession of the officer issuing the process before he can issue it Mr. GORMAN. How? 366 CONSTITUTIONAL COiNVEiNTION. Mr. FLANDRAU. By legal proof. There is no other way. lHe must have legal evidence of the facts and circumstances connected with the commission of the fraud, such as are sufficient to satisfy him that the fraud has been committed. Mr. BECKER. No party would ever be imprisoned upon a mere affidavit that fraud had been committed. Mr. FLANDRAU. Certainly not, because that would be swearing to a legal conclusion, which the court is to determine from the circumstances stated by the witnesses. If I make application for a process to issue against a man who is in my debt, and merely swear that fraud has been committed in the contraction of that debt, no legal officer whatever, would take notice of the application, because I have sworn to nothing but the legal consequence which he is to ascertain from the proof presented. For this reason, I shall vote against the amendment, which, I think, is useless. I think it means nothing. It adds no strength whatever to the sec tion as it stands. When the Legislature come to make regulations for issuing processes of this kind, as of course they must, they will prescribe what bail shall be prescribed, and the conditions under which the party shall be imprisoned if he shall fail to procure bail. I think the whole matter should be regulated by the Legislature. But when you prescribe in the Constitution that no process shall issue for the arrest of the offender for the commission of fraud until the fraud shall have been proven, you place it beyond the power of the Legislature, and beyond the power of the courts, to have any man arrested until he shall have been convicted, for proof is only necessary to his conviction in a court of justice. If this construc tion shall be placed upon it therefore, it means the same as the amendment originally offered, which the Convention have this morning rejected. Mr. SIBLEY. If the amendment means nothing, and amounts to nothing, I ask the gentleman what objection he has to its being inserted? Mr. FLANDRAU. I came here to frame a Constitution to be presented to the people for their gratification, every clause of which shall have a meaning. I wish to present nothing which in my judgment is a nullity. It is for that reason that I shall vote against the amendment. Now, Mr. PRESIDENET, this question of imprisonment for debt is one in reference to which I do not believe there is a dissenting voice in this Convention. There is no man here in favor of im prisonment for debt under any circumstances. But that is no reason why our citizens should not be protected against fraud. 367 PROOEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. SIBLEY. I do not wish to prolong this discussion. We have got a plenty to do and very little time to do it in, but I wish to reply in a very few words to the answer the gentleman from Nicolett has given to my question. The gentleman thinka this amendment is a nullity. Now, Sir, there are several of us here who do not think it is a nullity, and if the only objection the gentle man can urge is that it means nothing, then it can do no harm in his opinion, and in the opinion of some of us may do good. I think under these circumstances the gentleman would not be justified in voting against the amendment upon the ground he has stated. Mr. FLANDRAU. I have great respect for the gentleman's judgment, but I know of no other rule for my own action here than to vote upon my own judgment of what is proper. Mr. SIBLEY. I did not mean to dictate to the gentleman how he shall vote. I merely stated my opinion that the reasons given by him were insufficient to justify him in voting against the amendment. Of course, he will vote as he pleases. Mr. BROWN. Gentlemen seem to think it is absolutely neces sary that some provision of this kind shall be placed in the Con stitution, and that the introduction of this clause into the Consti tution will settle the manner in which parties guilty of fraud shall be proceeded against. Now, I hold that it is altogether a mistake. The section as it now reads without the amendment would, in my judgment preclude the Legislature from the possibility of providing by law in any manner for the imprisonment of a debtor for a debt not fraudulently contracted. It says briefly that there shall be no imprisonment for debt except in case of fraud. The Legislature would -therefore have no power to provide for imprisoning a man for fraud unless it shall first be proven to the satisfaction of the officers applied to to issue process against the debtor. Mr. EMMETT. I am opposed to this amendment, not on the ground stated by the gentleman from Nicollet, because it is a nullity, but because I think it is wrong. We all agree that a fraud which would justify the imprisonment of a man for debt is of itself a moral crime; not one necessarily made so by the Statute. It places the man who has deprived another of his property, through fraud, upon the same footing of the man who has stolen property. Now, suppose you were to provide in this Constitution that no person should be imprisoned for crime until the crime has first been proven, what does that mean? It means that the crime shall be established by some process of law. You could not then even arrest a man for crime or hold him to account for it until CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. after he had had his trial. As I understand the section as it now stands it enables the Legislature to make provisions of law under which a man charged with fraud may be arrested, and not necessarily imprisoned, but held to answer the charge before the Courts. You could not, of course, arrest a man merely upon the general charge of fraud. The circumstances must be stated with sufficient detail to enable the officer to judge whether, if proven, they would amount to fraud. If so, then the party may be arrested and held to bail. I hold that persons guilty of fraud should be dealt with precisely as other criminals. But, Sir, if the amendment of my colleague is to be adopted, how are you going to prove the fraud to the satisfaction of the officer issuing the writ? Must it not be proven in tne same way that other facts are proved, by a regular process of law? But my colleague says he would not have a man imprisoned upon a mere affidavit. Now, Sir, any man making such an affidavit falsely would be liable to be punished for perjury; and he would also be liable to punishment for malicious prosecution; so that the remedy is ample. I see no necessity of putting anything into the Constitution on the subject beyond what is already contained in the section as it now stands. On motion of Mr. SIBLEY the previous question was ordered on the amendment. Mr. GORMAN demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken, and it was decided in the negative. Yeas i0, nlays 26, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Baker, Davis, Day, Gorman, Lashelle, McGrorty, Sanderson, Stacey and Sturgis-10. NAYS-Mecssrs. A. E. Ames, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Brown, Chase, Emmett, Faber, Flandrau, Gilman, Jerome, Kingsbury, Keegan, Murray, Meeker, Mc Fetridge, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sherburne, Streeter, Swan, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Wait and Mr. President-26. So the amendment was disagreed to. Mr. GORMAN. I move to amend the section now by striking out the words, "unless in case of fraud." Mr. BROWN. I rise to a question of order. These words have been voted in by the Convention, and I submit that it is not in order to move to strike them out. The PRESIDI)ENT, pro tern. There has been no action of the Convention directly upon them. Mr. GORMAN. Gentlemen say, leave it to the Legislature to provide the manner in which persons shall be imprisoned in case of fraud. Now, I say, leave the whole matter to the Legislature. 369 I PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE I am for making a clean thing of it one way or the other. Either make such provisions that a man cannot through malice make an affidavit against another and then imprison him, or else simply say there shall be imprisonment for debt and leave the matter exclusively with the Legislature. On motion of Mr. SIBLEY, the previous question was ordered. The question was taken, and it was decided in the affirmative. Yeas 24, nays 16, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Becker, Baker, Barrett, Cantell, Chase, Davis, Day, Faber, Gorman, Jerome, Kingsbury, Lashelle, Murray, McGrorty, McFetridge, Nash, Sanderson, Stacey, Sturgis, Tuttle, Vasseur and Mr. President-24. NAYS-vMessrs. Burns, Brown, Baasen, Emmett, Flandrau, Gilman, Keegan, Meeker, Prince, Setzer, Sherburne, Streeter, Swan, Taylor, Tenvoorde and Wait-16. So thle motion was agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to strike out Section 15 and insert the following: SEc. 15. There shall be no imprisonment for debt in this State. Which motion was disagreed to. Mr. WAIT moved to strike out Section 15. Which motion was disagreed to. Mr. EMMETT mtoved to amend by adding to Section 15, after the word "State," the following: "But this shall not prevent the "Legislature fr(n providing for imprisonment or holding to bail "persons charged with fraud ill contracting said debt." The motion was agreed to. The question was next stated on concurring ill the amendment to Section 16, to add to the section the words, "first paid or secured," so that the section would read: Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation therefor first paid or secured. Mr. BECKER. There is a difficulty in my mind in the way of this amendment. I am in favor of the principle of the amendment, but it seems to me there may cases arise in which it will be difficult to carry it out. Take, for instance, the case of a fire in this city. It may become necessary to destroy private property to prevent the further spread of the fire. Now if the authorities would have no right to take such property until its value had been first paid or secured, it might give us trouble. Mr. EMMETT. I apprehend the provision would not be ap)plicable to such a case as that mentioned by-my colleague. Mr. SIERBURNE. I must say with all due respect to my colleague (Mr. EMrrTT) I think the section as originally reported, 370 0 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. is amply sufficient to accomplish the object for which it was intended As it stands, the Legislature will have power to provide the manner in which the rights of the citizens shall be secured in the possession of their property, and I think the amendment had better not be adopted. Mr. EMMETT. It has been suggested that my amendment would not cover such a case as that stated by my colleague (Mr. BECKER.) Now sir, there is a vast difference between taking property for public use and destroying it for the public safety. I do not think it is a case which can fairly come within the operation of this section. As I understand the section, its application is intended to have reference principally to property, taken for the use of railroads and canals, such as the right of way for their benefit, upon the ground that such property is for the public use; and it seems to me it would involve a great hardship to require a man to allow a railroad to run through his farm and his property to be taken for its use, merely upon a promise to pay at some future time, which promise might never be redeemed in the course of his life. Mr. SHERBURNE. I have no particular interest in the matter, but my opinion is that if the amendment is to pass, we may have difficulty from it in future. It is imrpossible for us here-in the Constitution to make detailed provisions as to how matters of this kind shall be carried out. If we are to build railroads, the right of way must be granted to them, and it will be for the Legislature to provide in detail, how the rights of private citizens shall be protected. It is for them to provide that the damages shall be assessed by a jury, or how they shall be assessed, and in what manner they shall be paid. There may be extreme cases of hardship under any general provision which may be adopted, but I do not think we can provide against them. We must submit to them if the general effect of the law is good. I hope the amendment will not prevail. The section as it stands without the amendment is the same as that in most of the Constitutions. I have never known such a provision as the gentleman proposes, to be inserted, and I have never known the provision as contained in the section operate hardly as a general rule. It seems to me we had better not adopt a new rule, the effects of which we cannot foresee, and the effects of which may be detrimental to the best interests of the State. Mr. EMMETT. I have only to say that if the Railroad Company cannot pay for, or secure pay for the right of way there will not be much prospect of their building the road. 24 371 PEROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. SHERBURNE. The Legislature will provide whatever regulations are necessary. Mr. EMMETT. The Legislature may provide, but in my opinion we should not authorize the Legislature to grant away private property for the public use, without securing payment beyond contingency. If it is left until afterwards, the company to whom it is granted may become insolvent and then the party has no remedy. If the Company is not able to pay for or secure the payment of the right of way, I do not think it ought to be granted to them. The question was taken and it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 22, nays 18, as follows YEAS-Messrs. Baker, Burns, Cantell, Chase, Day, Emnmett, Faber, Gorman, Jerome, Keegan, Lashelle, Meeker, MeGrorty, McFetridge, Sanderson, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Vasseur, and Wait-22. NAYS-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Becker, Barrett, Brown, Baasen, Davis, Flandrau, Gilman, Kingsbury, Murray, McMahan, Prince, Setzer, Sherburne, Sturgis, Tuttle and Mr. President-18. So the amendment was concurred in. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend Section 11 of the Bill of Rights by striking out the word "or" in the first line, and inserting after the words "ex post facto" the words "or retroactive," so that the Section as amended shall read: No Bill of Attainder, or ex post facto, or retroactive law, or law impairing the obligations of Contracts, shall ever be passed. Mr. EMMETT. My object in offering this amendment will be apparent. The expression "ex post facto" refers only to criminal law. Now, we should establish the same great right of citizens under the civil law. Mr. MEEKER.,Does not the gentleman consider the clause that there shall be no law passed impairing the obligations of contracts, as covering the object he seeks to attain? Mr. EMMETT. I think not. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY. I move the following as an additional section: No distinction shall ever be made by law between resident citizens in reference to the possession, enjoyment or inheritance of property. THE PRESIDENT. The amendment is the same in substance with Section 12, which has been rejected by the Convention. The Chair decides it to be out of order. Mr. MURRAY. I think it is not the same, and I take an appeal from the decision of the Chair. The decision of the Chair was sustained by the Convention. Mr. BAASEN. I move the following as an additional section: Aliens shall enjoy the same rights in this State in respect to the inheritance of property as native-born citizens. 372 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVYENTION. THE PRESIDENT. The Chair decides the amendment to be aout of order. Mr. BAASEN. I appeal from the decision of the Chair. The decision of the Chair was sustained by the Convention. Mr. M. E. AMES. I move the following as an additional amendment: All actual residents of this State shall at all times enjoy equal rights in respect to the inheritance and descent of real property. THE PRESIDENT. The Chair is of opinion that the amendment is out of order. Mr. M. E. AMES. I shall not take an appeal, for the reason that I presume the Convention will sustain the decision of the Chair, and because I do not wish to; but I simply rise to call the atten tion of the Chair to the phraseology of the amendment. Hie will find that the first clause covers a much larger class of residents . tnhan the section which has been rejected by the Convention. THE PRESIDENT. The Chair considers the distinction between ,.actual" and "bona fide" residents as entirely imaginary. Mr. M. E. AMES. I suppose the question of order is not debate able; but, sir, the point I make is, that the term "actual residents" covers a large class of persons who are not bona fide residents, to whom the original section granted the privilege of holding and in heriting real estate. I think my proposition makes a broad and distinct difference from the original clause which has been reject ed by the Convention. I move a suspension of the rules, to allow me to introduce the amendment. I do not know that the Conven vention would adopt the amendment if regularly before them, but, as they say in Ca-lfornia,' "Give the man a fair trial, and then hang him anyhow." [Laughter.] The rules were n:,t suspended. The Article as amended was then ordered to be engrossed. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, on the Report of the Committee on the Executive Department, Mr. FLANDRAU in the Chair. The following is the Report of the Committee: LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. SWCTION 1. The Executive Department shall consist of a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, and Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors of the State. SEC. 2. The Governor, LieutenantGovernor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, 373 i PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATE OF TIHE and Attorney-General, shall hold their offices for two years, and the Auditor for four years. Their terms of office, after the first, shall begin on the first Monday in January next after their election, and continue until their successors are elected and qualified. SEC. 3. The returns of every election, for the officers named in the foregoing section, shall be made to the Secretary of State, and by him transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall cause the same to be opened and canvassed before both Houses of the Legislative Assembly, and the result declared within three days after each House shall be organized. SEw. 4. The term of office for the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor shall be two years, and until their successors are chosen and qualified. They shall each have attained the age of twenty-five (25) years, and shall have been a bona fide resident of the State for one year next preceding their election., They shall be citizens of the United States by birth or adoption. - SEC. 5. The Governor shall communicate by message to each session of the, Legislative Assembly such information touching the state and condition of the country as he may deem expedient. SHe shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Militia, except when called into service by the United States, he may require the opinion in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves, and pardons for offences against the State, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a State Librarian and Notary Public; he shall have power to appoint Commissioners to take the acknowledgment of Deeds or other instruments in writing, to be used in the State. He shall have a negative upon all laws passed by the Legislative Assembly under such rules and limitations as is in this Constitution prescribed. He may on extraordinary occasions convene both Houses of the Legislature, and in case of a disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them tosuch time as he shall think proper, not beyond the next regular session. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. SEc. 6. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies that may occur in the County, District, Circuit and Supreme Judges, until the next annual election, and until their successors be chosen and qualified. He shall also fill anyr vacancy that may occur in the offices of Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney-General, and such other State or District offices as may be hereafter created by law, until the next annual election, and until their successors are chosen and qualified. SEC. 7. The official term of the Secretary of State, Treasurer and AttorneyGeneral, shall be two years. The official term of the Auditor shall be four years. The Governor's salary for the first term under this Constitution shall be fifteen hundred dollars per annum. The Auditor and Treasures shall each, for the first term, receive a salary of one thousand dollars per annum. The Attorney-General shall, for the first term, receive an annual salary of two hundred and fifty dollars and fees, and the further dues and salaries of said Executive officers shall each thereafter be prescribed by law. Szc. 8. The Lieutenant-Governor shall be ex-offcio President of the Senate, and in case a vacancy should occur from any cause whatever in the office of Governor, he shall be Governor during such vacancy. The compensation of Lieutenant-Governor shall be double the compensation of a State Senator. Before the close of each session of the'Senate they shall elect a President pro 374 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. tempore, who shall be Lieutenant-4overnor in case a vacancy should occur in that office. SEc. 9. The term of each of the Executive offices named in this article shall commence upon taking the oath of office, after the State shall be admitted by Congress into the Union, and continue until the first Monday in January, 1860, except the Auditor, who shall continue in office until the first Monday in January, 1862. SEc. 10. Each officer created by this chapter shall, before entering upon his duties, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and faithfully discharge the duties thereof to the best of his judgment and ability. SEC. 11. The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, and Attorney-General, shall each be elected by the qualified electors on the day of,1857. SEc. 12. Laws shall be passed at the first session of the Legislature after the State is admitted into the Union, to carry out the provisions of this article. Mr. MURRAY moved to strike out "two,'' and insert "four," in the following section: SEC. 2. The Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Attorney-General, shall hold their offices for two years, and the Auditor for four years. - Their terms of office, after the first, shall begin on the first Monday in January next after their election, and continue until their successors are elected and qualified. Mr. BROWN. I also move to strike out of the section the words "Governor and -Lieutenant Governor." I find that it is provided in the 4th section, that their term of office shall be two years and until their successors are elected and qualified. I think the phraseology of the 4th section is preferable, and there is no need of making the same provision in two different sections. Mr. GORMAN. I see the objection which the gentleman makes, but it will be necessary to -make some provision for the first term. Mr. BROWN. Put it in the Schedule. Mr. GORMAN. Certainly; I do not care where you put it. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY. Before the question is taken on my amendment I wish to say that I have moved it for the purpose of obtaining the sense of the Convention upon adopting a longer term of office for the Executive officers than is provided for in the report. My own preference is that the term should be a long one, and then make the incumbents ineligible for,re-election. Mr. MEEKER. I would like to see the Chief Magistrate and the Lieutenant Governor at least elected for four years, and then made ineligible to hold office forever afterwards, or at least for one term. I want them placed in the position where theywill have no temptation to act in the affairs of State with reference to their own succession to office. I want to see them adapt their line 375 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE of policy to subserve the best interests of the State, and not to( subserve the ends of politicians, and to secure their own purposes of office. I am in favor of making the Governor and Lieutenant Governor elective for four years, and then make them ineligible to reelection; and then I am in favor of biennial sessions of the Legislature. Mr. SIBLEY. I hope the amendment will not prevail. I am opposed to fixing the term of any high officer, and especially that of Governor, for as long a term as four years; I think two years are long enough. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. KINGSBURY. I move to insert "three" instead of "two."" The amendment was disagreed to. On motion of Mr. MURRAY, Section 2 was stricken out. Mr.'SIBLEY moved to strike out the words, "by birth or, adoption," in the following section: SEc. 4. The term of office for the Governor and Lieutenant-Governor shall be two years, and until their successors are chosen and qualified. They shall each have attained the age of twenty-five (25) years, and shall have been a bonafide resident of the State for one year next preceding their election. They shall each be citizens of the United States by birth or adoption. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved further to amend Section 4 by striking out the words, "'shall each have attained the age of twenty-five years, and." The motion was disagreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I move to amend, then, by striking out "twentyfive," and inserting "fifty." I am in favor of making any person who is qualified to vote, eligible to any office under the State Government, but if age and experience is what we must have, why, we cannot have too much of a good thing. I hope, therefore, the amendment will prevail. I do not see why gentlemen should stultify themselves by voting it down. Mr. BROWN. I would enquire if the gentleman does not fear they will learn too much between the ages of twenty-five and fifty? Mr. MURRAY. If age is the gentleman's only object I hope he will make it a hundred. [Laughter.] Mr. A. E. AMES. I move to amend the amendment by striking out "fifty" and inserting "twenty-one." I prefer that all qualified voters shall be made eligible,: and then allow the people to determine for themselves who they will have for Governor. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was also disagreed to. 376 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. EMMETT. I move to strike out "twenty-five" and insert "twenty-two." Mr. SETZER. As the gentleman's object seems to be to secure the shortest possible time, I move to amend the amendment by inserting "ten." [Laughter.] The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The amendment as amended was then rejected. The following section being under consideration: SEc. 5. The Governor shall communicate by message to each session of the Legislative Assembly such information touching the state and condition of the country as he may deem expedient. He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Militia except when called into service by the United States; he may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves, and pardons for offenses against the State, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a State Librarian and Notaries Public; he shall have power to appoint Commissioners to take the acknowledgment of Deeds or other instruments in writing to be used in the State. He shall have a negative upon all laws passed by the Legislative Assembly under such rules and limitations as is in this Constitution prescribed. He may on extraordinary occasions convene both Houses of the Legislature, and in case of a disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper, not beyond the next regular session. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Mr. BECKER moved to strike out the words, "he shall be Com"mander-in-Chief of the Militia, except when called into service by "the United States," and insert in lieu thereof, "he shall be Com"mander-in-Chief of the Military and Naval forces, and may call out "such forces to execute the laws, to suppress insurrections, and to "repel invasions." Mr. B. said: My reasons for offering that amendment are, that I think the Governor should be the Commander-in-Chief of the Mil itia, even if they are called out by the United States authorities and because I think the Governor should also have the command of the Naval forces which it may become necessary to employ on our northern boundary. Mr. M. E. AMES. I rise merely to enquire whether there are any naval forces in the service of the State? Mr. BECKER. I think the time may come when the State will find it necessary to authorize the employment of naval forces on Lake Superior, and in that case the Governor should be the Com mander in Chief. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BROWN. I move to amend the section by striking out in the latter clause, the following words: "and in case of a disagree 377 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES Ol THIE "ment between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he "may adjourn then to such time as he shall think proper, not beyond "the next- regular session."' Extra sessions of the Legislature have been provided for in the Constitution, and I think this provision is unnecessary and wrong. Mr. GORMAN. This is the language used in the Constitution of the United States, but my friend says it is wrong anyhow. Mr. BROWN. So it is. Mr. GORMAN. Then the Constitution of the United States is wrong. If the session of the Legislature were limited in the Constitution to any specific number of days, the necessity for this clause would be obviated, but a state of things may exist in which it will be impossible for the Legislature to agree upon any day for adjournment, and I think the Governor should have power in such an exigency to adjourn them. Mr. BROWN. If we were always sure of having a Democratic majority in all branches of the Government, I should have no objection to the clause which I have proposed to strike out; but if the Legislature should be Democratic, and the Executive Republican, the Legislature would be placed in the hands of the Governor and the effect might be injurious to the best interests of the State. Mr. GORMAN. If gentlemen will take the pains to refer to the Constitution of the United States, they will find this power confered on the President of the United States, in these words, " He "may on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of "them; and in case of disagreement with respect to the time of ad"journment, he may.adjourn them to such time as he shall think prop"er." Now, I think gentlemen must see that if it should so happen that the two houses are unable to agree upon any time of adjournment, there ought to be some power to determine when the Legislature shall adjourn. You will find that the same provision has been adopted into the Constitutions of trie States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and I believe into the Constitutions of nearly all the States. The amendment was not adopted. Mr. STACEY. I move further to amend section 5 by inserting after the word "pardons" the words " after conviction." I have known pardons granted before conviction. Mr. GORMAN. Here is another provision in the exact language of the Constitution of the United States, except that I have substituted the word "State" for "United States." I am very much inclined to think that the power ought to be in the hands of the Governor to grant pardons or reprieves precisely as it is taken and 378 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. accepted by the courts under the Constitution of the United States. I do not apprehend that there will be any danger of any such power being exercised at an improper time, for as the Governor is elected by the people and responsible to the people, he will certainly be careful how he exercises any such power improperly. Mr. CURTIS. I am opposed to the amendment upon an entirely different principle from that just stated by the gentleman from Ramsey. It is unnecessary, because the very idea of pardon implies that there -has been a conviction. I think it would be impossible that pardon should precede conviction. I hope, therefore the amendment will not be adopted. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SETZER. I move to amend section 5 by inserting after the word "State," the words "by and with the consent of the Senate." I will state that the pardoning power has been much abused in several of the States where it has been vested solely in the hands of the Governor. There should be, in my opinion, some sovereign power to control the Governor in granting pardons. We have in the Eastern States convicts pardoned out of the penitentiaries by the Governor as soon as they are convicted. This is a most dangerous power to vest in the hands of one man, and I hope some check will be placed upon it. Mr. CURTIS. If this power is placed in the hands of the Senate, we shall have to keep that body in perpetual session in order that justice may be done. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. BROWN moved to amend the section by inserting after the words "notaries public" the words "and such other officers as may be provided by law." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY. I move to strike out the words "not beyond the next regular session." The reason why I make this motion is that the Committee have refused to strike out the provision giving the Governor power to adjourn the two Houses of the Legislature in case of disagreement between them, on the argument of the gentle man from Ramsey (Mr. GORMAN) that it was taken from the Con stitution of the United States. I find that the words I have moved to strike out are not contained in the Constitution of the United States. Now, sir, I must say that I will never vote for a proposi tion which places the whole legislative power of the government in the hands of one man. I have no objection to limiting the length of the session to sixty days, but the GovernQr should not be per mitted, whenever the Legislature does not conform to his wishes, 379 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE to adjourn them until the next regular session. I think the power is a dangerous one and I will never vote for it, simply because it is embodied in the Constitution of the United States. The motion to strike out the whole clause has once been voted down by the Committee, and I apprehend that a similar motion would not be again in order. If it were in order, I should again make the mo tion. I now simply move to amend the clause so as to make it conform to the Constitution of the United States. The motion was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I move to strike out in the seventeenth line all after the word "Legislature" to the end of the section, as follows "And in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper, not beyond the next regular session. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The motion was agreed to. Mr. SHERBURNE. I move to strike out the following section: SEc. 6. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies that may occur in the County, District, Circuit or Supreme Judges until the next annual elec tion and until their successors be chosen and qualified. He shall also fill any vacancy that may occur in the offices of Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney General and such other State or District offices as may be hereafter created by law, until the next annual election and until their successors are chosen and qualified. I make this motion, not because I have any particular wish in relation to the matter, but because the subject has been fully taken into consideration in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary Department. It will no doubt give rise to discussion when the report comes to be considered, and for that reason, I do not think it necessary that we should now take up the time of the Convention with it. Mr. BAASEN. I would suggest to the gentleman that he should so modify his motion as to strike out only the first clause of the section. The latter clause, which refers to State officers, I presume has not been taken charge of by the Committee on the Judicial Department. Mr. SHERBURNE. I adopt the gentleman's suggestion. The amendment, as modified, was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY moved to strike out "fifteen hundred dollars" as compensation to the Secretary of the State, and insert "two thousand dollars" in the following section: SEc. 7. The official term of the Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Attorney General, shall be two years. The official term of the Auditor shall be four years. The Governor's salary for the first term under this Constitution, shall be two thousand five hundred dollars per annum. The salary of the Secretary 380 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. of State for the first term, shall be fifteen hundred dollars per annum. The Auditor and Treasuer shall each, for the first term, receive a salary of one thousand dollars per annum. The Attorney Generul, shall, for the first term, receive an annual salary of two hundred and fifty dollars and fees, and the further dues and salaries of said Executive officers shall each thereafter be prescribed by law. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. M. E AMES moved to amend the section by striking out the words "two hundred and fifty dollars and fees" and insert "one thousand dollars." The motion was agreed to. Mr. BAASEN. I move to add the words "and until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified," to the following section: Sec. 9. The term of each of the Executive offices named in this Article shall commence upon taking the oath of office, after the State shall be admitted by Congress into the Union, and continue until the first Monday in January, 1860, except the Auditor who shall continue in office until the first Monday in January, 1862. My reason for offering the amendment, is that if the Legislature shall come together before the first Monday in January, it may be detained several weeks before the House can organize or the Governor be qualified. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. GORMAN. The second section having been stricken out, I think the seventh section which prescribes the official terms of the different officers, ought to be amended by adding the words "and shall continue until their successors shall be chosen and qualified." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES moved to strike out the words "thereof," and insert "of their office," in the following section: Swa. 10. Each officer created by this chapter, shall, before entering upon his duties, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and faithfully discharge the duties thereof to the best of his judgment and ability. The motion was agreed to. Mr. BROWN. I move to strike out the following section: SEC. 11. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer and Attorney General, shall each be elected by the qualified electors on the day of 1857. That portion of the Schedule which provides for the apportionment and for the election of the different officers, will cover the whole subject. The motion was agreed to. On motion of Mr A. E. AMES, the Committee rose, reported the 381 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE article back to the Convention with amendments, and asked the concurrence of the Convention therein. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the Convention at one o'clock, adjourned until half past 2 o'clock, P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention'met at half past two o'clock. APPOINTMENT OF A COMMITTEE. The PRESIDENT announced the following gentlemen as the Committee on Impeachment and removal from office Messrs. WAIrtr, MEEKER, MURRAY, STACEY, and KINGSBURY. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, the Article on the Executive Department was taken up and the amendments of the Committee of the Whole, were concurred in, in gross. Mr. STACEY. I now renew the amendment voted down in Corn mittee, to insert in section five, after the word "pardons," the words "after conviction." Mr. PRESIDENT, the pardoning power is' a power which has been as much abused as any connected with the Executive office. All who have observed the exercise of that power by Executive officers will concur with me, that some restrictions should be imposed. I am willing to give the Governor power to pardon criminals, but I am in favor of restricting it as much as possible. The gentlem an from Washington, (Mr. CURTIS,) stated that no pardon could be granted until after conviction. I think the gentleman is right, but in the State of Pennsylvania, where the power has been very much abused, a similar clause in the Constitution has been construed otherwise. To so great an extent has the power been carried in that State, we have seen the party of which the Governor was a member, almost sacrificed in consequence of its abuse. Now, Sir, when a man is charged with crime, I do not care whether justly or unjustly, he should have a trial before the Executive is called upon to pardon him. I think that such is the fair construction of the section as it now stands. But in order to make the matter perfectly safe. I hope the amendment will be adopted. Mr. FLANDRAU. I would ask the gentleman to suggest one instance in which a pardon or reprieve could take place before conviction. If he can suggest a single instance, I will be willing to, vote for his amendment. S82 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. SHERBURNE. I rise for the purpose of suggesting that, although I think the construction which would admit a pardon before conviction is wrong, I do know of my own personal knowledge, that that construction has been adopted, and adopted in cases where I think it has been abused. I think the amendment should be adopted, and if instances occur in which it would be proper for a pardon to be granted during prosecution, the Attorney General would have the power to enter a nol pros. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. CHASE. I move to amend by adding to section 10, the following "And the Treasurer elected in accordance with this Article shall give a bond in the penal sum of one hundred thousand dollars to the Governor, and to be approved by him before entering upon his duties." Mr. EMMET moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words "one hundred thousand dollars," and insert instead thereof, the words "such sum as the Legislature may from time to time prescribe." The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The question recurred on the amendment as amended. Mr. SHERBURNE. Some provision, I suppose, should be made either in the Constitution or by law, for the safe keeping, transfer and disbursement of the State funds. I think such a provision is contained in the report of the Committee on Banks and Banking. If the Convention think this is the proper place, I have no objection to the provision being inserted here; but I am inclined to think, that as the matter has been reported upon by another Committee, it would be better to consider the subject in connection with their report. Mr. EMMETT. I have offered this amendment, not because I have any particular desire to insert any provision on this subject in this Article, but because I am opposed to fixing any particular sum, and especially when we have no data before us as to the amount of funds which may be in the hands of the Treasurer. If the Treasurer has in his possession $500,000, I want the bonds to be sufficient to cover that amount. I am in favor, therefore, of leaving it to the Legislature from time to time to fix the bonds of the Treasurer, and for that reason I offered the amendment to the amendment which has been adopted. The amendment as amended was not agreed to. The Article as amended was then ordered to be engrossed. FINANCES OF THE STATE, &C. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, the Convention resolved itself 83. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIE into Committee of the Whole on the report of the Committee on the Finances of the State, Banks and Banking. Mr. BECKER in the Chair: The following is the report of the Committee: FINANCES OF THE STATE AND BANKS AND BANKING. 'SEcrION 1. All taxes to be raised in this State shall be as nearly equal as may be, and all property on which taxes are to be levied, shall have a cash valuation, and be equalized and uniform throughout the State.' SEc. 2. The Legislature shall provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the estimated expenses for each year, and whenever it shall happen that the expenses of the State for any year shall exceed the income of the State for such year, the Legistature shall provide for levying a tax for the ensuing year, sufficient with other sources of income to pay the deficiency of the preceding year, together with the estimated expenses of such ensuing year. SEC. 3. Laws shall be passed taxing all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise, and also all real and personal property, according to its true value in money-but public burying-grounds, public school houses, academies, colleges, universities, and all seminaries of learning, all churches, institutions of purely public charity, public property used exclusively for any public purpose, and personal property to an amount not ex ceeding in value two hundred dollars for each individual, may by general laws be exempt from taxation. SEc. 4. Laws shall be passed for taxing the notes and bills discounted or purchased, moneys loaned, and all other property, effects or dues of every de scription (without deduction) of all Banks; and of all Bankers, so that all prop erty employed in banking shall always be on a burden of taxation equal to that imposed on the property of individuals. SEC. 5. For the purpose of defraying extraordinary expenditures, the State may contract public debts, but such debts shall never singly, nor in the aggregate, exceed two hundred and'fifty thousand dollars; every such debt shall be authorized by law, for some single object to be distinctly specified therein, and no such law shall take edffect until it shall have been passed by the vote of twothirds of the members of each house to be recorded by yeas and nays on the journals of each house respectively; and every such law shall levy a tax annually sufficient to pay the annual interest of such debt, and also a tax sufficient to pay the principal of such debt within seven years from the final passage of such law, and shall specially appropriate the proceeds of such'taxes to the payment of such principal and interest, and such appropriation and taxes shall not be repealed, postponed or diminished until the principal and interest of such debt shall have been wholly paid. SEc. 6. All debts authorized by the preceding section shall be contracted by loan on State Bonds of amounts not less than five hundred dollars each, on interest, payable within seven years after the final passage of the law authorizing such debt; and such bonds shall not be sold under par. A correct registry of all such bonds shall be kept by the Treasurer, in numerical order, so as always to exhibit the number and amount unpaid and to whom severally made payable. SEc. 7. This State shall never contract any public debt, unless in time of war, to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, except in the cases and in the manner provided in the fifth and sixth sections of this Article. SEc. 8. The money arising from any loan made or debt or liability contract 384 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ed, shall be applied to the object specified in the act authorizing such debt or liability, or to the repayment of such debt or liability, and to no other purpose whatever. SEc. 9. No money shall ever be paid out of the Treasury of this State, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law. SEC. 10. The credit of the State shall hever be given or loaned in aid of any individual, association or corporation. SEC. 11. There shall be published by the Treasurer, in at least one newspaper printed at the seat of government, during the first week in January of each year, and in the next volume of the acts of the Legislature, detailed statements of all the moneys drawn from the Treasury during the preceding year, for what purposes, and to whom paid, and by what law authorized, and also of all moneys received, and by what authority, and from whom. SEc. 12. Suitable laws shall be passed by the-Legislature for the safe keeping, transfer and disbursement of the State funds, and all officers and other persons charged with the same shall be required to give ample security for all moneys and funds of any kind, to keep an accurate entry of each sum received, and of each payment and transfer, and if any of said officers or other persons shall convert "to his own use in any form, or shall loan with or without interest, or shall deposit in bank, or exchange for other funds any portion of the funds of the State, every such act shall be adjudged to be an embezzlement of so much of the State funds as shall be thus taken, and shall be declared a felony; and any failure to pay over or produce the State funds intrusted to such person, on demand, shall be held and taken to be prima facie evidence of such embezzlement. SEc. 13. The Legislature shall not have power to create, authorize or incorporate by any general or special law, any Bank or Banking power, or privilege, or any institution or corporation having any Banking power or privilege whatever, except as provided in Section fourteen (14) of this Article. SEc. 14. The Legislature may submit -to the voters at any general election, the question of "Bank or no Bank," and if at any such election, a number equal to a majority of all the votes cast at such election on that subject, shall be in favor of banks, then the Legislature shall have power to pass a general banking law, with the following restrictions and requirements, viz: First, The Legislature 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. Second, The Legislature shall provide by law for the registry of all bills or notes issued or put in circulation as money, and shall require ample security in United States stocks or State stocks, for the redemption of the same in specie. Third, The stockholders in every corporation and joint association for banking purposes issuing bank notes, shall be individually liable over and above the stock by him or her owned, and any amount unpaid thereon, to a further sum at least equal in amount to such stock. Fourth, In case of the insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill holders thereof shall be entitled to preference in payment over all other credit ors of such bank or association. Section 2d being under consideration,. Mr. SHERBURNE said: I confess to this Committee that I had never read this Section until this moment, and I am not prepared to suggest an amendment. But I have some doubt 385 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE whether its provisions, in the present shape, would always be prac ticable. It reads: SEc. 2. The Legislature shall provide for an annual tax sufficient to defray the estimated expenses for each year, and whenever it shall happen that the expenses of the State for any year shall exceed the income of the State for such year, the Legislature shall provide for levying a tax for the ensuing year suffi cient with other sources of income to pay the deficiency of the preceding year, together with the estimated expenses of such ensuing year. I do not know what may be understood by the language "with "other sources of income." It may happen that there may be some years when it will be inexpedient to levy a tax sufficient to pay the whole indebtedness of the State. I do not know what limit may be fixed to which the State may go in debt. I suppose some limit will be fixed in the Constitution. A gentleman informs me that $250,000 has been fixed in a subsequent Section of this report. Now, sir, if the State in one year goes in debt to that amount, I doubt whether it will be expedient to require the Legislature to raise the whole sum by a tax to be levied for that year. And again, I suppose circumstances may occur which may render it necessary for the State to incur expenses to the amount of millions. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I will state that there is an exception in case of insurrection provided for in Section 7. Mr. SHERBURNE. That makes the case still stronger. If emergencies should arise in which the State finds itself required to incur very heavy expenses, its indebtedness should be paid in instalments. It strikes me that the Section as it now stands, ought not to be adopted, and I hope some gentleman will suggest an amendment to relieve the difficulty. Mr. KINGSBURY.' I move to amend the Section in the fourth line, by striking out the word " shall," and inserting "may." Mr. CURTIS. I do not know what the precise design of the Committee was, but it strikes me that the object they intended to accomplish is to provide for the ordinary expenses of the State Government, and not to cover a State debt, which may be contracted. I think the ordinary expenses of the State Government, are not properly included in the term "public debt," and if so, then it seems to me the gentleman's objection falls. Mr. HOLCOMBE. This Report classifies the debts of the State, and the Article now under consideration, refers simply to the ordinary annual expenses of the Government. The fifth Section provides for defraying the extraordinary expenses of the State, and limits the amount to which the State may go in debt to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. The seventh Section provides that the State shall never contract any public debt except in time 386 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. of war or to repel invasion, except as provided in preceding Sections. Any debts incurred in time of war, or under any extraordinary emergency are not, therefore, covered by this Section. Mr. SHERBURNE. I am satisfied with the gentleman's explanation, and withdraw all objection to the Section. Mr. KINGSBURY withdrew his amendment. Mr. NORRIS moved to amend the Section, by inserting before the word" expenses," the word "ordinary." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. CURTIS moved further to amend by inserting after the word Itexpenses," in the second line, the words "of the State." The amendment was adopted. Mr. SHERBURNE moved to amend by striking out, in the third line, the words "of the State." The amendment was adopted. Mr. SIBLEY moved to strike out the word "the," in the third line of the Section, and insert in lieu thereof the word "such." Mr. McGRORTY moved to insert after the word "school-houses," the words "public hospitals," in the following Section: SEc. 3. Laws shall be passed taxing all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise, and also all real and personal property, according to its true value in money-but public burying-grounds,public, school houses, academies, colleges, universities, and all seminaries of learning all churches, institutions of purely public charity, public property used exclusively for any public purpose, and personal property to an amount not exceeding in value two hundred dollars for each individual, may by general laws be exempt from taxation. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BAKER moved to amend the Section, by inserting after the word "churches," the words "church property." Mr. HOLCOMBE. It was the intention of the Committee to have inserted that amendment into the report; but the correction was not made until after the report had been ordered to be printed. Mr. TENVOORDE. I think it would be better to say, "church: buildings." Churches may own farms, and I do not think it would be proper to except them from taxation. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. CURTIS. I move to insert after the word "churches," the wcrds "and house of public worship." If we are going into particulars, I want to go the whole figure. Mr. BAKER. I hope the amendment will be adopted. I want to have all church property excepted from taxation. I think there will be no danger of our churches going into speculation. It strikes me that inasmuch as their mission is one of love to, and the amelio 25 .38 I PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE ration of the human race, to relieve and make happy humanity, we ought to grant them all the protection in our power. Mr. M. E. AMES. I beg leave simply to ask my colleague, for the information of the Convention, to what church he belongs? Mr. BAKER. Christ's Church, sir. [daughter.] The amendment was adopted. Mr. M. E. AMES. I have an amendment to offer by way of limitation. I move to add at the end of the amendment just adopted, the words "not exceeding fifty thousand dollars in value." I make the motion for the simple reason, that there are at the present time, as I have reason to believe, some churches within this Territory holding property to the amount of two or three hundred thousand dollars, which, in five years from this time, will probably exceed a million dollars in value. I do not think that so large an amount of property, even if vested in.a church, should be exempt from taxation. Mr. MEEKER. I would inquire if the gentleman intends to make his amendment, apply to churches of any particular denomination within the proposed State. Mr. M. E. AMES. Certainly not. Mr. MEEKER. Then it applies to each individual denomination in the Territory. Mr. M. E. AMES. That is the construction I intended, and I think the only one the language will bear. Mr. McGRORTY. I rise simply to ask the intention of the gentlemen in offering this amendment? I wish to know whether he means to prevent religious societies from erecting large and expensive buildings for public worship? He is aware that the Catholic Church now in process of construction in this city, will cost much more than fifty thousand dollars, and I wish to know if he designs to tax that church upon all its property above that amount. I do not think the amendment is right. I believe we ought to encourage all religious societies in building as good churches as they can afford, and not to impose any tax upon them, whatever may be the cost of their construction. Mr. M. E. AMES. My colleague asks my intention in offering this amendment, and inquires the application it is intended to have. I offered it for these reasons: There are instances in the United States where a single church holds property to the amount of millions of dollars. Take, for instance, the case of the Old Trinity Church in New-York, which, I am informed, possesses property to the amount of. more than ten millions of dollars, vested in that single Society. It is true, that may be an exception to the ger 888 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVE,NTION. eral rule: for it is, perhaps, the wealthiest institution of the kind in the country; but there are many other instances in the Eastern and the Western States where the title to property is vested in a single church to the amount of five hundred thousand dollars, and, perhaps, I might say of millions. I speak with regard to all religious denominations, and my amendment is, of course, applicable to all alike. I do not think it is good State policy-neither ,do I think it just and equitable to the tax-paying community, to exempt so large an aggregate of property from taxation. I do not think each individual church should be allowed to hold property free from taxation amounting to more than fifty thousand dollars. My colleague has referred to the Catholic Church now building in this City, which, I understand, will cost more than one hundred thousand dollars. I have no objection to its costing; double that amount. I am glad to see that Church has the means of erecting so costly an edifice, but it does not follow that so large an amount of property should be exempt from taxation. Mr. BAKER. I am not surprised that the gentleman should not have found out to what'church I belong, since he has shown such utter ignorance in respect to religion generally, to say nothing of morals. [Laughter'.] But, sir, I am surprised to hear him.make the remarks he has made in reference to the churches of this land. Sir, no gentleman here can tell to what an extent these'institutions are already taxed, or how often they are called upon for charities. I do not think that forty-eight hours will roll round, before- my colleage himself will be called upon-if he has not been already-to contribute for the relief ofpersons who are now crying for bread. Our city authorities make provision to a certain extent for'the poor, but it is the c larch only which can be relied on to relieve the necessities of' the u':st:.tute. But, sir, if the gentleman will look to the action of the last Legislature of the State-of New-York, he will find how a State an take care of church property. If I understand correctly, they have taken away all the.property from a particular church in that'State. The gentleman refers to Trinity Church, for the purpose of producing prejudice in the minds of this Convention against churches holding large properties in this country. Sir, if I am correctly informed, that Church, from its own funds, supports constantly more than five hunidred persons; and, because it has the means of such charitable munificence, the gentleman would seek to impose additional burdens on it. If the gentleman will ascertain a little more about churches, it will do him no harm, and may do a good deal of good. [Laughter.] If I could bring down the great principle of charity to a mere matter 389 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES QF THE of making money: in other words, if I could reduce my immortal — ity to a matter of dollars and cents, I might go for taxing all the church property above fifty thousand dollars. Sir, my colleague is ignorant-I say it in all kindness-of the great objects for which churches are established [T,aughter]; but if the prosperity of this world should not come into his lap as lavishly as it is my wish it may if want should be his lot, as may happen to every son of humanity,-then, sir, the same church whose funds he now desires to appropriate for State purposes, may open its portals, and grant to him not only the support necessary for this life, but for that which is to come. [Renewed Laughter.] I have no doubt, should his circumstances ever call for aid, he will receive it at their hands. Mr. M. E. AMES. The argument and reasoning of my colleague is certainly most conclusive and overwhelming. I have no doubt that he is conversant with the condition of the churches in this City, as well as with the price of real estate. I have no doubt fat his knowledge in these matters exceeds that of perhaps any other member of the Convention; and I acknowledge frankly the justice of his remarks in relation to myself, when, in the amplification of his charity, he charged upon me entire ignorance of churches, church matters, and also of morality. But, Mr. CHAIRMAN, there is one redeeming feature. Although there are some others of my colleagues who are in the same category, and might be classed with myself in the lamentable ignorance which it is our misfortune to possess, yet, I believe, it will be conceded that the delegation from this City upon this floor, in the aggregate, are the most pious and the most moral class of men who have obtained seats in this Convention; and the reason why it is so is owing to the morality, the religion, the pure, unspotted, pious character, of my colleage who has just addressed the Convention. [Laughter.] Why, Mr. CHAIRMAN, sometimes, in my admiration of his character-sometimes in my admiration of his high-minded, pure, noble, and spotless character, —I have even suspected that my honorable colleague had intercourse with the spirits: for I scarcely know how he could be so pure without. [Great Laughter.] The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. WAIT moved to amend by inserting after the words, "church property," the words "and for religious purposes." The motion was agreed to. Mr. SETZER moved to insert the word "public" before the word worship." The motion was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY moved to amend the section in the 9th line by 390 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. striking out the words "may by general laws," and inserting the word "shall." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved further to amend the section iby striking ,out "tw6 hundred," and inserting in lieu thereof "two hundred and fifty." Mr. BAKER moved to amend the amendment by adding thereto the following: All regular ordained ministers of the Gospel who make the calling of their Master their sole profession, and refuse holding civil offices shall be exempt from taxation to the amount of $2500 in real and personal property. I have but one word to say upon this amendment. It happens to be my province to come from a section of country where several of these gentlemen reside, who, while they profess to follow the' calling of their Great Master, are speculators and usuriers. I want to make a distinction between these men and those ministers of the Gospel who are the faithful promoters of their Master's cause. Some of them became Registers of Deeds; some Justices of the Peace; some one thing and some another. Now, sir, I have more respect, as I have shown upon this floor, for these men of honesty and integrity who make the ministry of religion their calling and who keep clear of politics, than for any other class of citizens; and I, for one, desire that they should be exempt from taxation. Mr. FLANDRAU. I ask the gentleman how he proposes to determine whether'these Rev. gentlemen have kept themselves entirely within the mission of their great Masters? Mr. BAKER. I answer the gentleman in the language of Scrip ture-" The tree is known by its fruit." Mr. FLANDRAU. I will-suggest that I am entirely willing that ministers of the Gospel shall be made incapable of holding any civil or military office under the State organization, and that they shall then be exempt from taxation to any amount, I do not care if they are worth a million. But if they are to be exempt from taxa tion, I wish them also not to serve the public in any civil or mili tary capacity. On the other hand, if they are to take their chances in holding military or civil offices, then I am opposed to their being exempt, in any respect, from any of the burdens under the State organization imposed upon any other citizen. I am opposed to the amendment as it now stands. Mr. KEEGAN. I wish to inquire of the gentleman who offered the amendment, if he will not specify those persons who are invited by religious societies to become their pastors. Mr. BAKER. No, sir; I think the amendment is right as it - stands. 391 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to, The amendment was rejected. Mr. BAKER. I now renew the same amendment, exempting per sonal property not exceeding $1000. Mr. FLANDRAU.'I will suggest that in the Bill of Rights there is a section providing that a reasonable amount of property shall be exempted from seizure. I think the same provision will apply tp' taxation, but I can see no reason why any person who owns property should not contribute to the revenue of the State upon the amount he owns. If a man is worth a million, he is taxed upon his property at that valuation; if he only owns one hundred dollars, let him be taxed proportionately. I can see no reason for making any distinction between the wealthy and the poor citizen. We stand up here as Democrats, for equal and exact justice to all, and special privileges to none, rich or poor. Why, then, make a distinetion in taxation between two parties? Let us have a gov ernment of equality, and let no man feel that he is a charity citizen in this State. Let him, if he.owns property, pay taxes to his pro portionate amount of the revenue into the treasury of the State. Make him feel his independence as a citizen of the State. I trust there will be no mark stamped upon any man indicating his pov erty. I want every man to stand alike. If he is worth only ten dollars, let him pay his taxes equal in proportion to the man who is worth his millions, and do not place the stigma upon him that he belongs to a distinct class, because he possesses property less than a certain amount. Mr. STACEY. There is no distinction made inthis section as reported. It exempts personal property not exceeding $200 for each individual, rich or poor. It makes no distinction. Mr. SHERBURNE. I agree with the gentleman from Nicollet, (Mr. FLANDRAU,) in the principle which he announced; but either he or I.1 misunderstand the object of this provision. It simply makes an exception which is provided for in the Constitutions of most or all of the States. It is merely a matter of convenience, to save the assessors the necessity of examining wardrobes, beds and other furniture, when there is but a small amount, to assess taxes. I think the gentleman will not require that assessors shall be required to do this. The whole matter could be very well provided for by law, but I think the exception may very properly be placed in the Constitution. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS moved to insert after the words "personal property" the words "for household purposes." 392 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. FLANDRAU. It seemns to me singular that the gentleman should desire to introduce this clause here. I do not believe there is any poor man who desires such an exemption. I do not believe there is a class of citizens in the Territory who desire to be stamped as paupers, and marked as exempt from taxation, who are to contribute nothing to the revenues of the State, but are to be declared by a clause in this Constitution charity citizens. I can not believe that such men exist in the free State of Minnesota. If they possess two hundred or two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property, I do not believe they desire to be exempted from paying their proportion of the revenues of the State. Mr. CURTIS. I think the gentleman does not understand the proposition. It does not discriminate or stamp any man as a pauper. It is merely to exempt two hundred dollars' worth of property for any man. It saves the assessor a great deal of labor. If a man possesses household furniture to the amount of two hundred dollars, it is exempt from taxation. If the man is worth $500,000, the same amount is exempt. The law bears equally upon the rich and poor. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES moved to amend by striking out the words "on a burden of" and inserting "subject to" in the following section SEC. 4. Laws shall be passed for taxing the notes and bills discounted, or purchased moneys loaned, and all other property, effects or dues of every description, without deduction, of all banks, and of all bankers, so that all property employed in banking shall always be on a burden of taxation equal to that imposed on the property. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. MURRAY. I should like to know what is tilhe meaning of the-words used in this section, "without deduction." Mr. HOLCOMBE. The section as it stands was copied from another Constitution. Mr. MURRAY. I move to strike out the words. I think they mean a good deal more than gentlemen are aware. They provide for taxing debts, credits ad everything else, and I apprehend can be found nowhere except in the Constitution of the State of Ohio. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SIBLEY moved to strike out the words "singly nor" in the third line of the following section SEc. 5. For the purpose of defraying extraordinary expenditures, the State may contract public debts, but such debts shall never, singly nor in the aggre gate, exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; every suchdebt shall be authorized by law, for some single object to be specified therein, and no such law shall take effect until it shall have been passed by a vote of two-thirds of ~the members of each House, to be recorded by yeas and nays on the journalis of 393 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE each House respectively; and every such law shall levy a tax annually sufficient to pay the annual interest of such debt, and also a tax sufficient to pay the principal of such debt within seven years from the final passage of such law, and shall specially appropriate the proceeds of such taxes to the payment of such principal and interest, and such appropriation and taxes shall not be repealed, postponed or diminished until the principal and interest of such debt shall have been wholly paid. The motion was agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES. I move to amend by striking out all after the word "dollars" in the fourth line to the end of the section. I make the motion because I find upon reading this portion of the section carefully that it is a mere matter of legislation in lengthy details. I am opposed to incorporating into this Constitution matters which I conceive more properly and legitimately belong to the functions of the Legislature. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I hope the amendment will not prevail. If there is anything in this article which will give the State credit at home and abroad, it is that which the gentleman proposes to strike out. What is it? It is that those who contract debts shall provide for their payment without any reservation. It is certainly a reasonable proposition that if a debt is contracted by authority of law, it shall be paid without any suspension or failure. I think it is a very important provision, and hope it will not be stricken out. Mr. M. E. AMES. The reading of the section itself is a sufficient commentary to show that it is no more nor less than the details of legislative enactment, which I do not think it is good policy or a matter of propriety to incorporate into the Constitution. If we proceed to incorporate legislative enactments into the article we may do it in every other article in'the Constitution. There is no reason why it should be done here more than in any other part of the Constitution. So far as giving the State credit is concerned, the limitations already provided, that the indebtedness shall not exceed $250,000, is a sufficient guarantee that its credit will always be good, and its bonds always at par, or very nearly so. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. CHASE moved to strike out of tihe section the words " two thirds of." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. GORMAN. I move to amend the section in the fourth line by inserting after "250,000" the words "for the first ten years after the State is admitted into the Union, and thereafter aot exceeding one million dollars." '394 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. I do this, Mr. CHAIRMAN, for this reason. The amount to which the State may go in debt under this section may be sufficient for our present purposes, but in the future progress of the State it may become necessary to incur debts to a greater amount. With a population of a million inhabitants, a debt of $250,000 would be no debt at all, comparatively. I will not stop here to enumerate the various instances in which the State may desire to extend its credit for the purpose of accomplishing some great commercial or other object, or for the purpose of establishing various institutions, such as asylums for the deaf and dumb, for the blind, insane, and various others. $250,000 will be found entirely inadequate to accomplish any such purposes. I think, therefore, that after the first ten years we may safely increase our indebtedness to the million, and that to require a vote of two-thirds of the Legislature will be a sufficient safeguard. I think that such a provision will give us high credit and high financial character. We provide that the moment the debt is contracted the basis shall be laid for its payment, and there is no danger in extending our indebtedness to the amount I have specified. Mr. SIBLEY. I am opposed, in toto, to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ramsey. Now, Sir, I hold in my hand the new Constitution of the State of Iowa, containing a population much larger than Minnesota. One reason urged against the adoption of the Constitution was that too much latitude was given for the contraction of State debt. The first Constitution provided for a State debt of $250,000, and one strong reason urged for the rejection of this very Constitution before the pe6ple of Iowa has been that the limit is fixed at twice the amount of the former Constitution. Now, Sir, I can conceive of no case likely to occur in the next ten or twenty years where it will be necessary for the State of Minnesota to incur a debt of more than $250,000, and I am opposed in toto to the amendment. Mr. SETZER. I shall vote against the amendment for the reason that we have this morning passed a provision for amending the Constitution whenever it shall become necessary, and if it shall become necessary ten years hence to contract a larger State debt, the Constitution can be amended for that purpose. The amendment was disagreed to. Mr. TUTTLE moved to strike out in the third line of the section the word "seven" and to insert "ten." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STURGIS moved to strike out the word "Ilouse" in the sev enth line and insert "branch of the Legislature." 395 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The amendment was agreed to. On motion of Mr. TUTTLE the sixth section was amended by striking out the word ".seven" and inserting the word "ten" in the seventh line. Mr. M. E. ACMES. For the purpose of perfecting the sixth section I would suggest that there should be an alteration in the clause which reads "and such bonds shall not be sold under par." The provision as it now stands would prevent the State bonds from being sold second hand by individuals for less than their par value. I move to amend by inserting after the word "sold" the words "by the State." Mr. SIIERBURNE. I was rising to make a remark upon this very clause when my colleague rose. I suppose there should be no misunderstanding as to the precise meaning of the expression "under par," that is dollar for dollar. Now, sir, I have known the time when States with the best credits could not raise money dollar for dollar. If such a time should occur hereafter, I trust we shall not place it without the power of the Legislature to raise a dollar of money for any purpose whatever. Mr. SIBLEY. I would suggest to the gentleman that he is mistaken in his view of the matter. The Legislature have different power to raise money. Mr. SHERBURNE. If the Legislature is authorized by this provision to raise money whether at par or otherwise, then, of course, my objection amounts to nothing, but according to my understanding of the section as it now stands, the Legislature have only power to sell their seven per cent bonds at par. If however, the Legislature has the right to select what rate of interest may be necessary then I have no objection to the section as it stands. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I think if the gentleman will look into the bearing of this section, he will find the meaning of the expression "shall not be sold under par" has no reference to the rate of interest which the bonds are to bear. The Legislature is to fix its rate of interest and we shall then know exactly the amount of money the State is to receive for its bonds. That is the intention of the provision. The bonds may draw interest at seven per cent, or five per cent, or if the contingency should arise, when moneyshould become very scarce, it may be necessary, perhaps, for the Legislature to fix a higher rate of Interest; but whatever rates fixed, the bonds are not to be negotiated below par. If my memory serves me right, many of the States fix the rate of interest at six per cent, and then some Commissioner is appointed to negotiate the bonds. He may 396 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. negotiate bonds for $100 at $90 and the State never knows what it is to receive. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BAKER moved that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BROWN moved to strike out the following section: "SEc. 13. The Legislature shall not have power to create, authorize or incorporate by any general or special law, any Bank or Banking power, or privilege, or any institution or corporation having any banking power or privilege whatever, except as provided in Section fourteen (14) of this Article." And to insert in lieu thereof the following "S'c. 13. No debt shall be deemed to be liquidated in this State by virtue of the payment of the paper of any Banking corporation in circulation as money. " The motion was not agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES. I move to strike out of section fourteen the following: "The Legislature may submit to the voters at any general election, the question of "Bank or no Bank," and if at any such election, a number equal to a majority of all the votes cast at such election on that subject, shall be in favor of banks, then." There is no question at all in my mind that the people of Minnesota are in favor of having banks and I see no necessity of submitting the matter to a vote. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved to strike out the whole of section fourteen. The motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, the Committee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, the Convention at half past four o'clock P. M. adjourned. TWENTY-FIFTH DAY. TUEsDAY, August 11, 1857. The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain, The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. THOS. R. ARMSTRONG. Mr. BROWN, from the Committee on Credentials, presented the following report: 39T PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS IN THE CASE OF THOS. H. ARMSTRONG. Your Committee having examined the documents placed before them in . 2. The State of Minnesota shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the Mississippi and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said State of Minnesota,,. 570 CONSTITUTION.&L CONVENTION. . I! so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said State and any other State or States now or hereafter to be formed by the same; and said rivers and waters, and navigable waters leading into the same, shall be common highways, and forever free as well to theinhabitants of said State as to other citizens of the UJnited States, without any tax, duty, impost or toll thereon. Mr. FLANDRAU. I move to strike out the'word "original" in the tenth Section of the Bill of Rights, so as to make it read: "In "all prosecutions or indictments for libel, thie truth may be given "in evidence," &c. It seems to me that the word "original" is utterly meaningless in that Section. Mr. MEEKER. I think the word original is a misprint. The word really used in the Report was " criminal." I move to amend the amendment by inserting the word "criminal" in lieu of the word original." Mr. M. E. AMES. I hope that amendment will not prevail. I cannot for the life of me see any good reason for making a distintion in this Constitution between criminal suits for libel and civil suits for the same offence. If it is proper to invade the old Eniglish common-law rule, and allow the party indicted for libel to justify himself by giving the truth in evidence at all, it seems to me the argument is much the strongest in favor of allowing the accused to give the truth in evidence where he is prosecuted for damages by private suit than in case of a criminal prosecution. I am in favor of the provisions of the Section with the amendment. The old common4-law rule was a very harsh one in its operation, and I hope the change proposed will be made, but there should certainly be no distinction between civil and criminal prosecutions; and I thieefore hope the amendment to the amendment will not prevail. Mr. FLANDRAU. When the Bill of Rights was originally before the Committee, I endeavored to demonstrate that there was no reason why the right to give the truth in evidence in suits for libel should be confined to criminal prosecutions. Under the Sec tion as it stands, with the word "criminal" inserted, a man may be indicted criminally and justified by giving the truth in evidence. while if prosecuted by private suit for damages, he may be fined a a thousand dollars for the same offence. Now, why he should not be allowed the same rights in his defence in one case as in the other I cannot conceive. There is no reason why a rule should not be allowed in one case which is not allowed in the other; and I hope the word "criminal," or "original," or whatever it is, will be stricken out altogether. Mr. SETZER raised the question of order, that the amendment having on a former occasion been offered in Committee it was not in order now to offer it. 571 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The CHAIRMAN decided that the whole Article was now before the Committee as an original proposition, and therefore overruled the question of order. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was adopted. Mr. EMMETT moved to strike out the whole clause, and to in sert as follows: In actions for libel or slander, whether civil or criminal, the truth may be given in evidence as a bar to the action. Mr. FLANDRAU moved to amend the amendment by striking out the words "or indictments," and leaving the Section to stand as it is. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS moved to amend the amendment by striking out the word "indictments" and inserting the words "civil actions," and to insert the words "or slander" after the word "libel." The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was also rejected. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Committee here rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit again. Leave was granted. Mr. SETZER moved to suspend the rules to enable him to offer the following resolution: RESOLVED, That where amendments have been adopted or rejected on a previous occasion, such subject shall not be again considered. The rules were suspended and the resolution was received. Mr. A. E. AMES. I think if the Convention should adopt that resolution, it would be placing ourselves in a dangerous position. The object in referring these Articles to the Committee on Revisiol and again considering them in Committee of the Whole, is to give the Convention an opportunity of relieving itself from any difficulties which may arise in reference to the Articles as they now stand. It may become necessary to strike out certain portions of certain Articles, the same provisions having been made in other places. I think the resolution will place the Convention in a dangerous position, and I hope it will not be adopted. Mr. MEEKER. I am in favor of dispatch in our proceedings as much as any gentleman, but I do not think this resolution ought to be adopted. It will compel us to reconsider and ultimately result in more delay than if we go on with our business as at present. Mr. SETZER. I offer that resolution for the purpose of putting an end at some time or other to the practice of offering amendments over and over again. I really think that after a subject has .572 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. been legitimately discussed and disposed of, it should be laid aside and that we should not be required to go over the same ground again and again. After further debate, on motion of Mr. MEEKER, the resolution was laid on the table. Mr. TAYLOR moved to adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved a call of the Convention. The motion was lost. On motion of Mr. MEEKER, the Convention then adjourned until half past two o'clock, P. m. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. On motion of Mr. BAASEN, a call of the Convention was or dered. The Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to report the absent members in their seats. Mr. EMMETT moved that the Committee of Conference be ex cused from attendance this day. The motion was lost. Mr. SETZER moved that Mr. McGRORTY be excused from attend ance for twenty minutes. The motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, Mr. McGRORTY had leave of ab sence for half an hour. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. Mr. A.E. AMES, on leave, introduced the following resolution which was adopted: RESOLVED, That on the call of the Convention, the names of the absent mem bers shall be entered on the Journal. Mr. WAIT, the rules having been suspended for that purpose, * offered the following resolution. REOSLVED, That no discussion shall be in order in Convention or in Commit tee of the Whole, on Articles or Sections reported back by Committee on Phrase ology and Revision, which have been heretofore passed upon and adopted by this Convention, except when an apparent discrepancy in such Articles or Sec tions may make explanation necessary. Mr. EMMETT. I am opposed to that resolution. I will not say it is an attempt to gag this Convention, but, sir, I well recollect that when the first Article was submitted to the Committee on Re vision, it was with the distinct understanding that when these 573 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Articles came back again, they would be open to amendment and revision. It was upon that express ground that I withdrew an amendment which I had offered at the time. I recollect very well that in answer to the question, when it was asked, the CHAIR stated distinctly that the Article would be subject to amendment when the Committee on Revision should report. The PRESIDENT. The CHAIR will state that his understanding of the resolution proposed by the gentleman from Stearns, (Mr. WAIT,) is that it does not cut off amendments; it proposes merely to avoid discussion upon those questions which have hitherto been considered in Convention or Committee of the Whole. Mr. HOLCOMBE. I would suggest that it is not necessary to consider these Articles again in Committee of the Whole. They have all been considered once in Committee of the Whole and in Convention. We can give them what revision may be necessary here in Convention, but I cannot for the life of me see thenecessity of going into Committee of the whole again upon these Articles After further debate, on motion of Mr. EMMETT, a call of the Convention was ordered. After the roll had been called, on motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. The question recurring on the adoption of the resolution, it was decided in the affirmative. Mr. A. E. AMES, the rules having been suspended for that purpose, offered the following resolution: REsoLVED, That the engrossed Articles shall be only considered and amiended in Convention. Mr. SETZER suggested that the engrossed Articles were already in possession of the Committee of the Whole, and that it would first be necessary to go into Committee and report them back to the Convention. Mr. A. E. AMES then withdrew his resolution. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. BECKER in the Chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Phraseology and Revision. On motion of Mr. SIBLEY, the Committee rose and reported the engrossed Articles back to the Convention with amendments. The amendments were concurred in. On motion of Mr. CURTIS, the letter "s" was stricken off the the words "oaths" and "affirmations" in the eleventh section of the Bill of Rights. On motion of Mr. MEEKER, the word "said" was stricken out of 574 CONSTITU'lIONAL CONVENTION. fourth line, section thirteen, and the word "a"' inserted in lieu thereof. Mr. BECKER moved to strike out of the fourteenth section the words "first paid or secured." The motion was agreed to. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the "words "to meet," were inserted in the fourth line, sixth section of the Article on Legislative Department, before the word "without." On motion of Mr. MEEKER, the words "Senate or," were inserted ini the fifth line, section seven of the same Article. Mr. STACEY moved to strike out the word "three" in second line, section seven, and insert "five." The motion was lost. Mr. STACEY moved to insert "four" instead of "three."' The motion was lost. On motion of Mr. MEEKER, the word "and," was inserted in the fourth line, section eight, before the word "for." On motion of Mr. CURTIS, the words "until two years," were stricken out in seventh line of section nine. Mr. CURTIS moved to strike out the word "shall" in the eighth line, section eleven, and insert the word "may." The motion was lost. Onmotion of Mr. MEEKER, lines ten and eleven of section twenty-three were stricken out. Mr. SWAN moved that section twenty-eight be stricken out. The motion was lost. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend section twenty-nine by submitting the following for the first two lines "Each member and officer of the Legislative Assembly shall, before entering upon the duties of his trust or office." The resolution was agreed to. On motion of Mr. M. E. AMES. the w6rd "electing" was stricken out of section fifteen, and the line amended so as to read "the elective franchise, or of being elected to any office." Mr. EMMETT moved to amend section fifteen so that the same would read "the privilege of being elected to any office." The motion was carried. On motion of Mr. SETZER, further consideration of the report was postponed until to-morrow. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Committee on Enrollment were instructed to have the Articles so far definitely acted upon, en rolled at their earliest convenience. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the Convention then adjourned. 57.5 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY. WEDNESDAY, August 26. The Convention met at 9 o'elock, A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. CALL OF THE CONVENTION. On mnotion of Mr. A. E. AMES, a call of the Convention was ordered, and the following members were found absent: Messrs. A. E. Ames, Baker, Bailly, Brown, Baasen, Cantell, Chase, Flandrau, Gilbert, Gorman, Holcombe, Jerome, Kingsbury, Murray, McGrorty, McFetridge, Nash, Setzer, Sanderson, Sherburne, Shepley, Sturgis, Tuttle, Vasseur and Wilson. The Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to report the absent members in their seats. On motion of Mr. TENVOORDE, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. REVISION AND PHRASEOLOGY. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Revision and Phraseology, the Article on the Judicial Department being first in order. Mr. WAIT. I move to insert the word "circuit," in lieu of "Dis "trict," in the second line of Section one. I offer that amendment for the reason that as I understand, there will be no District Court of the State. Mr. EMMETT. I trust that amendment will not prevail. We now have a District Court and the District Court which it is pro posed to establish by this Constitution is to take the place of that provided by the organic act of the Territory. I trust the change will not be made, for I think' that injury may be done by it. I see no benefits that are to arise from the adoption of the amendment. 'It is a mere name and as the District Courts now in existence will be almost identical with those we have established for the State, I think the same name should be continued. Mr. WAIT. It is true that it was agreed by the Committee on the Judiciary, that the term District should be used, but I do' not know that the question was discussed in Committee. But, sir, we shall have a District Court of the United States, under our State organization, and to prevent any conflict of term, it seemed to me better that the name "(Cirecuit" should be applied to the State Courts. 576 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Mr. EMMETT. We have also a Circuit Court of the United. States. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS. I move to strike out the words "Seat of Government," in the ninth line of Section two. It may become necessary to change the place for holding the Court, and I make the motion for that reason. Mr. M. E. AMES. I hope that amendment will not prevail. It will create confusion. I think the Seat of Government is the proper place for holding the Court. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT. I move to amend the second Section by striking out from the word "Government" in the ninth line to the end of the paragraph in the eleventh line as follows: And the Legislature may provide by a two-thirds vote that one term in each year shall be held in each Judicial District. I make the motion upon the ground that the Supreme Court should be held at one place which should be where the library and all other records are kept. If the Supreme Court is obliged under the plea of administering justice at every man's door to carry records round the country, they can very easily spend what little salary they have, and it will besides create endless confusion. This system has been tried in several of the States and I believe they have settled down into the conviction that the Supreme Court, like the Supreme Court of the United States, shall be held in one place where the records shall be kept, and where there shall be a library. It is necessary jin order to do justice that there should be a library accessible to the Court at the place where they are sitting, and if they are compelled to hold their court at different places, it puts it in the power of the Legislature to force the Supreme Judges to exhaust what little they may have in the way of salary, in traveling from place to place. Mr. WAIT. I hope this amendment will not prevail. This matter was talked over in Committee and it was unanimously decided that the provision as incorporated in the Section should be reported. Mr. EMMETT. I beg to say that as a member of that Committee, I never heard of this provision, until I saw it in the report of the Committee. The amendment was not agreed-to. Mr. CURTIS moved to amend section three by striking out the word "Judges," and inserting the word "Justices," so as to make it read the "Justices of the Supreme Court," &c. 577 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF IHE The amendment was agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES. For the purpose of testing the sense of the convention, I submit a motion to strike out the word "seven," and insert "five," in the sixth line of section four, so as to make the term of office for the District Judges five years, I think that is a sufficiently long time for a Judge to serve in a District Court. If he is a bad Judge, it is long enough, and if he is a good one, he will be re-elected. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to strike out the word "Judges," where it occurs in Section six, and insert the word "Justices." The motion was agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES. I do not think the last part of Section seven, regulating the powers and jurisdiction of Probate Judges is sufficiently explicit. I move to insert the words "and general Prob ate powers," in the thirteenth line, so that it shall read: A Probate Court which shall have jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and persons under guardianship and general Probate powers, &c. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES moved to strike out the word "over" in the eighth line of Section 8. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. WARNER moved to strike out "one" and insert "two," in the sixth line, so as to give Justices of the Peace jurisdiction of any civil cause where the amount in controversy shall niot exceed two hundred, instead of one hundred dollars, The motion was not agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend the same Section by striking out the word "two" and inserting "one," so as to make the term of office of Justices of the Peace one year, instead of two. The motion was not agreed to. Mr.' STURGIS moved to amend the Section so as to extend the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace to cases involving one hundred and fifty dollars. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES moved to strike out "seven" and insert "five," in Section nine, so asto make the term of office for all Judges other than those provided for in this Constitution, not longer than five years, The amendment was agreed to. Oni motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the words "Justice of the Supreme Court or" were inserted in the first line of Section ten, so as to make it read -5-18 OONSTITUTIONAL CONYENTION. In case the office of any Justice of the Supreme Court or Judge shall become vacant, &c. On motion of Mr. STREETER, the words "or appointed" were stricken out of the fourth line of Section ten, so as to make it read: The vacancy shall be filled by appointment of the Governor until a successor is elected and qualified. On motion of Mr. WAIT, the words "Judges of" were inserted in the first line of Section eleven, so as to make it read: "The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the District Court shall hold no office," &c. Mr. CURTIS moved to strike out of Section eleven the words "given by the Legislature or the people," in the following clause: And all votes for either of them for any elective office under this Constitution, except a Judicial Office, given by the Legislature or the people during their con.tinuance in office, shall be void. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR moved to insert the word "two" in lieu of "four," in the following Section SEC. 13. There shall be elected in each county where a District Court shall be held, one Clerk of said Court, whose qualifications, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law, and whose term of office shall be four years. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to strike out the words "but they shall he in substance according to the common law," in the following Section: SEC. 14. Legal proceedings and proceedings in the Courts of this State shall be under the direction of the Legislature, but they shall be in substance according to the common lbo. The style of all process shall be "The State of Minnesota," and all indic!vl t,:'l.ll conclude "against the peace and dignity of the State of Minresota. Mr. SETZE[L den)i.,..1', the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the question being lakien, resulted yeas 25, nays 18, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Curtis, Cantell, Chase, Day, Flandrau, Gilman, Jerome, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Murray, McFetridge, McMahan, Rolette, Sturgis, Streeter and Swan-25. NAYs-Messrs. Baasen, Davis, Emmett, Faber, Gorman, Leonard, Meeker, Norris, Nash, Prince, Setzer, Sherburne, Stacey, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Wait, Warner and Mr. President-18. So the amendment was agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES moved to suspend the rules to enable him to move to amend Section three, (that Section having been passed,) so as to make the term of office of Justices of the Supreme Con t five years, instead of seven. The rules were not suspended. 37 579 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF HE On motion of Mr. WAIT, the word "any" was stricken out of Section two, third line of the Article on Elective Franchise, so as to make it read' "No per'son who has been convicted of treason "or felony," instead of "aiy felony." Mr. STREETER moved to strike out the following Section: SEc. 5. During the day on vLich any election shall be held, no civil process shall be served on any person entitled to vote at such election. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved to strike out the preamble of the Article on School Funds, Ed ucation and Science, which is as follows: Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, therefore. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BUTLER moved to insert the words "investigation in," in the seventh line of Section 1, so as to make it read "and investi, gations in Natural History." The motion was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to strike out the preamble, and also to strike out the words "in Literature and Science, and " in the fourth line of Section 1; also the words "for the promotion of Agriculture, Arts, Science, Trade, Manufactures and Natural History." Mr. EMMETT called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the question being taken resulted, yeas 19, nays 23, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Butler, Becker, Baasen, Curtis, Emmett, Flandrau, Gorman, Jerome, Kennedy, Keegan, Norris, Nash, Rolette, Setzer, Sanderson, Sherburne, Stacey, Swan and Tenvoorde-19. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Chase, Davis, Day, Faber, Gilman, Leonard, Lashelle, Meeker, McFetridge, McMahon, Prince, Sturgis, Streeter, Taylor, Wait, Warner and M/r. President-23. So the motion was not agreed to. Mr. BECKER moved to strike out of Section 2, fourth line, the word "two" and insert "ten" in lieu theret', and strile out all to the colon following, so as to make it read: SEc. 2. I'hle proceeds of such lands as are or hereafter may be granted by the United States for the use of Schools within each township in this State, shall remain a perpetual fund, and not more than one-third of said lands may be sold in ten years. Mr. CHASE moved to add the words "for'less than five dollars per acre," at the end of the following clause: But the lands of the greatest valuation shall be sold first; Provided that no portion of said lands shall be sold otherwise than at public sale. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to strike out the words "but.the lands of the greatest valuation shall. be sold first:' 580: CONS'TITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The motion was lost. Mr. WARNER moved to strike out section 3, as follows: Sxc. 3. The Legislature shall make such provisions, by taxation or otherwise, as with the income arising from the school fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of Public Schools in each township ill the State. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR moved to strike out of Section 5, of the Article on Finances of the State, Banks and Banking, in eleventh line, the word "ten" and insert "five," so as to make it read: "And every such law shall levy a tax annually sufficient to pay the annual interest of such debt, and also a tax sufficient to pay the principal of such debt within five years from the final passage of such law." The amendment was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the words "at any one time" were inserted in the third line of section 5, so as to make it read: SEC. 5. For the purpose ef defraying extraordinary expenditures, the State may contract public debts, but such debts shall never singly n6r the aggregate, at any one time exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. On motion of Mr. M. E. AMES, the words "singly nor" were stricken out in the clause just quoted. On motion of Mr. EMMETT, the words "an appropriation by" were stricken out of Section 9, so as to make it read "No money shall ever be paid out of the Treasury of this State, except in pursuance of law." On motion of Mr. CURTIS, the word "whom" was stricken out of section 11, and the words "what source" inserted in lieu thereof, so as to make it read "to what source paid" instead of "to whom paid." Mr. TAYLOR moved to strike out the following section: SEC. 13. The Legislature may, by a two-thirds vote, pass a General Banking Law, with the following restrictions and requirements, viz: First-The Legislature 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. Second-The Legislature shall provide by law for the registry of all bills or notes issued or put in circulation as money, and shall require ample security in United States stock or State stocks for the redemption of the same in specie, and in case of a depreciation of said stocks, or any part thereof, to the amount of ten per cent. or more on the dollar, the bank or banks owning said stocks shall be required to make up said deficiency by additional stocks. Third-The stockholders ill any corporation and joint association for banking purposes issuing bank notes, shall be individlaally liable for all the debts of such corporation or association. Fourth-In case of the insolvency of any blank or banking association, the billholders thereof shall be entitled to preference in payment. over all other creditors of such bank or association. Fifth-Any General PBantkin Law which i'iay be passed in accordance with 581 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE this Article shall provide for recording the names of all stockholders in such corporations, the amount of stock held by each, the time of transfer, and to whom. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. M. E. AMES. I move to amend Section 13, in the third sub division, by striking out the words "for all the debts of such cor "poration or association," and inserting in lieu thereof; "Over and "above the stock by him or her owned, to a further sum at least "equal in amount to such stock." I beg to remark that although I understand there was some dis. cussion on this subject in Committee of the Whole, yet several gen tleman who have conversed with me since that time desire to rein state the original report as it was made by the Committee on this subject. I would simply state that this amendment accomplishes that object. Mr. STACEY demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted, ayes 25, nays 18, as fol lows: YEAS-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Becker, Barrett, Curtis, Cantell, Chase, Day, Emmett, Flandrau, Gilman, Jerome, Leonard, Lashelle, Meeker, McFetridge, McMahan, Prince, Rolette, Setzer, Sturgis, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Tut tle and Wait-25. NAYs-Messrs. Armstrong, Butler, Burns, Burwell, Baasen, Davis, Faber, Kennedy, Keegan, McGrorty, Norris, Nash, Sanderson, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Warner, and Mr. President-18. So the amendment was adopted. Mr. M. E. AMES. There is another featuire of this section to which I wish to call the attention of the Convention. It is one upon which there has been considerable diversity of opinion, rela ting to the proper basis or security for banking. As we are about embarking in a railroad system it may be desirable that we should keep our stocks at home, within our own State. I move, therefore, to insert after the word "stocks," the words "railroad bonds." Mr. BECKER. I have no desire to make any speech upon this subject, but sir, it is well known that United States Stocks are 4 entirely out of the question. They are worth to day $1.20 or $1.25 on the dollar. Government cannot buy them for itself. So that they are no basis for banking in this Territory. We have provided that the debt of this State shall never exceed $250,000. So that the Stocks of the State will never furnish security for banks to any considerable amount, We shall, therefore, have to depend entirely upon Stocks of other States, for our Banking Capital as the Section now stands. I move to amend the amendment, by striking out the words "United States Stock or State Stocks," and 582 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. leave it to the Legislature to provide such securities as they may see proper. Mr. MEEKER demanded the yeas and nays which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 4, and nays 38, as follows YEAS-Messrs. Becker, Emmett, Setzer, Tenvoorde-4. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Barrett, Butler, Burns, Burwell, Baasen, Curtis, Chase, Davis, Day, Faber, Flandrau, Gorman, Gilman, Jerome, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Meeker, McFetridge, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Rolette, Stacey, Sanderson, Sturgis. Streeter, Swan, Taylor, Tuttle, Wait, Warner, and Mr. President-38. So the amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved to amend the amendment by adding after the words "State Stocks," the words "or first mortgage bonds on "Railroads in this State; said bonds not to exceed the amount of "$10,000 for each mile of roads in running order." Mr. MEEKER demanded the yeas and nays which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 5, and nays 39, as follows YEAs-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Barrett, Baasen, Chase, and Setzer-5. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Burns, Burwell, Curtis, Davis, Day, Emmett, Faber, Flandrau, Gorman, Gilman, Jerome, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Leonard, Murray, Meeker, McFetridge, McGrorty, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Rolette, Sanderson, Stacey, Sturgis, Streeter, Swan, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Wait,Warner, and Mr. President-39. So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. The question then recurred on the amendment. Mr. STREETER demanded the yeas and nays which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 2, and nays 43, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. M. E. Ames, and Setzer-2. NAYsMessrs. A. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burwell, Burns, Baasen, Curtis, Cantell, Chase, Davis, Day, Emmett, Flandrau, Faber, Gorman, Gilman, Jerome, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Meeker, McGrorty, Murray, McFetridge, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Rolette, Sanderson, Stacey, Streeter, Sturgis, Swan, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Wait, Warner, and Mr. President-43. go the amendment was rejected. Mr. KEEGAN moved to amend Section 1, fifth line of the Article "on Corporations having no Banking Privileges," by striking out the word "natural," and inserting the word "other," so as to make it read: SECTION 1. The term "Corporations" as used in this Article, shall be construed to include all Associations and Joint Stock Companies, having any of the powers and privileges not possessed by individuals or partnerships except such as embrace Banking Privileges, and all Corporations shall have the right to sue, and shall be liable to be sued in all Courts in like manner as natural persons. 583 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIE The motion was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS moved to insert the word "individuals," in lieu of the words "natural persons." The motion was rejected. On motion of Mr. WAIT the "quotation" marks in the first line were struck out. On motion of Mr. EMMETT the word "all," was inserted in lieu of the word "the," in the seventh line, of Section 4, so as to make it read: "Shall be bound to carry all mineral, agricultural and other productions or manufactures on equal and reasonable terms." On motion of Mr. EMMETT the words "already organized," in the fifth line of Section 1, of Article on Counties and Townships, were stricken out and the word "organized," inserted in the fourth line before the word "Counties," so as to make it read: "And all laws changing county lines in organized counties, or for removing county seats shall, before taking effect, be submitted to the electors of the county or counties to be effected thereby, at the next general election after the passage thereof, and be adopted by a majority of such electors." On motion of Mr. EMMETT the word "such," was out of the eighth line of Section 1, and the words "in each County," added after the word "electors." Mr. SHEPLEY moved to strike out all after the word "Counties," in the second line of Section 1. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend Section 2, which provides that any city having twenty thousand inhabitants may be organized as a separate county, by striking out "twenty thousand," and inserting "eighteen thousand." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to insert in the second line of Section 3, after the word "purposes," the words "by general laws," so as to make it read: SEc. 3. Laws may be passed providing for the organization, for municipal and other town purposes, by general laws of any Congressional or fractional townships in the several cou-nties in the State. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to add the following to the Section: "But its credit shall never be given or loaned in aid of any individual, association or corporation." Mr. BAASEN moved a call of the Convention. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR moved to adjourn. The motion was lost. Mr. STACEY moved to adjourn until hlalf-past two. - 584 CONST ITUTION OENTION CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. 8 The motion was lost. Mr. MEEKER demanded the yeas and nays on the amendment, which were ordered, and the question being taken resulted, yeas 21, and nays 21, ai follows: YEm-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Butler, Barrett, Curtis, Chase, Day, Emmett, Flandrau, Gorman, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, McGrorty, Norris, Prince, Setzer, Sanderson, Shepley, Sturgis, Swan, and Taylor-21. NAYS-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Burwell, Becker, Baasen, Burns, Davis, Faber, Gilman, Kennedy, Keegan, McFetridge, Meeker, McMahan, Stacey, Streeter, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Wait, Warner, and Mr.President-21. So the amendment was rejected by a tie vote. Mr. TAYLOR moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. MURRAY moved to adjourn until half-past two o'clock, P. M. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. STACEY moved that the further consideration of the report be postponed for the present. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. STACEY moved that the Convention adjourn until half-past two o'clock, P. M. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved that there be a call of the Convention. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. A. E. AMES moved to amend Section one of the Article on Impeachments aLd Removals from Office, by striking out the word Judges" in second line and insert the word "Justices," and in sert before the word "District" in the second line the words Judges of," so as to make it read: SEC. 1. The Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney-Gen eral, and the Justices of the Supreme and Judges of District Courts, may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors; but judgment in such casesshallnot extendfurtherthan to removalfrom office and dis qualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit, in this State. The party convicted thereof shall nevertheless be liable, and subject to indict ment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend Section five by inserting after the word "I copy," in the second line the words "'of the Articles," so as to make it read: "SEc. 5. No person shall be tried on impeachment before he shall have been served with a copy of the articles thereof at least twenty days previous to the day set for trial." The amendment was agreed to. On motion of Mr. CHASE, the CC)nvention adjourned until half past two o'clock, r. M. 585 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met persuant to adjournment. On motion of Mr. TENVOORDE a call of the Convention was ordered and the following members were found absent: Messrs. Baker, Burns, Chase, Faber, Flandrau, Gilbert, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Leonard, McGrorty, Norris, Nash, Prince, Rolette, Sherburne, Shepley, Warner and Wilson. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES all further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. PHRASEOLOGY AND REVISION. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee on Phraseology and Revision, the Article on Mis cellaneous subjects being under consideration. Mr. EMMETT moved to insert the words "Territory for the use of the" in the eleventh line of Section three, so as to make it read: "All recognizances taken before the change from a Territorial to a State Gov ernment, shall remain valid, andtpass to, and may be prosecuted in the naime of the Territory for the use of the State." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SETZER moved to add the following to Section four: "And the right of suffrage and holding office shall be secured to married, women. " Mr. MEEKER. I rise to a question of order. A resolution was passed yesterday at the instance of the gentleman from Washing ton (Mr. SETZER) himself prohibiting any amendments being offered which had once been offered in Committee of the Whole. Mr. SETZER. That resolution was laid on the table. The gen tleman should find out what the Convention has been doing before he undertakes to call me to order. [Laughter.] I will now simply state my reasons for offering the amendment. It is an old Democratic principle that there should be no taxation without representation. It was that principle for which our forefathers fought in. the Revolutionary War, and since we have made married women liable to taxation upon their property it is necessary in order to, carry out this great Democratic principle, that we should extendto them the right of suffrage. Mr. M. E. AMES. I have an amendment to offer by way of affording what I consider a very necessary protection. I move to, amend by adding: "Provided that nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the gentleman from Washington (Mr. SETZEr) and the gentleman from Hennepir (Mr MEKEXn) from marrying." [Laughter.] 586 CONSTITU'IONAL CONVENTION. The PRESIDENT. The Chair rules the amendment to the amendment out of order. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SETZER moved to strike out Section five which provides for fixing the permanent seat of Government of the State. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. SETZER. I have been informed that the Committee of Conference have all these Articles under consideration. Now, sir, I call the attention of the Convention to the fact that if these Articles are now passed over they cannot be again amended. For myself, I am in favor of discharging the Committee of Conference right here upon the spot. But believing that a majority of the Convention would not sustain me in that motion, and believing that we ought not to proceed further until this Committee of Conference either make their report or are discharged, I move that the further consideration of this report be postponed until to-morrow. Mr. M. E. AMES demanded the yeas and nays on the motion, which were ordered, and the question being taken resulted yeas 21, nays 23, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Armstrong, Burns, Cantell, Davis, Day, Gilman, Jerome, Keegan, Lashelle, M'Grorty, McFetridge, Prince, Rolette, Setzer, Stacey, Sturgis, Streeter, Taylor, Vasseur, Wait-21. NAYs-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burwell, Baasen, Curtis, Chase, Emmett, Gorman, Kennedy, Leonard, Murray, Meeker, McMahan, Norris, Sanderson, Shepley, Swan, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Warner, Mr. President-23. So the motion was disagreed to. Mr. GILMAN moved to take a recess for one hour. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. ROLETTE moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS. Mr. GORMAN. I rise to a question of privilege. That the remarks which I shall make, which will be very brief, may be reported for publication, I propose to make a statement, which is due to myself and others. A statement of the facts and circumstances which led to the personal difficulty between Hon. W. A. Gorman and Hon. Mr. Wilson, members of the joint committee of the two Conventions, now in session at the Capitol. This committee had been in session for several days, and had finally agreed, substantially, upon one Constitution, to be jointly submitted to the people, when a final vote was taken in committee on submitting as a separate proposition, the negro suffrage question, and the committee failed to agree, and Mr. Gorman was authorized to report that fact to the Democratic Convention. It was then proposed in committee to agree, if possible, on two Constitutions 587 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE on the same day. On yesterday, the 25th inst., the matter was under consideration. When in the morning it appeared as almost hopeless to agree, Mr;Gorman stated that he thought, with all due respect to other gentlemen's views, that he could see a disposition not to agree on the manner of submitting two Constitutions, to which Mr. Wilson turned to Mr. Gorman and said bluntly that what he, Gorman, had stated was not true. Mr. Gorman patiently bore this insult, and warded off its force by an appeal to his remark, and manifested much forbearance. Mr. Wilson has shown evident ill-will or ill-blood towards Mr. Gorman from the first day of meeting. This first meeting was in the morning. When we met in the evening, a dispute arose, which became somewhat warm, between Judge Sherburne and Mr. Wilson, arising out of a supposed misunderstanding of Mr. Wilson's position on a pending question, when Mr. Gorman remarked that he understood Mr. Wilson, as did Judge Sherburne. Mr. Gorman was reclining on the sofa, and Mr. Wilson sitting facing him, when Mr. Wilson replied to Judge Sherburne that there were some men whom he hoped would understand him, in whom he had no confidence personally or politically, and he wanted to be allowed to choose his own associates; but, said Mr. Wilson, "I do not apply that language to Judge Sherburne." Mr. Kingsbury then promptly demanded if he, Wilson, intended that language for him, to which Mr. Wilson replied, " No, sir; but there were others in the committee who he did apply it to." Whereupon Mr. Gorman raised on his elbow from a reclining posture on the sofa, and asked quietly if Mr. Wilson intended that offensive language to him; to which Mr. Wilson replied, looking in the face of Mr. Gorman, " I certainly do apply it to you." Whereupon Mr. Gorman rose and struck Mr. Wilson with the small end of his gold headed cane he then held in his hani, and broke it, and then followed it with blows with his fist. They were promptly separated, and while two persons were holding Mr. Gorman, Mr. Wilson seized a large lead-headed cane, and approached Mr. Gorman, when Gorman said, "don't hold me until he strikes me with that cane. If he does, I will make a more summary defence than I have." Mr. Gorman shortly after passed out of the room, and returned in a minute or two and took up his hat, and walked deliberately out of thie room. One act of aggression waived invites another, if the aggressor is inclined to persist to a conflict. Five different times has -my word been disputed, during my service on that Committee, by Mr. WILsON. In language as cool and diplomatic as I could possibly call to my aid, I waived it, and evaded it. My associates on the Committee havre repeated to me again and again, that I had shown more forbearance than they had thought was in my composition. As these assaults grew in number, they increased in violence, both in manner and matter, until forbearance ceased to be a virtue. Sir, the first time Mr. WILSON bluntly gave the falsehood to my teeth, T apologized myself out of it, feeling as if I was partially degraded. I returned and announced to each of the members of the Committee that we could make no further proposition, and could proceed no further; that Mr. BRowN, Mr. HOLCOMBE, Mr. KINGSBURY and myself had, from time to time, presented proposi -588 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. tions to the Committee, none of which seemed satisfactory, and that we now trusted gentlemen on the opposite side would make some proposition; that it was more easy to pull down than it was to build up, more easy to destroy than to create; that we had done what little we could for the successful accomplishment of the grand object of that Committee-the submission of but one Constitution to the pe.ple, or, if two Constitutions must be submitted, the submission of both upon the same day, with some arrangement by which there should be no conflict in respect to the apportionment, or the election returns. To that end I hav'e devoted my entire energies to effect some compromise; to that end I have labored by day and by night; to that end I have voted here, in and out of caucus; to that end I have spoken privately and publicly, in caucus and in Convention. Sir, I yet cherish the hope that the matter will be consummated to the entire satisfaction of both the contending parties. I yet trust that we shall be able to present the matter in such form as shall .give quiet and harmony to the Territory, as the result of the de liberations of that Committee; to that end I shall vote now, and always hereafter, regardless of the indignities which may be thrown upon my character, either privately or publicly. The Republican press of this city have this morning contained language towards me which I can'well afford to bear. I ask noth-ing but what is right, and I shall even submit to wrong while for bearance continues to be a virtue. There has been a peculiar mode of attack upon my character, as a man of truth, which has been persisted in day after day by the gentlemen of whom I have had occasion to speak. And, sir, I avail myself of this occasion to say, that at home gr abroad, wherever I may find the individual opper tunity-for I have no means of taking satisfaction of an omnibus of men in their editorial character, even I was so inclined-they can lay on their anathemas, and [ shall go before my fellow-citi zens of the country with the conscious rectitude of my public and private conduct, and of having discharged my duty to my fellow -men, for the best interests and welfare of the Territory and State, faithfully, honestly, and impartially. I shall appeal to that arbiter where I have never appealed in vain. 1 shall present myself be fore the people of every county where I possibly can. I shall pre sent the principles of the Democratic faith wherever I can have audience and be heard. If such a course continues to bring upon my head the anathemas and abuses of my enemies, I shall bear it as long as forbearance is a virtue. But if I am driven to defend personal character against that pe 589 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE culiar manner in which I have been assailed, I shall at all times, as I did down stairs yesterday, in that Committee room, defend myself as effectively as the God of nature gives me the power and means. My temper is not so easily aroused as some of my fellow-citizens might suppose. I have passed through some ordeals in which my possession of that which constitutes courage has been tested. I claim nothing on that ground; I claim no superiority in that respect. What there is of my past has been written athwart the history of the country to some extent, as far as I have figured in my humble capacity in public life. To that record I recur with bright pleas ure. I shall recur to it in justification of my past life; I shall recur to it in justification of my future. But, sir, whatever becomes of me, matters but little. I do not intend, where falsehoods are charged so glaring as to work an injury to that party to which I owe all that I am; that party which I have served from my cradle almost-since I was twenty-one years of age, and long before, down to the present hour, and from which I never expect to swerve-I say I do not intend to let such falsehoods to pass unrebuked, They will take license to abuse me as they have done, but I say to them, and I say to my fellow countrymen, that I do not desire that they shall do it in my presence; but, sir, 1 shall defend my honor until the last glimmer of the lamp goes out, from assault by friend or foe. Sir, I have a reputation which I have won from a position more humble, perhaps, than any man on this floor. And it is because the God of nature has given me some little capacity to communicate my thoughts with more or less facility, that I have been the object of attack, not only here, but from my political adversaries from the time I entered public life to the present hour. Since they have assumed this belligerent attitude towards me, I have only to notify them that there are blows to give as well as take. If that Providence which has sustained me through a life of forty-three years, spares me another year, I shall, at least, attempt to make my Republican fellow citizens feel that the vital spark is not yet extinct. I feel some consolation in knowing that men do not stop to kick a corpse, and I am inclined to feel flattered that there is a little of the vital spark, a little of the genius of mind, left in me, or the Republican party would not be so much inclined to stab me by day and by night. And, sir, whatever remains of that vital spark, shall be used for the promotion of the interests of the Democratic party, so long as I remain a resident of Minnesota, which will probably be to the end of my life. [Applause.1 590 ONSTITUTIONAAL CONVENTION. On motion of Mr. M. E. AMES, the Convention, at a quarter before four o'clock, adjourned. THIRTY-NINTIt DAY. THURSDAY, August 2., 1857. The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention took a recess for one hour. After which, Mr. SETZER moved that the Convention resolve itself into Committre of the Whole on the Schedule. The motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. EMMETT, the Convention adjourned until half-past two o'clock, P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Mr. ROLETTE moved to adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. SCHEDULE. On motion' of Mr. SETZER, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole (Mr. NORRIS in the Chair), and proceeded to the consideration of the -Report of the Committee on the Apportionment, &c. in the Schedule. On motion of Mr. CURTIS, the Committee rose and reported the Schedule back to the Convention. Mr. A. E. AMIES moved to strike out of the following Section all after the words: "United States": SEc. 2. There shall be elected, at the said first election, three members of the House of Representatives of the United States, and if, after the enumeration of the population shall be made, it shall be ascertained that under that enumeration but two members can be admitted to seats, then the two persons who shall have received the highest number of votes shall be deemed to be elected. The amendment was agreed to. On motion of Mr. ROLETTE, the words "and Tod" were stricken out of the seventeenth line and the word "and" inserted before "Pembina," in the following Section: SEC. 3. For the purposes of the first election for members of the State Senate and House of Representatives, the State shall be divided into Senatorial and Representative Districts, as follows, to wit 591 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF TIIE 1st District, Washington County; 2d District, Ramscy County; 3d District,. Dakota County; 4th District, so much of Hennepin County as is west of the Mississippi; 5th District, Rice County; 6th District, Goodhue County; 7th District, ScottCounty; $th District, ()lmsted County; 9th District, Fillmore County; 10th District, louston Coulity; 11th District, Winona County; 12th District, Wabashaw County; 13th District, Mower and Dodge Counties; 14th District, Freeborn and Farilault Ccunties; 15th 1Distriqt, Steele and Waseca Counties; 16th, Blue Earth and Le Sueur Counties; 17th, Nicollet and Brown; 18th, Sibley, Renville and Mc Leod; 19th, Carver and Wright; 20th, Benton, Stearns and Meeker; 21st, Morrison, Crow Wing and Mille Lac; 22d, Cass, Pembinaand Tod Coun-ties; 23d, Sherbl)urne, Aioka and Manomin Counties; 24th, Chisago, Pine and Isanti Counties; 25th, so much of Hennepin County as lies east of the Mississippi; 26th, Buchanan, Carlton, St. Louis, Lake and Itasca Counties. On m.)ti(n of MIr. BAASEN, the worls "and Tod Counties" were inserted in the sevcite(,Ttlth liTne of Section tliree after the words "Miaille Lac," and the w,}rd "andl" stru(ck out of the line before tlie words "Mille Lac." Mr. WAIT moved to strike o)ut iu tlic fifteenth liec the words "and Meeker," and iisert tlie wor(l "and(l " before the word "Steari!s." The mnotion was not agrecel to. Mr. MUPRRAY moved to strike out the word "Manomin" in the nineteenth line. The rnetion was not agreedl to. On motion of Mr. SETZER, the figure " 3 " was stricken out where it first occurs, and "4" iitserted, in the following Section: Sle. 5. The Senators and Representatives, at the first election, shall be apportioned among the several Selatorial and Representative Districts, as follows, to wit: nators............ 3 Representatives. ............ "............ " "............ 4 ............ 4 ............3 6 ............ 7th "............I "............. 8th "............2~~~~~ "............4 9th'...........2 "............6 10th "..........2 ".............3 .............. 3 ............. 2 ............ 2 ............... 2 .......................1 ............ 2 ............ 2 ............ 2 ....................2 ............ 2 ...........'....' 1 ............ 2 ............ 1 ............ 1 ............ ........... ,592 Ist District............ 2 Se 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th ilth 12th 18th 14th 15th I C)th 17th 18th 19th 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 I I 1 4 1 1 6 1 1 1 , I ............ 4 ... I....,.. 4 ............ 3 ............ 3 ............ 3 .............3 ............ 3 ............ 3 ............ 3 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. ............ 1 Senator........... 3 Representatives. ............1 "............ 1 2d......... 1..1"............ 1 " 2d.............. "............ ............ 1. "............ 1 ............ 1............ 2 ............ 1.............I 37 80 37 80 On motion of Mr. BAASEN, the section was so amended as to give the Twelfth District "two" Representatives instead of "four." Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend so as to give the Second District four Senators and seven Representatives instead of three Senators and six Representatives. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend the amendment so as to give the District four Senators and eight Representatives. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was adopted. Mr. SHEPLEY moved to amend so as to give the Ninth District one Senator instead of two, and also to give the Twentieth District two Senators instead of one. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. STURGIS moved to amend so as to give the Ninth District, five Representatives instead of six, and the Twenty-first District two Representatives instead of one. The amendment was agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved to amend so as to give the Eleventh District one Senator instead of two. The motion was agreed to. Mr. ROLETTE moved to amend so as to give the Twenty-second District two Representatives instead of one. The motion was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to amend Section seven by striking out the words "Supreme Judges," and inserting "Justices of the Supreme Court." The amendment was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to strike out the words "County and Precinct officers within the State," in the following section: SEc. 8. Upon the day so designated by the Governor, as aforesaid, elections may be held at the several precincts within said State for members of the United States House of Representatives, for members of the two Houses of the Legislature, and for the election of all State, District, County and Precinct officers within the State, and at such election every free white male inhabitant over the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided within the limits of the State for ten days previous to the day of said election, may vote for all the offi cers to be elected at such election, and also for or against the adoption of the Constitution. 59,3 20th I I 21st 11 22d 11 23d 24th 11 25th 11 26th 11 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The motion was not agreed to. Mr. STURGIS moved to amend the Section by striking out the word "ten," and inserting "thirty." The motion was not agreed to. Mr. BARRETT moved to strike out the same word and insert "five." The motion was not agreed to. Mr. SETZER. I move ro strike out Section nine, and will state that the whole thing comes up in Section thirteen. The section is as follows SEC. 9. In voting for or against the adoption of the Constitution, the words "For Constitution, yes;" or "For Constitution, no," may be written or printed on the ticket of each voter; but no voter shall vote for or against the Constitution on a separate ballot from that cast by him for officers to be elected at said election. The motion was agreed to. Mr. EMMETT moved to-strike out all after the word "specified" in the following section: SEc. 10. At said election the polls shall be opened, the election held, returns made and certificates issued in all respects as provided by law for opening, closing and conducting Elections and making returns of the same, except as herein before specified, and excepting, also, that polls may be opened and elections held at any point or points in any of the Counties net less than ten miles from the place of voting, in any established precinct where there may be five or more voters, although precincts may not have been regularly established at such point or points, and the polls shall be opened, elections held, and returns made in the same manner as from established precincts The motion was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS moved to strike out the following section: SEC. 12. The returns of said election for all State officers and members of the House of Representatives of the United States, shall be made, canvassed and certificates issued in the manner now prescribed by law for returning and canvassing votes given for Delegate to Congress, and the returns for all District officers, Judicial, Legislative or otherwise, shall be made to the Register of Deeds of the senior County in each District, in the manner prescribed by law, except as herein otherwise provided. Mr. SETZER demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted, yeas 18, nays 24, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Curtis, Cantell, Day, Emmett, Gilbert, Jerome, Murray, MIcMahlan, Prince, Rolette, Sanderson, Sturgis, Taylor, Tuttle, Vasseur, Wait and Warner-18. NAYssMessrs. A. E. Ames, Arinstrong, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burwell, Baasen, Chase, Davis, Flandrau, Gorman, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Meeker, McFetridge, Norris, Setzer. Stacey, Shepley, Streeter, Swan, Tenvoorde and Mr. President-24. So the motion was not agreed to. 594 OONSTTrrUTIONAL OOlNVETION. On motion of Mr. STACEY the word "Waseca" was inserted in the seventh line of Section fifteen, so as to,make the paragraph read: The Counties of Carver, Sibley, Renville, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Scott, Dakota, Blue Earth, Steele, Waseca, Faribault, Freeborn, and so much of Brown County as originally established as lies east of the line designated as the line of the State, shall comprise the second Judicial District. Mr. SETZER moved that the rules be suspended,.so as to allow the Article to be engrossed. Mr. SANDERSON demanded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 17, nays 25, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Armstrong, Barrett, Baasen, Cantell, Day, Jeromo, Murray, McFetridge, Rolette, Setzer, Stacey, Shepley, Streeter, Tenvoorde,Vasseur, Wait and Warner-17. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Butler, Becker, Burns, Burwell, Curtis, (hase, Day, Emmett, Flandrau, Gilbert, Gorman, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Meeker, McMahan, Norris, Prince, Sanderson, Sturgis, Taylor, Tuttle and Mr. President-25. Mr. TAYLOR moved to suspend the rules to enable him to offer an additional Section. The rules were not suspended. Mr. STURGIS moved to strike out the words; Crow Wing," in the following paragraph: The Counties of Washington, Chisago, Lake, Saint Louis, Crow Wing, Pine, Isanti, Mille Lac and Buchanan shall comprise the fourth Judicial District. The -motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. M. E. AMES, the Article was laid upon the table. Mr. ROLETTE m(v:id that the Convention adjourn. The motioL,;as i.);:reed to. COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. Mr. GORMAN. I will state to the Convention that I have been informed that the Committee of Conference have completed their report and that we shall soon have it before us. Mr. STREETER. We have been informed of the same thing nearly every day for the last three weeks. Mr. SETZER. I move that the Committee be discharged. Mr. FLANDRAU. It seems to me there is a desire manifested here to kick over everything looking to an agreement between the two bodies sitting in this Capitol. This Committee have been laboring assiduously for the last two weeks to bring about what we all profess to desire to have accomplished. They have now 38 595 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE completed their report and ask us either to ratify or reject it. I trust that gentlemen will act with a little coolness, a little delib eration, a little like men of sense and not like school boys, and n ot after we have appointed a Committee to meet a like Committee appointed by the Republicans, and after that Committee, under our order, has labored faithfully for two weeks, recall them without giving them an opportunity to present their report at all. I hope we shall not treat the Committee with that disrespect. I seems to me, if there were no other reason for receiving their report, we ought to receive it as a matter of respect to them. Mr. SETZER. I am perfectly willing that this matter should be left to the good sense of the Convention. I make the motion as one due to the dignity of the Convention. The Committee have not obeyed the order of the Convention adopted a day or two since requiring them to report immediately. And now, if I understand the nature of the report they are about to make, they have agreed upon an apportionment which is unfair and one-sided in every respect. They have cut down the number of inhabitants in the most populous counties in the Territory simply because they are Dcmocratic. They have adopted an apportionment which, in my opinion, will give a majority of both branches of the Legislature into the hands of the opposition. Mr. FLANDRAU. If their report is unsatisfactory to this Convention, it will be for the Convention to amend it. I do not understand the gentleman to object to their report except in one particular. Now, I ask if the Convention is going to reject a whole Constitution reported by this Committee, simply because it is unsatisfactory in a single clause. Mr. MEEKER. I call the attention of the Convention to the fact that in acting upon this Schedule we have decid ed what is the wish of the Convention. The Schedule to be reported by the Committee of Conference differs materially fron the one we have just perfected. I am in favor of giving this Coimiiittee a reasonable time to report, but at the same time I am in favor of the Convention adhering strictly to the Schedule which it has adopted. Mr. EMMETT demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to discharge the Committee. The yeas and yeas were ordered. On motion of.Mr. FLANDRAU, the motion to discharge the Conmmittee was laid on the table. Mr. ROLETTE moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion was not.g-reed to, Ik~~ i 596 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVElqNTIOI;, REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. MAr. SHERBURNE. The Committee of Conference are prepared to report in part to tliis Convention. Their Report embodies substantially the whole Constitution. I wish the Convention to understand precisely the position in which the Committee are placed. They have agreed entirely upon their whole Report, and that which yet remains to be submitted involves the mere matter of mechanical labor. They have been at work as assiduously as they could, for the last twelve hours, in perfecting a Constitution to be submitted to the Convention. Gentlemen will understand that a good deal of labor has been. necessary, in order to perfect the matter referred to us. I will state that every proposition has been adopted substantially, from beginning to end, from our Constitution. I do not know of a single change to which any gentleman can reasonably object. We have changed the method of amending the Constitution to some little extent, but it was by the unanimous consent of the Committee. Some changes have also been made in the Article on Miscellaneous subjects and in the Schedule, but they have all been agreed on by the unanimous vote of the Committee, and only a little mechanical labor is now required to perfect our Report. Mr. MURRAY. I move that the report of the Committee be laid on the table, and ordered to be printed for the use of the Convention. Mr. GORMAN. I trust that course will not be taken. The Report, as I understand, is now prepared, and every member can see as it is read what changes lave been made. We can then deliberate upon it calmly and dispassionately. If we pursue the course suggested by the gentleman, it cannot be printed before some time to-morrow, and it will be impossible for the Convention to adjourn during the present week. I understand that there are six or seven Articles which have been adopted almost word for word from our Constitution. They are reported in almost the precise form and the exact substance of what we have already adopted; and, surely, gentlemen need not postpone the consideration of these Articles. We can go on and adopt them to-nighit, and by that time the remaining portion of the Report will be ready. There can be no necessity for any debate npon them, unless gentlemen wish to reverse the former decisions of this Convention. I hope, therefore, the motion to postpone the consideration of this RPeport will not be agreed to. I call for the yeas and nays upon the motion. Mr. MfURRAY. I want to have the thing understood. The gentleman Says orI Coinstitutlion has fef before the Committee of 597 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Conference and has been reported back by them without much alter ation. Now, sir, I understand that only the original drafts by our Committees have been before that Committee. If so, we have made a great many amendments, and the Constitution reported back by them is not one which has been adopted by this Convention. Mir. GORMAN. The Constitution which has been before that Committee is our Constitution, as it has been engrossed. It is true, that since these Articles have been reported back by the Committee on Phraseology and Revision, you have had them under consideration, but only a very few amendments have been made and those few unimportant. Now, sir, I say again that this Constitution has been reported back substantially as reported by our Convention; and I appeal to gentlemen, if they desire to got home-if they desire to make no further delay, to take up this Report and pass upon it as far as it has been made. It will give rise to no debate, and we cai get through with it to-night. Mr. BAASEN. I seconded the motion to lay the Report on tlhe table in order to have it printed. I differ very essentially with the gentleman from Ramsey about certain amendments which he calls immaterial. If changes have been made of which I have been unofficially informed, I can never vote for the Constitution which the Committee reports. Mr. MURRAY. I think it is very extraordinary tlhat my colleague (Mr. GORMAN) should take tlhe view which he has expressed in reference to this matter. A member of the Committee of Conference comes in here and reports half-a-dozen Articles, but we have no indication of what is to follow. We do not know what is to become of the Schedule. There has been no official repott-no finality about the matter. I am opposed to disposing of the matter in this hasty manner. Let the Report be printed and lie over until tomorrow. It is obvious, that Committee cannot have had before them the material amendments made yesterday and to-day in this Convention. Tl,e Committee have, I presume, been supplied with these Articles as originally introduced here before they were amended. It is utterly impossible to act understandingly on this Report without even having seen it in print, upon a single reading. I want to know myself what this Committee has been doing. I shall not take it for granted that what they have been doing is right. I think it is but justice to the Committee, as well as to the Convention, that this Report should lie over and be printed. Mr. SETZER. I rise to a question of order. I understand the Chairman of the Committee to state that this Report proposes amendments to the Constitution which has already been adopted by 598 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. this Convention. It is admitted that these Articles have been ordered to be enrolled, and have been referred to the Committee on Enrollment for that purpose. I submit, therefore that they are not subject to amendment. The PRESIDI)ENT. The Chair will state that the report of the Committee of Conference is not yet before the Convention, and that the point of order cannot be made until after the report of the Committee shall have been read. Mr. CURTIS. I wish to make one single remark. The gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. MURRAY,) argued that the Committee had not been informed of the action of the Convention. Now, sir, I understand that a copy of every Article, with all the amendments, has been before that Committee as soon as it has passed this body. Not a single amendment has passed the Convention that they have not had verbatim et literatim. Mr. SIHERBURNE. I wish to say to the Convention that the Committee have endeavored to keep themselves informed as to the action of both wings of the Constitutional Convention. While they have endeavored to agree among themselves as to what was proper and right, they have, at the same time, kept themselves informed of what was being done, and have endeavored to conform to the wishes of the two Conventions, as far as they could. Now, sir, I am not disposed either to favor the motion of my colleague, (Mr. MURRAY,) or to oppose it, because I do not stand here to give any direction as to the action of the Convention; but I do say that there is no such change in the Constitution which has passed this Convention, as need, in the slightest degree, disturb the equanimity of our friends. There is no change of importance. It is true we have changed phraseology; we have changed sentences; we have sometimes stricken out one word and put in another, for the purpose of compromise; but I undertake to say that no vital principle no one which a Democrat who looks to principle alone would consider as more than a cypher, has been sacrificed. Our friends upon the other side and I give them credit for it-have adopted our Articles almost altogether. It was magnanimous in them-I do not say it tauntingly. I repeat, sir, that there is nothing in this report which need frighten any member of this Convention. The question was taken on Mr. MIURRAY'S motion, and the re port was not laid upon the table. Mr. FLANDRAU moved that the report be taken up and read, section by section. The motion was agreed to, and the Secretary proceeded to read the report of the Committee. 599 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. SHERBURNE presented the final report of the Committee, which was also read. Mr. GORMAN moved to substitute the report of the Committee of Conference for the Constitution as adopted by the Convention. Mr. SETZER. I rise to a question of order. This Convention has adopted the Constitution with the exception of one Article, and has ordered it to be enrolled. It has been referred to the Commit tee on Enrollment, and is not before the Convention. I submit, therefore, that it cannot be amended. The PRESIDENT. The Chair overrules the question of order. The Chair decides that inasmuch as the Convention had not or dered the entire document to be enrolled, it is still within their power to substitute the report of the Committee.' Mr. SETZER appealed from the decision of the Chair, and de manded the yeas and nays on the appeal. The yeas and nays were ordered. After debate on the question of order, the question was taken on the appeal, and resulted yeas 31, nays 7, as follows YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Burns, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Davis, Emmett, Flandrau, Gorman, Holcombe, Kings bury, Murray, Meeker, McGrorty, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Sanderson, Sherburne, Stacey, Shepley, Sturgis, Streeter, Swan, Tuttle and Warner-31. NAYs-Messrs. Baasen, Gilbert, Gilman, Setzer, Taylor, Tenvoorde and Wait-7. So the decision of the Chair was sustained. Mr. BAASEN moved that the Convention adjourn. The motion was not agreed to. Mr. CURTIS. I move to strike out that portion of the report of the Committee of Conference relating to the organization of Judicial Districts, and to insert that agreed upon by our Convention. I have reason to believe that if this amendment is adopted it will be acceded to in the other end of the Capitol. The effect of the division as made in this report will be to crowd four-fifths of the whole business of the Territory into one Judicial District. I believe the whole thing is wrong, and I, therefore, make the motion to amend. Mr. GORMAN. I would like to know if this report has been received by the Convention? The PRESIDENT. It has. Mr. GORMAN. Then it must lie on the table and be printed like other reports. The PRESIDENT. The Chair would inform the gentleman that the rule to which he refers has been repealed. Mr. SHERBURNE. I hpe the amendment of the gentleman 600 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. :from Stillwater will not be insisted on. I am willing to state to him that I made in Committee the same proposition which he has now made, but the majority of the Committee disagreed with me, and reported these Judicial Districts as they stand before us. Now, Mr. PRESIDENT, if we commence amending this report, there will be no end to the sittings of this Convention, and we shall never be able to come to a conclusion, because the members of this Convention will disagree to one proposition, and those at the other end of the Capitol to another, and if each body is disposed to insist upon its own peculiar notions, we may sit here until the end of the year without coming any nearer to the close of our labors. I appeal to the gentleman, therefore, if he is desirous of adopting a Constitution which will meet a favorable reception with the people of the Territory, to withdraw his amendment and allow us to adopt the report in the precise language in which it stands. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the Convention, at 8 o'clock, adjourned. FORTIETH DAY. FRIDAY, August 28, 1857. The Convention met at nine o'clock. A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. ABSENT MEMBERS PERMITTED TO SIGN THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. MEEKER offered the following resolution which was by unanimous consent considered and agreed to, viz: RESOLVED, That any member of this Convention who may not be present to sign the Constitution now in the process of completion, may sign the same in the office where it may be lodged fox safe keeping, at any time after the adjournment sine die. CALL OF THE CONVENTION. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, a call of the Convention was ordiered, and the following members found absent: MIessrs. Baker, Bailly, Brown, Day, Gilman, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Sherburne, Shepley, Streeter, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Wait, and Wilson. On motion of Mr. CURTIS, the members composing the Committee of Conference, were excused for ten minutes. The Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to report the absent mem.bers in their seats. 601 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, further proceedings under the, call were dispensed with. PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. Mr. M. E. AMES. I suppose it is the intention the Convention to have our proceedings, as officially reported, printed and bound for the use of the future State. As no provision on the subject has been made, I offer the following resolutions. RESOLVED, I'hat the President of this Convention be directed to procure, on such terms as he may deem just and reasonable, the publication of 2000 copies of Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention, as taken by the Official Reporter, including the Organic Act of the Territorial Legislature relative to this Convention, and an abstract of the vote of the people on the adoption of the Constitution, with a full and complete index to the same, to be paid for as a part of the expenses of this Convention, provided that said copies shall be furnished subject to the order of the President on or before the first day of January, 1858. RESOLVED, That five copies of said Debates and Proceedings be furnished for the use of each member and officer of this Convention, and that the remaining copies be deposited in the Library of the Territory or future State. The resolutions were adopted. ADDITIONAL PAY TO REPORTER. Mr. GORMAN. Under the circumstances in which we are placed, in reference to financial matters, I ask the consent of the Convention to offer the following resolution: RsOLvED, That in making up the accounts with the Official Reporter, the President of this Convention be instructed to allow such additional sum as may be necessary to realize in cash, the full amount designated in the contract with said Reporter without discount. No objection being made, the resolution was received and adopted. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the report of the Committee of Conference, the. pending question being on an amendment submitted yesterday by Mr. CURTIS to tho Article on theJudiciary Department. Mr. CURTIS. I understand that the Committee of Conferencehave agreed upon an amendment which will obviate the necessity of the amendment which I offered yesterday. I therefore withdraw: that amendment. Mr. SHERBURNE. The Committee on Conference on both sides A 7 this morning agreed to an amendment 602 -4. which I think will meet the wishes of gentlemen in this body. They have so amended their report on Judicial Districts as to constitute the county of Ramsey a separate Judicial District. Mr. GILMAN. We have not the report of that Committee in print before us, and cannot tell what we are acting on. If I understand the gentleman, however, I will state that the report is not satisfactory to me. I therefore move to amend the fourth Judicial District as reported by the Committee'of Conference, by striking out the counties enumerated in the same, and inserting the following counties, to wit: "Anoka, Sherburne, Benton, Morrison, Crow Wing, Mille Lac, Tod, Cas, Pembina, Stearns, Wright, and Meeker counties." Mr. SHERBURNE. I will state that the Committee have not changed their report as offered yesterday, in any essential particular, except by making Ramsey county a separate Judicial District. They have made one or two verbal amendments. Mr. GORMAN. Is this additional report of the Committee of Conference before the Convention? The PRESIDENT, It is. The Committee have modified their original report as the Chairman has stated. Mr. GORMAN. Well, sir, this matter might as well be settled right here. We have reached a crisis in our proceedings, and it will be well for us to understand what we are doing before we go further. If the report of the Committee of Conference is to be amended by this Convention, we may safely calculate on sitting here for weeks before we can finish our labors. If we are to open the door by the adoption of a single amendment to this report, no one can predict when we shall end. If we wish ever to bring our labors to a close, we had better have this report read as often as gentlemen may desire, and explained by the members of the Com mittee if it is not understood, so that members may know on what they are voting, and then either adopt or reject it as a whole. Sir, I wish to impress upon the minds of the members of this Con vention what will be the result of amending this report, before the first breach is made. It will subject us to a series of negociations with the body sitting in the other end of the Capitol, which can re sult in no good, and will -most likely result in the defeat of the whole thing. I submit to gentlemen that even if there are clauses in the Constitution raported by this Convention which are not sat isfactory in every respect, it is better to bear the evils, so long as they are bearable, rather than to undertake to make changes which will inevitably result as I have stated. If we make amendments, gentlemen in the other end of the Capitol have the same right to amend provisions which are not 603 CONS'FITUTIONAL CONVENTION. PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THIE satisfactory to them, and the result will be that the whole thing will be rejected, and we shall have to have another Committee of Conference. I again earnestly hope that gentlemen before they vote for this amendment will calmly ask themselves, how much of their own individual opinions they can yield for the good of the whole? Is not the sacrifice you make in one point made up by the gain in another, and is not the report taken as a whole as satisfac tory as any which can be framed? Let gentleman weigh these considerations well, before they act. Mr. TAYLOR. We do not want to submit any Constitution which is the joint work of the two bodies. Mr. GORMAN. My friend from St. Paul has not been much in attendance on the sittings of the Coustitution for about a week, and many good things have been done since he left. Mr. PRESIDENT, I repeat, that the action' of the Convention on this amendment, involves a crisis for which gentlemen may as well be prepared. Now is the precise time when we must decide, whether we will bring our labors to a close within a reasonable time, or by opening a breach in this report, launch ourselves out at sea without chart or compass. For myself I should very decidedly prefer that many things contained in this report were otherwise, but if by sacrificing my own individual opinions, I can secure a great public good by the adoption of a Constitution which will meet the wants of our future State, and avoid the difficulties which will otherwise inevitably occur from the state of things in which we find ourselves, I shall be satisfied. From the candid consideration which the matter has received in the other wing of the Capitol, I am led to believe that they are sincere in their desire to harmonize upon one Constitution. Under these circumstances it seems to me that we had "better "bear the ills we have than fly to others, that we know not of." Mr. BAASEN. I cannot well understand thie position taken by the gentleman from Ramsey, (Mr. GORMAN,) upon this question. A Committee has been appointed to try to bring about a union of the two Conventions, upon one Constitution. That Committee has agreed upon a draft of a Constitution, and now they want us to adopt it point blanc without discussion or alteration. That is the proposition of the gentleman from Ramsey. Now sir, if every interest in this Territory had been represented in that Committee, I would have said nothing on the subject. If we had been permitted to consider and act upon the different portions of the Constitution, as the Committee progressed in its preparation, I should have been satisfied; but sir, when the Convention ordered the Committee to 604 CON STITUTION,AL CONVENTION. report, they refused to obey tho order, and now we have the entire report sprung upon us, without time to consider it or either to have it printed, and we are asked to take it as it is, on trust. Mr. PRESIDENT, I do not think that all the interests of this Territory have been represented upon that Committee. I do not think the interests of the foreign born citizens have been provided for by them. Their interests have been entirely neglected in this report,'and at the proper time, I shall move to change several points in the report. Mr. SHERBURNE. If we are going into a general discussion, and are to amend this Constitution as reported by the Committee, there will be no end of it. We may as well abandon the whole matter at once, as for each individual to attempt to express his opinions and make his mark upon each Section. I stated yesterday, and I repeat now, that we have made no material change in the Constitution adopted by this Convention. With one or two exceptions, we have adopted substantially the same provisions. If we undertake to go into a general system of amendments, we have got to have a series of Committees, and we shall entail upon ourselves troubles that we can never end. Mr. SETZER. Before the question is put, I wish to make a few remarks in reply to the gentleman from St. Paul, (Mr. GoRMAN.) He asks the Convention to adopt the whole report of the Committee without amendment and without debate. Sir, this Committee has followed the doctrine which was laid down by a distinguished gentleman of this Convention in Democratic caucus that since the Black Republicans have sacrificed their principles, we can afford to sacrifice the offices. The apportionment adopted by that Committee will give nigger -worshippers the Legislature and two United States Senators. The gentleman asks if we cannot sacrificee our individual opinions for the good of the whole. Sir, I am a Democrat for the good of the whole. Gentlemen take a good deal of credit to themselves for having sunk all partizan feeling in this matter. For one, I will not sink my partizan feeling, nor abandon the duty which I owe to the country, for the preservation 'of the Union, by pandering to any party who are trying to dissolve the Union. This is the position which I take and this is the highest good which I contend for. A portion of this Convention have contended from the beginning- that the true policy of the Democratic party was to submit two Constitutions to the people, to make a clear issue before them and to express the fanatical ideas of the men who are assembled in a different Convention in this Capitol. If we abandon this proposition, we surrender the whole field to them. As I have already remarked, the apportionment laid 605 PROCEEDINGS AD DEBATES OF THE down in this report increases the population of every Republican County, and cuts down the population of every DI)emocratic County, and that I am not disposed to do for the sake of submitting one Constitution. Sir, the Republica'ns would not have been so ready to yield up their principles and everything they have to stand upon if they were not sure the loaves and fishes would fall to their share. They can afford to sacrifice something for the sake of ob taining the Legislature and two United States Senators. I say again that this camp meeting, as they have been called in the other end of the Capitol would never have consented so utterly to subvert all manliness and decency by giving up every position they have taken without compensation. The gentleman has well remarked that we have reached a crisis in our proceedings. We stand upon the brink of a precipice. If the report of this Com mittee is adopted, then farewell Democracy in Minnesota; we our selves have dug the grave that is to bury us. Mr. MEEKER. I will not detain the Convention for more than a minute by the remarks which I shall submit. I was opposed originally to this Committee of Conference and voted against the resolution for raising it. But, sir, in all opposition bodies like these, there must be a spirit of compromise manifested, or no pro position can ever be united on or carried into effect. I believe I could make a Constitution myself that would suit me better than any Constitution framed by fifty other men. But, sir, I am not so innocent as to suppose that in a Convention like this I can bring the views of all the members to square with my own peculiar notions. The gentleman from Washington has laid great stress upon the results which ha%e been effected by this Committee of Conference. Now, sir, as I understand it, the apportionment adopted by that Committee is almost identically the apportionment agreed upon by this Convention, and assented to by the gentleman from Washington. I am satisfied that the Constitution reported by this Committee is the best we can get, and I hope it will be adopted without amendment. Mr. GILMAN demanded the yeas and nays upon his amendment, which were ordered and the question being taken, resulted yeas 20, nays 30, as follows YEAS-Messrs. Becker, Baasen, Curtis, Cantell, Gillman, Jerome, Leonard, Murray, McGrorty, McFetridge, Nash, Rolette, Setzer, Shepley, Sturgis, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Vasseur, Wait, and Warner-20. NAYsMessrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Brown, Chase, Davis, Day, Emmett, Flandrau, Gilbert, Gorman, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Meeker, McMahan, Norris, Prince, Sanderson, Sherburne, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, and Mr. President-30. CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. So the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. BAASEN moved to strike out Section 1 of the report on the Elective Franchise, and to insert the Section as ordered to be enrolled by the Convention as follows SEc. 1. Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in this State for four months next preceding any election, shall be entitled to vote at such election, in the election district of which he shall at the time have been for ten days a resident, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be, elective by the people. 1st. White citizens of the United States. 2d. White persons of foreign birth, who shall have declared their intention to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United States upon the subject of naturalization. 3d. Persons of mixed white and Indian blood, who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization. 4th. Persons of Indian blood residing in this State, who have adopted the language, customs and habits of civilization, after an examination before the District Court of the State, in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall have been pronounced by said Court capable of enjoying the rights of citizenship within the State. Mr. B. said. My object in making this motion has particular refer ence to that provision in the report which requires mwhite persons of foreign birth to reside in the United States one year, and in the State four months, before they shall be allowed to vote. I consider that this is making an invidious, unjust and anti-Democratic dis tinction between white men. I cannot understand the principle upon which you provide that one class of men, coming from one section of country outside the State shall be voters after residing here for a certain time and then require a longer time before an other section of country shall be allowed the same privilege. I pre sume gentlemen will say that people coming from Europe are not so well educated and do not understand your institutions and sys tem of government as well as those who have resided in the United States. I deny the truth of the assertion. In the old country most of the governments are constitutional monarchies, and with the exception that the chief magistrates are hereditary, they differ very little from our Repuulican government. For that reason, I cannot see why men coming from Europe should not understand the government of the country. If you say they are not so well educated, and cannot understand, I answer that in Europe the peo ple are as well educated as in the United States. In some of the old countries, as, for instance, in Prussia, their system of common schools, which is the basis of education, is far superior to any com mon school system in the United States. I say, therefore, that foreigners coming here from European countries are as well edu 60,T PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES, OF THE cated and have as good understanding as those boin in the United States, and I do not see why you should, in your Constitution, make a distinction between them and native born citizens. Why should: they be made by Constitutional provision an intermediate class be tween negroes and white men? Now, sir, the object of any restriction at all upon the right of suffrage is, as I understand it, to keep away from our elections the floating population who do not intend to reside amongst us. For that reason, it is very well to prescribe that all persons shall re side for a certain time in the State before they acquire the right to vote. It may also become necessary for them to reside here for a certain time in order to become acquainted with our peculiar insti tutions. The length of time, you have got to determine for your selves. You may fix it at four months, six months, one year or five years, for that involves no principle, but to make a distinction be tween white men is invidious, and I consider it anti-Democratic. Sir, men coming here from South Carolina or from Connecticut, are as ignorant of the peculiar institutions of our future State as those coming from Europe. Why, then, make a distinction? I can see no difference between a foreigner coming froln a distant portion of' the United States and one coming from Europe, so far as their knowledge of our institutions is concerned. I hope the amendment will be adopted. Mr. TENVOORgDE. I desire to say that I am just as much a friend to the foreign-born citizens of the United States as the gen tleman who has just spoken, but, sir, I cannot understand how the gentleman can say that there should be no distinction between American and foreign-born citizens. One has lived here under the institutions of the country all his life; the other has lived abroad, and sir, I think the requirement that foreigners shall reside in the country five years before they shall become citizens of the United States, is not only just, but a very liberal one. I should have been well satisfied if the Convention had fixed two years instead of one. I think the provision contained in this report is a very liberal one towards persons coming here from foreign countries, and I am in favor of leaving that report as it stands. Mr. FLANDRAU. The gentleman who offered the amendment speaks of creating a distinction between foreign and native born citizens. Now sir, that is a distinction, if the gentleman pleases to call it such, which has always existed in all bie branches of our government, from the President of the United States down to the elector. It is requirted i~. every instance that the party should have identified himself wi Lh tme Icounltry ald its institutions before lhe 608 CONSTITUTIONAL COiNVENTION. is eligible to any of these positions. The President of the United States must be a native-born citizen. A Senator of the United States must have been a citizen for nine years, requiring a fourteen years residence in the country. A member of Congress must have been a citizen five years, requiring a residence of ten years in the United States, and yet, sir, I have never heard a single objection urged to this feature of our institutions, by a foreigner or otherwise. The proposition is necessarily involved and is admitted by everybody that there must be a perfect identification with our institutions and knowledge of our government before a party can be qualified to assist in administering it. Well now, sir, upon the subject of electors, I do not know of a single instance, except it may be the State of Wisconsin, in which some residence is not required, some distinctive time for a person of foreign birth to become entitled to the full privileges of citizenship. The distinction complained of by the gentleman from Brown, (Mr. BAASEN,) is that we require a residence of one year for a person of foreign birth, within the United States, and four months within the State before he can be a voter. That he claims, is an invidious distinction. Now, it does seem to me that there is good reason for the distinction merely in the fact that a person born in the country is presumed to be in possession of knowledge which it will require a foreigner one year or more to possess himself of, and therefore, what the gentleman speaks of as a distinction is merely a provision which places them both on a par. I do not pretend to say that persons coming here from abroad are not as well educated as the generality of American born citizens, but sir, the latter class have enjoyed advantages in respect to acquiring a knowledge of our institutions by living under them all their lives, than a foreigner can possibly have done, and they are, therefore, better educated as Republicans, as Americans and as Democrats than parties who have been born and educated under a monarchy. I do not believe our foreign born citizens generally desire more liberal provisions than are provided in this report. I am very much gratified to know that there are a large number of gentlemen members of this Convention of foreign birth, and I would like, before this question is decided, that these gentlemen should individually express their opinions upon this point. I am satisfied that there will be almost an entire unanimity of opinion in favor of the restriction proposed in the report of the Committee. Mr. BAASEN. I would like to inquire of the gentleman what benefit it can' be for a foreigner to riside one year in Alabama or Florida and then comte here? Ilow much fuirthier iS he a, dvanced in 609 k- PROCEEDINGS AND DiEBATES OF THE his knowledge of our peculiar institutions than he would have been if he had come directly here from Europe? Mr. KEEGAN. I am opposed to the amendment of the gentle man from Brown. I think the limitation provided for in this report is not too great. I concur entirely in the opinions expressed by the gentleman from Nicollet, (Mr. FLANDRAU.) Mr. M'GRORTY. I do not know that I can say that I agree with ,any of the gentlemen who have spoken upon this subject, but I certainly do not agree with the gentleman from Brown, (Mr. BAASEN.) I believe that it is no injustice at all to foreigners to make their term of probation one year. In many of the States they require a residence of one year for natives of the United States, emigrating from one State into another. Then sir, we cer tainly cannot say that it is making a distinction unjustly between foreign and native born citizens, to require that foreigners shall have resided in the country one year before they are allowed to vote in the State of Minnesota. The gentleman firom Nicollet stated that hlie did not believe persons born in a foreign country could be as well acquainted with the institutions of the United States, as though they had been born here. Now, I differ with the gentleman in that statement. I think they have a better opportunity of judging of the difference between a monarchial and republican form of government than those who have been born and who have lived here all their lives, and know nothing of any other form of government than a republic. But sir, I do not wish to debate the,matter. I think one year is at least a sufficiently short time for foreigners to reside in the United States before they are allowed to vote. Mr. CURTIS. I merely wish to say that in my judgment the difference between a native born citizen and a foreigner in this report is not one year. A person remloving here from any other State is required to reside here four years before he can vote and the difference is; therefore, only eight months. Mr. SHERBURNE. I wish simply to state that in nearly all the older States, native-born citizens are required to reside as much as one year in the State before they are allowed to vote. I know that such is the fact in the New England States; so that gentlemen will see we have only placed the same restriction upon foreigners which in most of the States is placed on native-born citizens. Mr. BAASEN. The gentleman does inect understand my argument. I have not objected to the length of time which persons are required to reside in the State. It is the distinction made 41 610 CONSTIT1{7IONAL CONVENTION. between the two classes of voters, to which I object. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 7, nays 42, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Baasen, Murray, McMahan, Nash, Setzer, Shepley and Taylor -7. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Brown, Curtis, Cantell, Chase, Davis, Day, Emmett, Flandrau, Gilbert, Gorman, Hiolcombe, Jerome, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Meeker, McGrorty, McFetridge, Norris, Prince, Rolette, Sanderson, Sherburne, Stacey, Sturgis, Streeter, Swan, Tenvoorde, Vasseur, Wait, Warner and Mr. President-42. So the amendment was not agreed to. MAr. WARNER. I have simply one amendment to offer, and shall make no other objection to the report of this Committee. I see that in the Fifth Judicial District the County of Rice has been stricken out, and has been attached to the Third District. I move that it be stricken from the Third Judicial District and attached to the Fifth. I would state my reasons, but as the Convention has resolved not to adopt any amendments to this report, I presume it would be useless. The amendment was not agreed to. IMr. STURGIS moved to strike from the Fourth Judicial District the County of Hennepin, and insert the same in the Second District. Mr. GILMAN. I shall.vote for that amendment. The Fourth Judicial district, as constituted in this report, is about 700 miles long, and I would like to.have it reduced a little. A majority of the voters in that District are in the Southern portion, and the Judicial officers will of course be elected from the southern portion. They are required to reside in the District, and people living in the northern portion wishing to do business in that Court will have to travel all that distance. The whole expense will come out of the persons having the business to do. Of course the Attornies will not object, for their expenses are paid. But, sir, I say that this apportionment of the Judicial Districts is not for the benefit of the people, nor is it Democratic. Mr. PRESIDENT, I do not feel myself bound by the report of that Committee. We are not bound to treat with the body sitting in the other wing of the Capitol, and their report has no more authority here than if the Committee had been appointed by the President of the United States to confer with a Committee appointed by a foreign power. For one I am not prepared to give my assent to that report, and I shall vote for the amendment. 39 611 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. FLANDRAU. I desire to move an amendment to the amendment, which I think will be acceptable to the gentleman who offered it. I shall urge its passage, and carry it if I can. I move also to insert the County of Dakota in the Second Judicial District. I urge it for the reason that we would then have in one Judicial District contiguous territory comprising three Counties, which will necessarily have a very considerable amount of Judicial business each. They are convenient of access, and will require but little travel for Judges or Attornies. It is a convenient District, and one over which a Circuit Judge could preside with one-half the labor which would be required in thie District as constituted in this report. Now, I do not believe in imposing upon the country Districts a section of country which will require the Judges to be continually on the go, and confine the central District here to the County of Ramsey, where there will be no more Judicial business to be done than in the ten or a dozen adjacent Counties in which the Judges will be required to perform more labor and to travel continually at their own expense. Mr. BROWN. I think the proposition made by the gentleman from Nicollet was made in Committee-that the District should be composed of the Counties of Ramsey and Dakota; but, sir, I think no one acquainted with the business required to be done in these two Counties would not pronounce it out of the power of any one man to perform the duties devolving upon the Judge for that District. It is true, sir, that these Districts are large, but I think when gentlemen take the whole Territory into consideration, they will find that it cannot be divided into Districts which will give a more equal distribution of labor and travel than is provided for in this report, with the exception of the County of Ramsey. I believe myself that the County of Ramsey will have as much legal business to do as any other Districtin the Territory or State, but it will not involve as much travel. There is another objection to this amendment, which I thilk will satisfy the gentleman himself. The Judges do not go into office until about the time when the Legislature will meet in December. Then, when they come to look over the Districts, and look over tl business to be performed in each, if it is found that there is an unequal distribution of labor and travel, the Legislature may make such alterations as will cover the difficulties complained of. I think the apportionment we have made is as good as any we can get, and I hope no change will be made by the Convention. Mr. SHERBURNE. I suppose there are twenty gentlemen in this Convention who would combine thie different Counties in the 612' CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. Territory into Judicial Districts, and each one make a separate and distinct apportionment to suit his own views. Now, Mr. PRESIDENT, the Committee of Conference have made this apportionment as equal and just as they could frame it, and as it is but a short time to the meeting of the Legislature, which will have full -control over the subject, I hope that no change will be made. I ;do not rise to make any remarks, but I do hope that gentlemen will consider the situation in which we are placed. Of course each gentleman will have an opinion of his own. There is nothing extraordinary or unreasonable in that. But, sir, we shall never finish our labors if each gentleman insists on carrying his individual opinion into this report. Mr. STURGIS. I do not agree with gentlemen in respect to its being an easy matter to change this apportionment at any time. If :I am not mistaken, these Judges are be to elected for seven years in each District, and I do not understand how the change is to be made so easily as some gentlemen seem to think. Mr. GORMAN demanded the yeas and nays on the amendment to the amendment. The yeas and nays were not ordered. The amendment to the amendment was not agreed to. The amendment was also rejected. ADDITIONAL PAY OF MEMBERS. -Mr. GILMAN, by unanimous consent, introduced the following ,resolution: RESOLVED, That; in making up the expenses of this Convention, the President and Auditing Committee, be instructed to allow to each member and officer of the said Convention, such additional sum as may be necessary to realize in cash the full amount of thleir per diem and mileage. Mr. HOLCOMBE demanded the yeas and nays, which were not ordered. The resolution was adopted. SCHEDULE. Mr. McGRORTY moved to amend the Schedule reported by the Committee of Conference so as to give the Second Senatorial and :Representative District, Four Senators, and Seven Representatives, instead of Three Senators and Six Representatives. Mr. BECKER. I think we have arrived at a point, when some time ought to be allowed for private consultation in referenee to this report. I move therefore, that the Convention adjourn until half-past two o'clock. 61 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE The motion was agreed to and the Convention at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock M., accordingly adjourned. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. CALL OF THE CONVENTION. X On' motion of Mr. WARNER, a call of the Convention was ordered and the following gentlemen found absent: Messrs. Baker, Bailly, Faber, Flandrau, Gilman, Nash, Sherburne, Tuttle, and Wilson. The Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to report the absent members in their seats. On motton of WARNER, further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. COIMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE REPORT. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the Report of the Committee of Conference, the pending question being on the motion of Mr. McGRORTY to amend the Schedule. The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. MURRAY moved the previous question on the adoption of the Report. Mr. M. E. AMES demanded the yeas and nays on ordering the main question. The yeas and nays were ordered, and resulted yeas 31, and nays 15, as follows YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Banett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly,,Curtis, Chase, Davis, Day, Emmett, Gilbert, Gorman, Holcombe, Ken nedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Murray, Meeker, icGrorty,'IcMahan, Nor ris, Prince, Sherburne, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Tenvw,cle, and Mr. President -31 NAYs-Messrs. Butler, Becker, Brown, Baasen Cantell, Jerome, Kingsbury, McFetridge, Rolette, Setzer, Shepley, Sturgis, Taylor, Vasseur, and Wait-15. So the previous question was ordered. Mr. M. E. AMES called for the yeas and nays on the adoption of the Report. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question being taken resulted yeas 38, and nays 13, as follows YEAsMessrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Davis, Day, Emmett, Flandrau Gilbert, Gorman, Gilman, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Keegan, Leonard, Lashelle, Meeker, McGrorty, McMahan, Norris, Nash, Prince, Sanderson, Sherburne, Stacey, Streeter, Swan, Warner, and Mr. President-38. 614 . CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. NAYS-Messrs. Baasen, Cantell, Jerome, Murray, McFetridge, Rolette, Setzer, Shepley, Sturgis, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Vasseur, and Wait-13. So the report was adopted. On motion of Mr. KIGSBURY, the Articles of the Constitution as adopted by the Convention, were directedto be enrolled in following order: I.-PREAMBLE AND BILL OF RIGHTS. II.-NAME AND BOUNDARIES. III.-DISTRIBUTION OF THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. IV.-LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. V.-EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. VI.-JUDICIAL. VII.-THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. VIII.-SCHOOL FUNDS, EDUCATION AND SCIENCE. IX.-FINANCES OF THE STATE, BANKS AND BANKING. X.-CORPORATIONS HAVING NO BANKING PBIVILEGES. XI.-COUNTIES AND TOWNSHIPS. XII.-THE MILITIA. XIII.-IMPEACHMENTS AND REMOVALS FROM OFFICE. XIV.-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. XV.-SCHEDULE. On motion of Mr. BROWN, the Secretary of the Convention was directed to inform the Secretary of the body in the east wing of the Capitol, of the adoption of the report of the Committee of Conference. Mr. BAASEN moved to adjourn, The motion was not agreed to. On motion of Mr. GORMAN, the Secretary was allowed to employ any assistance necessary to have the Constitution enrolled by to-morrow. On motion of Mr. M. E. AMES, the vote by which the Secretary was instructed to inform the Secretary of the body in the east wing of the Capitol, of the passage of the report, was reconsidered and the order so amended as to require the presiding officer of the Convention, to convey the information. ADDITIONAL PAY OF TERRITORIAL PRINTER. Mr. MURRAY offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the President and Auditing Committee be instructed to add a sufficient sum to the bill of the Territorial Printer, to make his claim equivalent to cash. Mr. A. E. AMES demanded the yeas and nays on the adoption of the resolution. The yeas and nays were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 16, nays 21, as follows: 615 PROCEEDLINGS AND DEBATES OF THE YEAs-Messrs. Becker, Burns, Davis, Day, Gilbert, Gorman, Gilman, Kingsbury, Keegan, Lashelle, Murray, Stacey, Shepley, Sturgis, Taylor, Warner-16. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Bailly, Brown, Curtis, Chase, Emmett, Holcombe, Kennedy, Meeker, M'Grorty, Norris, Prince, Sanderson, Sherburne, Streeter, Swan, Tenvoorde, Wait, Mr. President-21. So the resolution was rejected. GERMAN TRANSLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. BECKER offered the following resolution, which was agreed to: RESOLVED, That the sum of $100 be appropriated for translating the Constitution into the German language, and that H. Petgold, of Saint Paul, be employed to make the translation. COMMUNICATION FROM THE REPUBLICANS. The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the following communication, which was ordered to be spread upon the Journal: ST. PAUL, Aug. 28, 1857. To the Hon. H. H. Siblq, President: I have the honor to communicate that the Convention over which I preside, this day passed the report of the Joint Committee of Conference on the subject of the formation of a Constitution, without any amendment, and also the enclosed resolutions. Yours most respectfully, ST. A. D. BALCOMBE, President. RE,SOLVE,D, That the report of the Committee on Conference, as read a third time and passed by this Convention, is hereby referred to said Committee, to be by them carefully compared with the report as adopted in the other body; and that the Committee of Conference be instructed to arrange and number the articles of the Constitution in their proper order, and immediately cause the whole Constitution to be correctly enrolled for its due verification and authentication by this Convention. RESOLVE,D, That the President of this Convention communicate the fact of the, adoption of the report of the Committee of Conference without amendment, and the passage of the above resolution, to the President of theConvention sitting in the Council Chamber of this Capitol. SWEDISH AND FRENCH TRANSLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. BUTLER offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That $100 be appropriated for translating the Constitution into the Swedish language, and that some competent persons be employed, under direction of the President, to effect the translation. Mr. STURGIS moved to amend the resolution so as to require a French translation to be also made, and adding $1 00 to the appropriation. The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution as amended. was adopted. '616 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. PRINTING OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. CURTIS offered the following resolution, which was adopted. RESOLVED, That 15,000 copies of the Constitution, when enrolled, be printed under the direction of the Secretary of this Convention, of which 5000 copies shall be printed in the German language, and 2000 in the Swedish language, and 2000 in the French language, and when printed, each delegate shall be entitled to 250 copies of the whole number for distribution. ENROLLMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. On motion of Mr. BECKER, the vote by which the Constitution was ordered to be enrolled, was reconsidered, and the order changed, so as to conform to the action of the Republican Conven tion, as follows: RESOLVED, That the Conference Committee be instructed to,:ct in conjunction with the Conference Committee from the East end of the Capitol, in superintending the enrollment of the Constitution as proposed by the resolution enclosed in the communication just received. PAY OF THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. Mr. GORMAN. I offer the following resolution: RESOLVED, That if the Auditor and Treasurer of this Territory declines to recognize the organization of the Convention presided over by Hon. St. A. D. Balcombe, that Hon. H. H. Sibley, President, and J. J. Noah, Secretary, sign certificates for such members of that Convention as were elected to the Constitutional Convention; Provided, they be presented for such purpose, and to include the printing for that body. Mr. PRESIDENT, I offer that resolution for the consideration of the Convention, and I trust there will be no objection. I assure gentlemen here that it is offered in a spirit of entire respect to the body sitting in the other end of the Capitol. As I am confident the Audltor and Treasurer will not recognize the warrants of that Convention, I, as one member of this Convention, am in favor of placing their pay upon the same ground as our own. It is only a question of dollars and cents, and I do not apprehend that any of the members of this Convention will hesitate long in settling this whole matter, and leaving this Capitol with at least as much unanimity, as far as dollars and cents are concerned, as we possibly can. I trust the resolution will be adopted with entire unanimity. Mr. MURRAY. I have but one remark to make. If anything of this kind is to be done, I want the Convention to "go the whole hog," and pay all the members of that body. I do not think we ought to adopt a resolution for the payment of those members; and then require the President of this Convention to pass upon the question as to who were elected and who who were not elected. 6117 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE Mr. FLANDRAU. It seems to me there are a great many ob stacles in the way of the passage of any such resolution at the present time. The gentleman who offered it, from the manner in which he prefaced it, evidently intends it, not as a firebrand to be thrown in, but as a resolution for peace and harmony. Now, sir, I think he is very much mistaken as to the effect anfysuch resolution will produce. It calls upon that body to ignore its own existence, to say that it never had any right to sit, and never possessed any vitality. Now, sir, do you suppose that the gentlemen sitting there are going to consent to anything of that kind? Does any gentleman here suppose that if he were sitting on that floor, he would not re gard such a proposition as a personal affront? Sir, in my opinion such a resolution is calculated to destroy the harmony which now exists between the two bodies. The adoption of the resolution will be throwing out a taunt to that Convention, and asking them to give up their whole organization. Sir, I hope that nothing of this kind will transpire, and I make these remarks for the purpose of preventing, if possible, any such disagreeable consequences as may result from the passage of this resolution. Gentlemen in that body say they want nothing, they desire nothing, and I think it will be time enough for us to adopt such a measure when we have ascertained that it is their wish to place themselves in such a posi tion. I think the whole thing is improper and discourteous, and I shall vote against the resolution. Mr. BAASEN. I object to the resolution upon the ground that I do not believe it is competent for us to draw upon the Territorial Treasury for services which we do not consider to have been rendered in any capacity for which we are authorized to draw from the Treasury. I believe it is a matter to be left entirely with the Legislature. I therefore move that the resolution be indefinitely postponed. Mr. BROWN. It appears to me that gentlemen look at this resolution in a different light from what I do. It simply proposes that if the Auditor does not recognize the orders drawn upon him by the officers of the other Convention, our officers shall draw orders for their expenses. It will have no effect until the Auditor has refused to recognize their drafts. I think myself that there should be no question about the recognition since the two Conventions have closed their sessions with such harmony. It is but right and proper that these men should receive their pay, and I hope that the resolution will be passed in order to prepare for the contingencywhich may arise of their drafts not being recognised. Mr. SHERBURNE. I saw the resolution before it was presented 618 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. to the Convention, and I suppose it was presented for the purpose of meeting a difficulty which may arise. The two bodies have agreed upon all the matters which separated them. They have harmonized upon everything which is vital or important, and there is nothing remaining now but a mere matter of dollars and cents. I think that we should make provision for everybody being paid, It is a small'matter. I would be glad to pay my proportion out of my own pocket, if there was anything in it. But, sir, I hope gentlemen will not stickle here about a matter of a few dollars. It would perhaps be well enough to make a verbal amendment to the resolution, but I hope it will be adopted. Mr. SIBLEY. (Mr. M. E. AMEs in the Chair.) I do not propose to discuss the merits of this resolution, but there is one part of it which I decidedly protest against and I hope it will not be passed in its present shape. I am not willing, as the presiding officer of this body, to be saddled with the onus of deciding which gentlemen have been and which have not been elected to this Convention. If the Convention proposes to pass any resolution of this kind, therefore, I hope it will itself assume the responsibility of deciding who are legally elected and who are entitled to be paid for their services. I believe there are gentlemen there who are not entitled to be paid, who are sitting there without the shadow of right. If it were a mere matter of dollars and cents, I, for one, would not object, but when the resolution comes up in a shape which leaves it with the President of this body to decide who are legally elected members, I think it involves a principle which should be decided by the body itself. Mr. BAASEN withdrew the motion to postpone indefinitely and moved to refer the resolution to a Special Committee of three. Mr. M. E. AMES. Mr. President, I now make a motion to amend the motion of the gentleman from Brown, (Mr. BAASEN,) that this resolution with the whole subject, be referred to the Committee of Conference. I do so because that Committee have had the man. agement of all the negotiations which have taken place with the representatives in the other Convention, and because they have conducted them with ability, successfully, and I believe to the satisfaction of this Convention. I make this motion for various reasons, a portion of which have been suggested by the remarks of the gentleman from Nicollet, (Mr. FLANDRAU,) who seemed to think that the passage of this resolution would be little short of an indignity to the gentlemen who compose the other Convention. Now sir, I may be permitted to express my belief that the gen tlemen who offered this resolution, instead of intending it as an 619 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE indignity, offered it in no other spirit except that of liberty and" conciliation. I believe that he offered it in entire good faith and for a most worthy object. Nevertheless, sir,'it may be considered by the Delegates in the other Convention as offensive; they may, misconstrue it; they may place a construction upon it which we, as a Convention do not intend in passing it; and therefore I deem eminently fit and proper that it should be referred to the Commit tee of Conference who have conducted all the negotiations between the two bodies. Mr. BECKER regretted exceedingly that this subject had been introduced into the Convention. Hie hoped the gentleman would' recollect the action of the Convention early in the session, relative to this Republican body and the recommendation made to the Au ditor and Territorial Treasurer upon the subject of their pay. It would be an abandonment of the ground taken by this body to pass the resolution. It would be an endorsement of the validity of a body which we had declared to be revolutionary and without authority of law. It would be better to go before the people upon the question of organization and he hoped the Convention would not abandon the ground it had taken relative to that organization by the passage of such a resolution. Mr. BiIOWN could not see how the passage of the resolution would, to any extent, recognize the validity of the Republican organization or compromise the position taken by the Convention relative to that organization. Mr. MURRAY asked whether there was any arrangement in the Committee of Conference, by which both Conventions were to be recognized by the Territorial Treasurer. Mr. BROWN replied that if there had been, it would have been reported to the Convention. Many of the men sitting in the other end of the Capitol were legally elected members of the Constitutional Convention and since they had agreed with this body in the formation of a Constitution were in justice, entitled to their pay; and inasmuch as this Convention had early in the session recommended the Territorial Treasurer not to recognize their orders, it was but justice then, that we should now provide some means by which they should be paid. In his opinion, the separate organizations, if both bodies were paid, would prove an economical arrangement. He ventured to say that if both parties had remained in the same Convention, there would not have been two Articles of the Constitution adopted by the first of January next, and the expense would have been double that of both Conventions now. Mr. FLANDRAU asked whether the gentleman advocated the 620 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. payment of the expenses of the other body for printing, reporting and other matters of extra expense. Mr. BROWN replied, that if all were paid it would still be an economical arrangement. Mr. CURTIS hoped the members of the other Convention would get their pay in some way, but he objected to this manner of forcing it on them. If the Convention passed this resolution, gentlemen when they went home to their constituents, would have to answer this question: "You have voted to pay these men for what? "For services in a Convention which you have declared to be ille"gal and revolutionary." Rather than be compelled to answer this question in the affirmative, he would go for the members of this Convention paying them from their own pockets He could not consent to pass any resolution by which the position of the Convention would be compromised. Mr. GORMAN said that so far from this resolution compromising the position formerly taken by this Convention, it was directly confirmatory of that position. We had declared them to be an illegal body, at the same time admitting that many of their members had been duly elected members of the Constitutional Convention. As members of the Constitutional Convention,' having assisted in the formation of the Constitution which had been adopted, it was but justice that they should be paid. But having adhered to an illegal organization, they had no power of drawing money from the Treasury, and therefore he proposed that their accounts, so far as the legally elected members were concerned, should be audited by this Convention. The' resolution was in perfect consistency with the former action of the Convention. It was simply doing an act of justice, and he hoped it would be adopted. Mr. EMMETT said that the Convention had no legal right to au thorize its officers to sign the certificates of the members of the other body. The Convention had only the right to pay for services actually performed in the Constitutional Convention. These mem bers had not served in the Constitutional Convention and therefore we had no legal right to pay them. It would be in the power of the Legislature to make such provision, but not legally in the power of the Convention. If our officers should sign their certifi cates, the Territorial Treasurer would have no right to allow the accounts, and he had reason to believe that that officer would not allow them. Mr. A. E. AMES was opposed to the resolution in its present shape, but not opposed to the principle it involved. He would like to have all the legally elected members of the Constitutional Con 621 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF Ti:E vention paid, and he thought some plan could be devised by which the Convention could properly provide for such payment. lHe hoped the resolution would be referred to a Select Committee, and if the gentleman would withdraw the motion to refer it to the Com mittee of Conference, he would make that motion. Mr. M. E. AMES declined to withdraw the motion, although he had very little hope the Convention would adopt it. It was an admitted fact that most of the members of that body were legally elected members of the Constitutional Convention, that they had assisted in the formation of the Constitution, and that they could not receive their pay without our consent. The question therefore simply resolved itself into this, "Shall they have our consent to be paid,i or shall they be sent home to their constituents without their pay?" WNe had been in conference with them for the last two days; we had repeatedly asked them to unite with us in adopting one Constitution; they had met us in a spirit of compromise, and now he asked the Convention, whether, as honest men, they would say to the other body, "You have helped us to form our constitu tion, you have done what we asked you to do, now go home without your pay." What would be the effect of such a course? Every man of them would go home and publish to the people of the Territory that this Convention had exhibited a spirit of meanness towards them. It was merely a matter of dollars and cents, and he hoped that as a matter of policy, to say nothing of justice, the resolution would be adopted. Mfr. FLANDRAU asked what would be the result of referring this resolution to the Committee of Conference. The members of that Committee from the other body would say, "Are you in earnest "gentlemen in coming here with such a proposition? Do you "mean to insult us?" He did not wish to have our members of the Committee placed in any such ridiculous position. He did not believe any member of the Republican party would seriously ask such a thing at our hands. If this was a legally constituted Conveintion, he did not wish to see them compromise the position they had assumed by the adoption of any such measure. He admitted that some of these men were legally elected, but they had staid away from the legally constituted Constitutional Convention, they had not performed the service for which their constituents had elected them, and we had no right to pay them. Gentlemen talked about the duty of the Convention to be liberal. He understood one of the principles of the Democratic party to.be economy and no illegal appropriations from the Treasury. These men had organized their Convention for party purposes, they had 622 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. incurred extraordinary expenses for the salaries of their officers, for their reporting and for their printing by a partisan press, instead of employing the regularly constituted Territorial printers. Were gentlemen going to place aid and comfort in the hands of the enemy by paying ten or fifteen thousand dollars for these partisan services? He hoped the Convention would consider well before they determined to adopted any such proposition. On motion of Mr. Mc MAHAN the Convention at five o'clock P. M., adjourned. FORTY-FIRST DAY. SATURDAY, August 29, 1857. The Convention met at nine o'clock A. M. Prayer by the Chaplain. The Journal of yesterday was read and approved. CALL OF THE CONVENTION. On motion of Mr. WARNER, a call of the Convention was ordered, and the following gentlemen were found absent. Messrs. Baker, Burns, Burwell, Brown, Chase, Day, Plandrau, Gilman, Holcombe, Kingsbury, Leonard, McMahan,! Nash, Rolette, Sturgis, Swan, Taylor, Tuttle, Wait, and Wilson. The Sergeant-at-arms nvas directed to report the absent members in. their seats. On motion of Mr. MURRAY, all further proceedings under the call were dispensed with. On motion of Mr. MURRAY, the Convention took a recess of a half an hour. After the recess had expired, the Convention was called to order by the PRESIDENT. On motion of Mr. DAVIS, the Convention took a further recess, of one hour. After the recess had expired, the Convention was called to order by the PRESIDENT. INDIAN STATISTICS. The PRESIDENT announced that he had received the following communication from the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, which communication was ordered to be inserted in the journal: 623, PROCEE'INGS AND DEBATES OF THE OFFICE OF NORTHERN SUPERINTENDENCY, ST. PAUL, August 28, 1857. HON. H. H. SIBLEY, President of the Constitutional Convention: Sir,-I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt, through the Secretary of the Convention, of the following resolution of the Constitutional Convention, viz: RESOLVED, That the Secretary of this Convention be requested to obtain from the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, an exhibit of the amount of Indian lands within the limits of the proposed State; the number of Indians therein, together with the amount of the annuities paid to them, and report the same to this Convention. In reply to the same, permit me to state that it affords me great pleasure to communicate, as far as the records of this office will furnish the data, the authentic information you desire. Though, from the fact, that the reservations have not yet been surveyed (with the exception of the Winnebago reserve) and the government surveys have not yet been made of the unceded Indian Territory, renders it impossible to determine the exact amount of Indian lands, as desired by the resolution. The estimated amount, however, will not vary from the following, viz: Winnebago Reserve................................. 324 square miles. Sioux of the Mississippi Reserve......................3000... Chippewas and Pillagers of the Mississippi, say........ 700... Unceded Lands lying in the North of the State, East of Red River of the North........................ 10,500... In square miles............................ 14,524 rThe number of Indians consisting of Annuity Indians, is as follows, viz: Winnebagoes.................................................. 1,866 Chippewas of the Mississippi.................................... 2,206 Pillagers and Lake Winnebago Ostrich........................... 2,031 Sioux of the Mississippi, both Upper and Lower Bands............. 6,383 12,486 New Annuitants'The Bois Fort or Red Lake Indians............................. 1,600 14,080 The amount paid by the United States to the several tribes of Indians in the Territory of Minnesota within the limits of the proposed ne State, as annuities in money, provisions and goods, is as follows, viz. To the Chippewas, as per treaty stipulations, treaties of 1837, 1842, 1847, 1854 and 1855 Money annuities..................................... $29,733 34 Pillager and Lake Winnebeg Ostrich Bands of Chippewas, in money.......................................... 10,666 66 Provisions to both a b o v e................................... 5,500 00 .~Goods................................................ 17,833 33 $63,733 34 624 . CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. To Winnebagoes Money annuities...........................................$48,000 00 Provisions.................................................. 10,000 00 Goods.................................................... 20,000 00 Tobacco................................................... 1,500 00 $79,500 00 .Sioux of the Mississippi Money annuities to Upper Sioux.............................$43,904 11 ".".. -Lower bands........................... 46,784 48 Provisions........................................... 16,400 00 Annuity Goods........................................... 16,000 00 $122,478 59 This does not include the various annuties paid by the United States for the purposes of education, agriculture, blacksmiths, support of the departments at the various Agencies, which is paid on account of the Indians, and for their benefit, but not to them. The above several amounts being directly paid to the Indians, I suppose covers the information desired by the Convention under the resolution. I have the honor to remain, your obedient servant, M. J. CULLEN, Superintendent of Indian Affairs. PAY OF THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION. The Convention then resumed the consideration of the resolution offered yesterday by Mr. GORMAN, relative to the pay of the Re. publicans. Mr..MEEKER moved to postpone the consideration of the resolution until the 4th day of July next. Mr. MURRAY demanded thie yeas and nays on the motion, which were ordered, and the question being taken, resulted yeas 38, nays 7, as follows YEAs-Messrs. Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Bailly, Baasen, Curtis, Cantell, Chase, Day, Emmett, Faber, Flaradrau, Gilbert, Gilman, Holcombe, Jerome, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Murray, Meeker, McFetridge, McMahan, Norris, Prince, Rolette, Setzer, Sanderson, Stacey, Shepley, Sturgis, Streeter, Taylor, Tenvoorde. Tuttle, Vasseur, and Mr. President-38. NAYs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Davis, Gorman, Swan, Armstrong, and Warner-7. So the resolution was ordered to be postponed until the 4th day of July next. PRINTING OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. BUTLER offered the following resolution: RESOLvED, That 10,000 copies of the Constitution as enrolled, in addition to 625 PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE those previously ordered, be printed in pamphlet form, under the direction of the Secretary, for distribution by members of the Convention. Mr. B. remarked that the resolution which passed the Convention yesterday, was so amended by the order to print copies in the Ger man, French, and Swedish languages, as to leave only 6,000 copies in English, which he thought was insufficient. The resolution was adopted. PAY OF THE CHAPLAIN. Mr. HOLCOMIBE offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the President of this Convention authorize a certificate to be given to Rev. J. Penman, for services as Chaplain of this Convention, allowing him the same per diem as received by Delegates and for the same time. The resolution was adopted. PAY OF THE REPUBLICANS. Mr. STREETER offered the following resolution RESOLVED, That the fifty-three legally elected members occupying seats in the east wing of the Capitol, be requested to come forward and sign the Constitution agreed upon by the Committee of Conference, and adopted by the Constitutional Convention, that they may be entitled to pay as members of the Constitutional Convention, and that C. A. Coe, of Houston, and Robert Lyle, of Mower County, be allowed mileage and per diem, as contestants. Mr. TAYLOR moved that the resolution be indefinitely postpon. ed, which motion was carried, and the resolution was indefinitely postponed. PRINTING OF THE CONSTITUTION IN NORWEGIAN. Mr. TENVOORDE offered the following resolution: RESOLVED,'That 2,000 copies of the Constitution be printed in the Norwegian language. Mr. SETZER. I would suggest to the gentleman while he is about it, that he also move to have the Constitution printed in Chippewa. I make that motion. Mr. MURRAY. I hope the resolution offered by the gentleman from Stearns (Mr. TENVOORDEF) will be adopted. We have already ordered that the Constitution shall be printed in French, German and Swedish. Now, sir, there is a large number of Norwegians in the Territory and I think it is no more than right that the Constitution should be printed in their language. Mr. SETZER. I withdraw the amendment. The resolution was adopted. On motion of MAr BROW',N one hundred dollars was appropria 626 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVETION. ted for the purpose of having the Constitution translated into Norwegian. Mr. SETZER offered the following resolution: REsoLvED, That two thousand copies of the Constitution be printed in the Irish Language. Mr. FLANDRAU moved to amend so as to have one thousand copies printed in the Sioux Language for the use of the Hazlewood Republic. Mr. SETZER. I would suggest that twenty-five copies would be sufficient, for I believe that is the number of inhabitants in the gentleman's Republic. Mr. SETZER moved tQ indefinitely postpone the resolution and amendment. The amendment was agreed to. PAY OF THE REPUBLICANS. Mr. FLANDRAU offered the following resolution: RFSOLVED, That the President of the Constitutional Convention be authorized to sign certificates for the mileage and per diem of those Delegates to the Convention who have been assembled in the House of lRepresentatives, with the exception of the four Delegates from St. Anthony, when said certificates shall be presented to him, and that he also be authorized to sign the certificates of Mr. CHASE, of Houston, and Mr. TYLOR, of Mower, for per diem and mileage as contestants. Mr. F. said that in the shape in which he now offered the resolution he did not extend an invitation to the gentlemen in the other end of the Capitol to give up their organization and come here to get their pay. He was willing the legally elected members of that Convention should have their pay if they desired to obtain it through the President of this Convention. The resolution merely vested in the President the power to sign the certificates of those members if they should present them. He did not believe the members of that Convention would give up their organization and present their certificates here, but he hoped the resolution would pass so as to provide for the contingency if it should arise. Mr. CURTIS moved to postpone the resolution indefinitely. Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas and nays on the motion to postpone. The yeas aud nays were ordered, and the question being taken resulted, yeas 33, nays 11, as follows YEAS-Messrs. M. E. Ames, Armstrong, Butler, Becker, Barrett, Burns, Bailly, Brown, Baasen, Curtis, Chase, Day, Emmett, Faber, Holcombe, Kennedy, Keegan, Lashelle, Murray, Meeker, McFetridge, Prince, Rolette, Setzer, Sanderson, Sherburne, Shepley, Sturgis, Streeter, Taylor, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Warner, and Mr. President33. 40 627 PROCEEDINGS AI\D DEBATES OF THE NAYS-Messrs. A. E. Ames, Davis, Flandrau, Gilbert, Gorman, Kingsb ury, McGrorty, McMahan, Norris, Stacey, and Swan-11. So the resolution was indefinitely postponed. ENROLLMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION ON PARCHMENT. Mr. BROWN offered the following resolution, which was adop RESOLvED, That the sum of seventy-five dollars be appropriated for transcribing the Constitution on parchment, tobe signed by the President, Secretary and members of this Convention. Mr. BROWN, from the Committee of Conference, submitted the following Report: The Joint Committee of the two Conventions appointed to agree upon and submit one Constitution to the people of the State of Minnesota for ratification or rejection, would respectfully report that in accordance with the instructions to said Committee they have enrolled and now report a copy of the Constitution -M. SHERBURNE, Chairman, L. K. STANNARD, Secretary, JOsEPH 1. BROWN, W. HOLCOMBE, CYRUS ALDRICH, CHARMFA M. CHASE, THOMAS J. GALBRA!TH, W. W. KINGSBURY. The Report was accepted, and the Constitution as reported by them finally adopted and ordered for signature. THANKS OF THE CONVENTION TO ITS OFFICERS. Mr. A. E. AMES, on leave, offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That a vote of thanks of the Constitutional Convention are emi nently due and hereby tendered to the Hon. H. HI. SIBLEY, for the dignified and impartial manner in which he has presided over this Convention. The resolution was adopted unanimously. Mr. HOLCOMBE offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That Mr. F. H. SMITH, the Reporter of this Convention, is entitled to the thanks of this Convention for the prompt and impartial manner in which he has discharged his duties. The resolution was adopted unanimously. Mr. BROWN offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered to J. J. NOAH, Esq. for the able manner in which he has performed the arduous duties of Secretary to this Convention. The resolution was adopted unanimously. The members of the Convention then came forward and signed 628 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. the Constitution in the order of the Council Districts which they -represented, each member designating the County in which he resided. Mr. TAYLOR declared he should never sign such a Constitution as the Convention had adopted. On motion of Mr. PRINCE, the Convention adjourned until halfpast two o'clock, P. M. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. On motion of Mr. KINGSBURY, a recess of half an hour was taken. After which, the Auditing Committee presented a Report of the -entire expenses of the Convention, which Report was received and adopted. JO RNAL. Mr. BROWN offered the following resolution: RzSOLVED, That the Secretary of this Convention be authorized to prepare and superintend the printing of the Journal of this Convention, (other than the debates), and indexing the same, and also to transcribe the same into a proper book for preservation. The resolution was adopted. ADDITIONAL PAY OF MEMBERS. On motion of Mr. A. E. AMES, the resolution adopted yesterday giving additional per diem and mileage to members and officers was ordered to be expunged from the Journal. PRINTING OF THE DEBATES. Mr. FLANDRAU remarked that a resolution had passed the Convention for printing the Debates and Proceedings, leaving it discretionary with the President whether they should be printed in the Territory or out of it. He said there was a Territorial Printer who was a legally constituted officer, and who, in his opinion, should have all the printing ordered to be done by the Convention. He moved the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLVED, That the Territorial Printer be designated by this Convention to do .all the printing that is to be done for this Convention. Mr. BROWN said the Territorial Printer had already as much work on hand as he could execute in twelve mionths. He should be in favor of giving the work to that officer if it could be done 629 PROCEEDINGS AID DEBATES OF TIry without too great delay. Hie thought it was important that the Debates should be printed before the meeting of Congress, and he, therefore, hoped the resolution would not pass. The resolution was not agreed to. Mr. TAYLOR moved that the Convention adjourn sine die. The motion was not agredc LO. Mr. FLANDRAU offered the following resolution: RESOLVED, That all the printing of this Convention be done by some Demo cratic printing office in this Territory. He said that the patronage of this Democratic Convention ought to go into the hands of Democrats. If the matter was left discre tionary, it might be taken to New York and published in the office of the New York Tribune, for any thing this Convention knew. There were Democratic printing offices in the Territory competent to perform the work, and it would be a monstrous outrage to allow it to be taken out of the Territory. The Convention had refused to order it to be furnished to the Public Printer, and he now asked that it should be done by some Democratic office in the Territory. It was no more than justice that this Democratic patronage should go for the benefit of our own party at home. Mr. BUTLER thought the matter was just right as it stood. It was now left at the discretion of the President and he considered this resolution disrespectful to that officer, showing a want of confidence in his integrity and judgment. He supposed the President would give the work, as a matter of course, to some Democratic office in the Territory, but there was no need of any instructions, and he hoped the resolution would not prevail. Mr. CURTIS thought the matter should be given to some Democratic printer in the Territory, provided it could be done within a reasonable time and he moved, therefore, to amend by adding, "in case it can be done in one year." The amendment was not agreed to. Mr. DAVIS offered the following substitute. RESOLVED, That the printing of the Journals and other Public Documents be distributed among the different Democratic offices of this Territory. The substitute was not agreed to. The question then recurred on the resolution as originally offered... Mr. FABER demanded the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays Were ordered and the question being taken, resulted yeas 29, and nays 14, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. A. E. Ames, M. E. Ames, Becker, Burns, Burwell, Bailly, Cantell, Faber, Flandrau, Gilman, Holcombe, Jerome, Kingsbury, Kennedy, Lashelle, Murray, McFetridge, McMahan, Nash, Rolette, Sherburne, Stacey,, 630 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. .Shepley, Sturgis, Swan, Tenvoorde, Tuttle, Vasseur, Warner, and Mr. President -29. NAYs-Messrs. Butler, Brown, Curtis, Davis, Emmett, Gilbert, Keegan, Mee,ker, McGrorty, Norris, Prince, Setzer, Streeter, and Sanderson-14. So the resolution was adopted. Mr. STACEY moved to adjourn sine die. The motion was not agreed to. PAY OF THE REPUBLICANS-REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS. Mr. A. E. AMES, from the Committee on Credentials, presented the following Report: Your Committee on Credentials respectfully report that they have satisfactory -evidence of the loal election of the following named Delegates to the Constitutional Convention: Messrs. St. A. D. Balcombe, Benj. C. Baldwin, G. A. Kemp, Wm. F. Russell, N. B. Robbins, Jr. Simeon Hardin, W. H. C. Folsom, Wentworth Hayden, D. L. King, T. D. Smith, E. P. Davis, Thomas Wilson, E. N. Bates, Thomas Bolles, D. D. Dickerson, Thomas Foster, Lewis M'Kune, W. J. Duley, R. L. Bartholomew, N. P. Colburn, H. A. Billings, A. G. Hudson, Charles Gerrish, Frank Mantor, Amos Coggswell, L. K. Stannard, L. C. Walker, Charles M'Clure, Boyd Phelps, Joseph Peckham, George Watson, Charles F. Low, P. A. Cederstam, Charles B. Sheldon, David Morgan, James A. McCann, John A. Anderson, A. H. Butler, Charles Hanson, John Clighorn, A. B. Vaughn, Henry Eschle, Cyrus Aldrich, F. Ayer, A. W. Coombs, Thomas J. Galbraith, H. W. Holley, B. F. Messer, W. H. Mills, John W. North, O. E. Perkins, C. W. Thompson, Philip Winel-53. THzREFoRE, Your Committee offer for adoption the following resolution: RFOLVED, That the foregoing named Delegates to the Constitutional Conven tion be paid Three Dollars per day for the session, together with mileage. A. E. AMES, J. S. NORRIS, Committee. JOSEFPH R. BROWN, On motion of Mr. MURRAY, the Report was laid upon the table. Mr. FLANDRAU moved to take up the resolution offered some time since, providing for submitting as a-separate proposition the question of Boundary. FINAL ADJOURNMENT. Mr. BECKER moved that the Convention adjourn sine die. The question was put and the motion agreed to. The PRESIDENT then addressed the Convention as follows: "Gentlemen of the Convention: Before the announcement of the vote upon a final adjournment, I beg leave to trespass for a very few moments upon your patience. The time has come for the termination of our session. The edifice being completed, the scaffold ,ing is to be taken down: and the workmen will return to their em 631 PROCEEDINGS AD DEBATES OF THE ployers-the sovereign People-to render an account of their la — bors. We can point them to a Constitution prepared by a Democratic Convention, which we conceive to be the embodiment of' Democratic principles and Democratic progress. It has been adopted by our political opponents as it first emanated from this body, with few and unimportant changes or amendments, and by their act they have paid a notable tribute to the wisdom and statesmanship of this Convention. WVe have a right to assume that the; People will endorse our action in casting a large majority for the Fundamental Law to be submitted to them, and that Minnesota will speedily take her place among the States of the Union. "It is a source of congratulation, that we close our proceedings not only with friendly feelings prevailing among ourselves but with kindly relations personally toward the individuals composingthe assemblage in the other end of this Capitol. Politically op-t posed as we are, it would be unjust to ourselves as well as to them were we to refuse to acknowledge that we have been met by them in, conference in committee in a manly and conciliatory spirit. "We are about to part, and I thank you sincerely for the proofs you have given me of your confidence, and for the complimentary Resolution you have so unanimously adopted. I have been treated with indulgence when I have erred, and with uniform respect while discharging my duties as your presiding officer. Wishing you one and all a safe and speedy return to your homes, in obedience to then, vote taken I pronounce the Convention adjourned sinze die." The Address was received with enthusiastic applause; and after many friendly greetings, the members of the Constitutional Convention separated for their homes in the various parts of the. Territory. 632 0 1 1 ORGANIC ACT OF THE TERRITORY OF MINNESOTA. AN ACT TO ESTABlISH THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT OF MINNESOTA. SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of tvle United States of America in Congress assembled. That, from and after the passage of this Act, all that part of the Territory of the United States which lies within the following limits to wit: Beginning in the Mississippi River at the point where the line of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude crosses the same, thence running due west on said line, which is the northern boundary of the State of Iowa, thence southerly along thee western boundary of said State to the point where said boundary strikes the Missouri River, thence up the middle of the main channel of the Missouri River to the mouth of the White Earth River, thence up the middle of thie main channel of the White Earth River to the boundary line between the possessions of the United States and Great Britain; thence east and south of east along the boundary line between the possessions of the United States and Great Britain to Lake Superior; thence in a straight line to the northernmost point of the State of Wisconsin in Lake Superior; thence along the western boundary line of said State of Wisconsin to the Mississippi River; thence down the main channel of said river to the place of beginning, be, and the same is hereby, erected into a temporary Government by the name of the Territory of Minnesota Provided, That nothing in-:this Act contained shall be construed to inhibit the Government of the United States from dividing said Territory into two or more Territories, in such manner and such times as Congress shall deem convenient and proper, or from attaching any portion of said Territory to any other State or Territory of the United States. SEc. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Executive power and authority in and over said Territory of Minnesota, shall be vested a__ APPENDIX. in a Governor, who shall hold his office for four years, and until his successor shall be appointed and qualified, unless sooner re moved by the President of the United States. The Governor shall reside within said Territory, shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Militia thereof, shall perform the duties and receive the emolu ments of Superintendent of Indian Affairs; he may grant pardons for offences against the laws of said Territory, and reprieves for offences against the laws of the United States until the decision of the President can be made known thereon; he shall commission all officers who shall be appointed to office under the laws of the said Territory, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully exe cuted. SEC. 3. And be itfurther enacted, That there shall be a Secretary of said Territory, who shall reside therein, and hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States; he shall record and preserve all the laws and pro ceedings of the Legislative Assembly hereinafter constituted, and all the acts and proceedings of the Governor in his Executive De partment; he shall transmit one copy of the laws and one copy of the Executive proceedings, on or before the first day of December in each year to the President of the United States, and at the same time two copies of the laws to the Speaker of the House of Repre sentatives, and the President of the Senate, for the use of Congress. And in case of the death, removal, resignation, or necessary ab — sence of the Governor from the Territory, the Secretary shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to execute and perform all the powers and duties of the Governor during such vacancy or necessary absence, or until another Governor shall be duly ap pointed to fill such vacancy. SEc. 4. And be it frther enacted, That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assemby. The Legislative Assembly shall consist of a Council and House of Representatives. The Council shall consist of nine members, having the qualifications of voters as hereinafter prescribed, whose term of service shall continue two years. The House of Representatives shall, at its first session, consist o f eighteen members, possessing the same qualifications as prescribe d for members of the Council, and whose term of service shall con tinue one year. The number of Councillors and Representatives may be increased by the Legislative Assembly, from time to time, in proportion to the increase of population: Provided, That the whole number shall never exceed fifteen Councillors and thirty-nine Representatives. An apportionment shall be made, as nearly equal 636 APPENDIX. as practicable, among the several counties, or districts, for the election of the Council and Representatives, giving each section of the Territory representation in the ratio of its population, Indians excepted, as nearly as may be. And the members of the Council and of the House of Representatives shall reside in and be inhabitants of the district for which they may be elected respectively. Previous to the first election, the Governor shall cause a census or enumeration of the inhabitants of the several counties and districts of the Territory to be taken, and the first election shall be held at such time and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the Governor shall appoint aud direct; and he shall, at the same time, declare the number of members of the Council and House of Representatives to which each of the counties or districts shall be entitled under this Act. The number of persons authorized to be elected having the highest number of votes in each of said Council Districts for members of the Council, shall be declared, by the Governor to be duly elected to the Council; and the person or persons authorized to be elected, having the greatest number of votes for the House of Representatives, equal to the number to which each county or district shall be entitled, shall also be declared, hb, the Governor, to be duly elected members of the House of Representatives: Provided, That in case of a tie between two or more persons voted for, the Governor shall order a new election to supply the vacancy made by such tie. And the persons thus elected to the Legislative Assembly shall meet at such place on such day as the Governor shall appoint; but thereafter the time, place, and manner of holding and conducting all elections by the people, and the apportioning of the representation in the several counties or districts to the Council and House of Representatives according to the population, shall be prescribed by law, as well as the day of the commencement of the regular sessions of the Legislative Assembly: Provided, That no one session shall exceed the term of sixty days. SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of said Territory at the time of the passage ot this Act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory; but the qualifications of voters and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly; Provided, That the rights of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have de clared, on oath, their intention to become such, and shall ehav 63T APPENDIX. taken ani oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this Act. SEc. 6. And be it further enacted, That the Legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of Legislation, coInsistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this Act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. All the laws passed by the Legislative Assembly and Governor shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and if disapproved, shall be null and of no effect. SEC. 7. 4and be it further enacted, That all township, district and county officers, not herein otherwise provided for, shall be appointed, or elected, as the case may be, in such manner as shall be provided by the Governor and Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Minnesota. The Governor shall nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council, appoint all officers not herein otherwise provided for; and in the first instance the Governor alone may appoint all said officers, who shall hold their offices until the end of the next session of the Legislative Assembly. SEc. S. And be it ftrther enacted, That no member of the Legislative Assembly shall hold or be appointed to any office which shall have been created, or the salary or emoluments of which shall have been increased while he was a member, during the term for which he was elected, and for one year after the expiration of such term; and no person holding a commission or appointment under the United States, except Postmasters, shall be a member of the Legislative Assembly, or shall hold any office under the Government of said Territory. SEc. 9. And be it furtier enacted, That the Judicial power of said Territory shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Courts, Probate Courts, and in Justices of the Peace. The Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and two Associate Justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of Government of said Territory annually, and they shall hold their offices during the period of four years. The said Territory shall be divided into three Judicial Districts, and a District Court shall be held in each of said Districts by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, at such times and places as may be prescribed by law; and the said Judges shall, after their appointment, respectively reside in the Districts which shall be as 638 APPENDIX. signed them. The jurisdiction of the several Courts herein provided for, both appellate and criminal, and that of the Probate Courts, and of Justices of the Peac, shall be as limited by law; Provided, That the Justices of the Peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said Supreme and District Courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction. Each District Court, or the Judge thereof, shall apppoint its Clerk, who shall also be the register in chancery, and shall keep his office at the place where the Court may be held. Writs of error, bills of exception and appeals, shall be allowed in all cases from the final decisions of said District Courts to the Supreme Court under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, but in no case removed to the Supreme Court shall trial by Jury be allowed in said Court. The Supreme Court, or the Justices thereof, shall appoint its own Clerk, and every Clerk shall hold his office at the pleasure of the Court for which he shall have been appointed. Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Circuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or the amount in controversy, to be ascer tained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other compe tent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars; and each of the said District Courts shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as is vested in the Circuit and District Courts of the United States; and the first six days of every term of said Courts, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, shall be appropriated to the trial of causes arising under the said Constitution and laws; and writs of error and appeal in all such cases shall be made to the Supreme Court of said Territory, the same as in other cases. The said Clerk shall receive, in all such cases, the same fees which the Clerks of the District Courts of the late Wisconsin Territory re ceived for similar services. SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed an attorney for said Territory, who shall continue in office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall receive the same fees and salary as the Attorney of the United States for the late Territory of Wisconsin received. There shall also be a Marshal for the Territory appointed, who shall hold his office for four years, unless sooner removed by the President, and who shall 639 ..APPENDIX. execute all processes issuing from the said Courts, when exercising their jurisdiction as Circuit and District Courts of the United States; he shall perform the duties, be subject to the same regu lations and penalties, and be entitled to the same fees, as the Mar shal of the District Court of the United States for the late Territory of Wisconsin; and shall, in addition, be paid two hundred dollars annually as a compensation for extra services. SEC. 11. And be zt furtler enacted, That the Governor, Secretary, Chief Justice, and Associate Justices, Attorney and Marshal, shall be nominated, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen ate, appointed by the President of the United States. The Gover nor and Secretary to be appointed as aforesaid shall, before they act as such, respectively take an oath or affirmation, before the District Judge, or some Justice of the Peace, in the limits of said Territory, duly authorized to administer oaths and affirmations by the laws now in force therein, or before the Chief Justice or some Associate Justice of tihe Supreme Court of the United States, to support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully to dis charge the duties of their respective offices; which said oaths, when so taken shall be certified by the person by whom the same shall have been taken, and such certificates shall be received and recorded by the said Secretary among the executive proceedings and the Chief Justice and Associate Justices, and all other civil officers in said Territory, before they act as such, shall take a like oath or affirmation, before the said Governor or Secretary, or some Judge, or Justice of the Peace of the Territory, who may be duly commissioned and qualified, which said oath or affirmation shall be certified and transmitted by the person taking the same, to the Secretary, to be by him recorded as aforesaid; and afterwards the like oath or affirmation shall be taken, certified, and recorded in such manner and form as may be prescribed by law. The Governor shall receive an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars as Governor, and one thousand dollars as Superintendent of Indian Affairs. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices shall each receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The Secretary shall receive an annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars. The said salaries shall be paid quarter-yearly, at the Treasury of the United States. The members of the Legislative Assembly shall be entitled to receive three dollars each per day during their attendance at the sessions thereof, and three dollars each for every twenty miles travel in going to and returning from the said sessions, esti mated according to the nearest usually traveled route. There shall be appropriated, annually, the sum of one thousand dollars, 640 APPENDIX. to be expended by the Governor to defray'the contingent expenses of the Territory; and there shall also be appropriated, annually, a sufficient sum, to be expended by the Secretary of the Territory, and, upon an estimate to be made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, to defray the expenses of the Legislative Assembly, the printing of the laws, and other incidental expenses and the Secretary of the Territory shall annually account to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States for the manner in which the aforesaid sum shall have been expended. SEc. 12. And be it further enacted, That the inhabitants of the said Territory shall be entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities heretofore granted and secured to the Territory of Wisconsin and to its inhabitants; and the laws in force in the Territory of Wisconsin at the date of the admission of the State of Wisconsin, shall continue to be valid and operative therein, so far as the same be not incompatible with the provisions of this Act, subject, nevertheless, to be altered, modified, or repealed, by the Governor and Leglslative Assembly of the Territory of Minnesota; and the laws of the United States are hereby extended over and declared to be in force in said Territory, so far as the same, or any provision thereof, may be applicable. SEc. 13. And be it further enacted, That the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Minnesota shall hold its first session at Saint Paul; and at said first session the Governor and Legislative Assembly shall locate and establish a temporary seat of Govern ment for said Territory, at such place as they may deem eligible; and shall, at such time as they shall see proper, prescribe by law the manner of locating the permanent seat of Government of said Territory by a vote of the people. And the sum of twenty thousand dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri ated, is hereby appropriated and granted to said Territory of Min nesota, to be applied, by the Governor and Legislative Assembly, to the erection of suitable public buildings at the seat of Govern ment. SEc. 14. Antd be it further enacted, That a Delegate to the House of Representatives of the United States, to serve for the term of two years, may be elected by the voters qualified to elect members of the Legislative Assembly, who shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as are exercised and enjoyed by the Delegates from the several other Territories of the Uj,aited States to the said House of Representatives. The first election shall be held at such times and places, and be conducted in such manner, as the Governor shall appoint and direct; and at all subsequent elections, the 641 I APPENDIX. times, places, and manner of holding the elections shall be pre scribed by law. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be declared by the Governor to be duly elected, and a certifi cate thereof shall be given accordingly. SEc. 15. And be it further enacted, That all suits, process, and proceedings, civil and criminal, at law and in chancery, and all ia dictments and informations, which shall be pending and undeter mined in the courts of the Territory of Wisconsin, within the limits of said Territory of Minnesota, when this Act shall take effect, shall be transferred to be heard, tried, prosecuted, and determined in the district courts hereby established, which may include the counties or districts where any such proceedings may be pending. All bonds, recognizances, and obligations of every kind whatso ever, valid under the existing laws within the limits of said Terri tory, shall be valid under this act; and all crimes and misdemean ors against the laws in force within said limits maybe prosecuted, tried, and punished in the courts established by this act and all penalties, forfeitures, actions, and causes of action, may be recov tried under this act, the same as they would have been under the laws in force within the limits composil).g said Territory at the tiroethis act shall go into operation. SEc. 16. And be it f,rthzr enacted, That all justices of the peace, constables, sheriffs, and all other judicial and ministerial officers, who shall be in office within the limits of said Territory when this act shall take effect, shall be, and they are hereby, authorized and required to continue to exercise and perform the duties of their respective offices as officers of the Territory of Minnesota, temporarily, and until they,- or others, shall be duly appointed and qualified to fill their places in the manner herein directed, or until their offices shall be abolished. SEC. 17. And be it furt]er enacted, That the sum of five thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended by and under the direction of the said Governor of the Territory of Minnesota, in the purchase of a library, to be kept at the seat of government, for the use of the Governor, Legislative Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court, Secretary, Marshal, and Attorney of said Territory, and such other persons and under such regulations as shall be prescribed by law. SEc. 18. And be it fzlrtlter enacted, That when the lands in the said Territory shall be surveyed under the direction of the Government of the United States, preparatory to bringing the same into market, sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in each township 642 APPENDIX. in said Territory shall be, and the same are hereby, reserved for the purpose of being applied to schools in said Territory, and in the States and Territories hereafter to be erected out of the same. SEc. 19. And be it further enacted, That temporarily, and until otherwise provided by law, the Governor of said Territory may define the Judicial Districts of said Territory, and assign the Judges who may be appointed for said Territory to the several Districts, and also appoint the times and places for holding Courts in the several Counties or subdivisions in each of said Judicial Districts, by proclamation to be issued by him; but the Legislative Assembly, at their first or any subsequent session, may organize, alter, or modify such Judicial Districts, and assign the Judges, and alter the times and places of holding the Courts as to them shall seem proper and convenient. SEC. 20. And be it fwrther enacted, That every bill which shall or may pass the Council and house of Representatives shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor of the Territory if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it originated; which shall cause the objections to be entered at large upon the Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law; but in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the, bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor, within three days, (Sundays excepted,) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he lihad signed it, unless the Legislative Assembly, by adjournment, prevent it; in which case it shall not become a law. APPROVED March 3, 1849. 41 643 0 THE ENABLING ACT. AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA TO FORM A CONSTI TUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT, PREPARATORY TO THEIR ADMISSION INTO THE UNION ON AN EQUAL FOOTING WITH THE ORIGINAL STATES Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of that portion of the Territory of Minnesota which is embraced within the following limits, to wit: Beginning at the point in the center of the main channel of the Red River of the North, where the boundary line between the United States and the British Possessions crosses the same; thence up the main channel of said river to that of the Bois des Sioux River; thence up the main channel of said river to Lake Travers; thence up the center of said lake to the southern extremity thereof; thence in a direct line to the head of Big Stone Lake; thence through its center to its outlet; thence by a due south line to the north line of the State of Iowa; thence along the northern boundary of said State to the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence up the main channel of said river, and following the boundary line of the State of Wisconsin, until the same intersects the Saint Louis River; thence down the said river to and through Lake Superior on the boundary line of Wisconsin and Michigan, until it intersects the dividing line between the United States and the British Possessions; thence up Pigeon River, and following said dividing line to the place of beginning, be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for themselves a Constitution and State Government, by the name of the State of Minnesota, and to come into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, according to the Federal Constitution SEc. 2. And be it further enacted, That the State of Minnesota shall have concurrent jurisdiction on the Mississippi and all other rivers and waters bordering on the said State of Minnesota, so far as the same shall form a common boundary to said State, and any State or States now or hereafter to be formed or bounded by the same; and said river and waters leading into the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of .APPENDIX. said State as to all other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost or toll therefor. SEc. 3. And be it further enacted, That on the first Monday in June next, the legal voters in each Representative District, then existing within the limits of the proposed State, are hereby au thorized to elect two Delegates for each Representative to which said District may be entitled according to the apportionment for Representatives to the Territorial Legislature, which election for Delegates shall be held and conducted, and the returns made, in all respects in conformity with the laws of said Territory regulating the election of Representatives; and the Delegates so elected shall assemble at the Capitol of said Territory, on the second Monday in July next, and first determine, by a vote, whether it is the wish of the people of the proposed State to be admitted into the Union at that time; and if so, shall proceed to form a Consti tution, and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a State Government, in conformity with the Federal Constitution, subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State. SEc. 4. And be it further enacted, That in tile event said Conven tion shall decide in favor of the immediate admission of the pro posed State into the Union, it shall be the duty of the United States Marshall for said Territory to proceed to take a census or enumeration of the inhabitants within the limits of the proposed State, under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, with the view of ascertaining the number of Representatives to which said State may be entitled in the Congress of the United States; and said State shall be entitled to one Representative and such additional Representatives as the population of the State shall, according to the census, show it would be entitled to according to the present ratio of representation Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said Convention of the people of Minnesota for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted by the Convention, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said State of Minnesota, to wit: First, That sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township of public lands in said State, and where either of said Sections, or any part thereof, has been sold or otherwise been disposed of, other lands, epuivalent thereto and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said State for the use of Schools. Second, That seventy-two Sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State University, to be 646 APPENDIX. selected by the Governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioner at the General Land office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the Legislature of said State may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other purpose. Tird, That ten entire Sections of land, to be selected by the Governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of others at the seat of Government, under the direction of the Legislature thereof. Fourth, That all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in number, with six Sections of land adjoining, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use; the same to be selected by the Governor thereof, within one year after the admission of said State, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions and regulations as the Legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall, by this article, be granted to said State. Fifti, That five per centum of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State for the purpose of making public roads and internal improvements, as the Legislature shall direct: Provided, the foregoing propositions herein offered are on the condition that the said Convention which shall form the Constitution of said State shall provide by a clause in said Constitution, or an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same, by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and that no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to the United States, and that in no case shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. 047 i LEGISLATIVE ACT, CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES OF THE CON YENTION TO FORM A CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN ACT OF CONGRESS, APPROVED MARCH 3, 1857. Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the' Territory of Minnesota: SECTION 1. That on the first Monday of June next, the qualified electors of the Territory of Minnesota, shall assemble at their respective places appointed by law for the opening of the polls, and shall there proceed to elect by ballot, certain Delegates for a Convention to form a Constitution and State Government for this Territory. SEC. 2. Every Council District in this Territory shall elect two Delegates for every Councillor it may be entitled to in the Legislative Council, and every Representative District shall elect two Delegates for every member they may be' entitled to in the House of Representatives; Provided, That whenever any District has been sub-divided in order to elect their Representative in the Legislative Assembly, the same sub-division shall govern itl the election of Delegates to the Constitutional Convention. SEC. 3. That there be appropriated, out of any money in the Territorial Treasury, unappropriated, for mileage and per diem of members, officers, and Secretaries, and for Stationary, the sum of thirty thousand dollars. SEC. 4. That the members, officers, and Secretaries of said Con vention shall be entitled to the same mileage and per diem as mem bers of the Legislative Assembly; Provided, That the presiding officer shall be entitled to three dollars per day extra. SEC. 5. The compensation herein provided, for the members, officers, and Secretaries, shall be certified by the presiding officer, PROVIDING FOR THE ZXPENSBS OF THE, 0 APPENDIX. and attested by the Secretary, as well as all claims for Stationary, Printing, and all other Incidental Expenses, which said certificates, when so certified, shall be sufficient evidence to the Territorial Treasurer of each person's claim. SEC. 6. The qualifications of Delegates to the Constitutional Convention shall be the same as the qualifications for member of the House of Representatives or the Legislative Assembly. SEc. 7. This Act shall be in force from and after its passage. APPROVED- May twenty-third, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven. 650 CO N S T I T U T I ON STATE OF MINNESOTA. PREAMBLE. WE, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and des iring to perpetuate its blessings, and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution: ARTICLE FisT-Bill of Rigltts. SECTION 1. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify, or reform such Government, whenever the public good may require it. SEC. 2. No member of this State shall be disfranchised, or de prived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State, otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. SEc. 3. The Liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right. SEc. 4. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy; but a jury trial may be waived by the parties in all cases, in the manner prescribed by law. SEC. 5. Excessive bail shall notbe required nor shall excessive fines be imposed; nor shall cruel or unusual punishments be inflicted. SEC. 6. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the County or District wherein the crime shall have been committed, which County or District shall have been previously ascertained OF THE APPENDIX. by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusa tion, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense. SEc. 7. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offence unless on the presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases of impeachment or in cases cognizable by Justices of the Peace, or arising in the Army or Navy, or in the militia when in actual service in time of war or public danger, and no person for the same offence shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to [be] witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law. All persons shall before conviction be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require. SEC. 8. Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive in his person, property or character; he ought to obtain justice freely and without purchase; completely and without denial; promptly and without delay, conformably to the laws. SEc. 9. Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against the same, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. SEc. 10. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized. SEc 11. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. SEc. 12. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in this State, but this shall not prevent the Legislature from providing for imprisonment, or holding to bail persons charged with fraud in contracting said debt. A reasonable amount of property shall be exempt from seizure or sale, for the payment of any debt or liability; the amount of such exemption shall be determined by law. 652 APPENDIX. SEc. 13. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefor, first paid or secured. SEC. 14. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power, and no standing army shall be kept up in this State in time of peace. SEC. 15. All lands within this State are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures of every description, with all their incidents, are prohibited. Leases and grants of agricultural land for a longer period than twenty-one years, hereafter made, in which shall be reserved any rent or service of any kind, shall be void. SEC. 16. The enumeration of rights in this Constitution, shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed, nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect, or support any places of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry against his consent, nor shall any control of, or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State, nor shall any money be drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any religious societies, or religious or Theological Seminaries. SEc. 17. No religious test or amount of property shall ever be required as a qualification for any office of public trust under the State. No religious test or amount of property shall ever be re quired as a qualification of any voter at any election in this State; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinion upon the subject of religion. ARTICLE SECOND-On Nrame aad Boundaries.. SECTION 1. This State shall be called and known by the name of the State of Minnesota, and shall consist of and have jurisdiction over the Territory embraced in the following boundaries to wit: Beginning at the point in the center of the main channel of the Red River of the North, where the boundary line between the United States and the British Possessions crosses the same; thence up the main channel of said river to that of the Bois des Sioux River; thence up the main channel of said river to Lake Traverse; thence up the center of said lake to the southern extremity thereof; thence in a direct line to the head of Big Stone Lake, thence through 653 APPENDIX. its center to its outlet; thence by a due south line to the north line of the State of Iowa; thence east along the northern boundary of said State to the main channel of the Mississippi River; thence up the main channel of said river, and following the boundary line of the State of Wisconsin until the same intersects the St. Louis River; thence down the said river to and through Lake Superior, on the boundary line of Wisconsin and Michigan, until it intersects the dividing line between the United States and British Possessions; thence up Pigeon River and following said dividing line to the-place of beginning. SEC. 2. The State of Minnesota shall have concurrent jurisdic tion on the Mississippi and on all other rivers and waters bordering on the said State of Minnesota, so. far as the same shall form a com mon boundary to said State, and any other State or States now or hereafter to be formed by the same; and said river and waters, and navigable waters leading into the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to other citizens of the United States, without any tax, duty, impost or toll therefor. SEC. 3. The propositions contained in the act of Congress entitled "Ani Act to authorize the people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Government preparatory to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States," are hereby accepted, ratified and confirmed, and shall remain irrevocable without the consent of the United States; and it is hereby ordained that this State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within the same, by the United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title to said soil to bona fide purchasers thereof; and no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to the United States, and in no case shall non-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. ARTICLE THIRD-Distribution of the Powers of Governnent. SECTION 1. The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct Departments, the Legislative, Executive and Judicial; and no person or persons belonging to or constituting one of these Departments, shall exercise any of the powers properly belonging to either of the others, except in the instances expressly provided in this Constitution. ARTICLE FOURT H-Legslative De partment. SECTION 1. The Legislature of the State shall consist of a Senate 654 APPENDIX. and House of Representatives, who shall meet at the Seat of Government of the State, at such times as shall be prescribed by law. SEC. 2. The number of members who compose the Senate and Hlouse of Representatives shall be prescribed by law, but the representation in the Senate shall never exceed one member for every five thousand inhabitants, and in the House of Representatives one member for every two thousand inhabitants. The representation in both Houses shall be apportioned equally throughout the differ ent sections of the State, in proportion to the population thereof, exclusive of Indians not taxable under the provisions of law. SEc. 3. Each House shall be judge of the election returns, and eligibility of its own members; a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to transact business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as it may provide. SEc(. 4. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, sit upon its own adjournment, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same offense. SEc. 5. The Ilouse of Representatives shall elect its presiding officer, and the Senate and House of Representatives shall elect such other officers as may be provided by law; they shall keep Journals of their proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, and the yeas and nays, when taken on any question, shall be entered on such Journals. SEC. 6. Neither House *hall, during a session of the Legislature, adjourn for more than three days, (Sunday excepted,) nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be assembled, without the consent of the other House. SEc. 7. The compensation of Senators and Representatives shall be three dollars per diem, during the first session, but may after wards be prescribed by law. But no increase of compensation shall be prescribed which shall take effect during the period for which the members of the existing House of Representatives may have been elected. SEc. 8. The members of. each House shall in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during the session of their respective Houses, and in going to or returning from the same. For any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. SEC. 9. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he is elected, hold any office under the authority of the 655 t APPENDIX. United States, or the State of Minnesota, except that of Postmaster; and no Senator or Representative shall hold an office under the State, which had been created, or the emoluments of which had been increased during the session of the Legislature of which he was a member, until one year after the expiration of his term of office in the Legislature. SEC. 10. All Bills for raising a revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose and concur with amendments, as on other Bills. SEc. 11. Every Bill which shall have passed the Senate and House of Representatives, in conformity to the Rules of each Hlouse and the Joint Rules of the two Houses, shall, before it be comes a law, be presented to the Governor of the State. If he approve, he shall sign and deposit it in the office of Secretary of State for preservation, and notify the House, where it originated, of the fact. But if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to the House in which it shall have originated, when such objections shall be entered at large on the Journal of the same, and the House shall proceed to reconsider the Bill. If, after such reconsid eration, two thirds of that Hiouse 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 it be approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons 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 three 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, by adjournment within that time, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. The Governor may approve, sign and file in the office of the Secretary of State, within three days after the adjournment of the Legislature, any act passed during the three last days of the session, and the same shall become a law. SEc. 12. No money shall be appropriated, except by Bill. Every order, resolution or vote requiring the concurrence of the two Houses, (except such as relate to the business or adjournment of the same,) shall be presented to the Governor for his signature, and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being returned by him with his objections shall be repassed by two-thirds of the members of the two Houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in case of a Bill. 656 APPENDIX. SEc. 13. The style of all laws of this State shall be: "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Minnesota." No law shall be passed unless voted for by a majority of all the members elected to each branch of the Legislature, and the vote entered upon the Journal of each House. SEC. 14. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, through a concurrence of a majority of all the members elected to seats therein. 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 the members present. SEC. 15. The Legislature shall have full power to exclude from the privilege of electing or beplg elected, any person convicted of bribery, perjury, or any other infamous crime. SEC. 16. Two or more members of either House shall have liberty to dissent and protest against any act or resolution which they may think injurious to the public or to any individual, and have the reason of their dissent entered on the Journal. SEc. 1. The Governor shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies as may occur in either'louse of the Legislature. The Legislature shall prescribe by law the manner in which evidence in cases of contested seats in either House shall be taken. SEc. 18. Each House may punish by imprisonment, during its session, any person not a member who shall be guilty of any dis orderly or contemptuous behavior in their presence, but no such imprisonment shall at any time exceed twenty-four hours. SEC. 19. Each House shall be open to the public during the sessions thereof, except in such cases as in their opinion may re quire secrecy. SEC. 20. Every Bill shall be read on three different days. in each separate House, unless in case of urgency two-thirds of the House where such Bill is depending shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule, and no Bill shall be passed by either House until it shall have been previously read twice at length. SEC. 21. Every Bill, having passed both Houses, shall be care fully enrolled, and shall be signed by the presiding officer of each House. Any presiding officer refusing to sign a Bill which shall have previously passed both Houses, shall thereafter be incapable of holding a seat in either branch of the Legislature, or hold any other office of honor or profit in the State, and in case of such refusal, each House shall, by rule, provide the manner in which such Bill shall be properly certified for presentation to the Governor. 657 APPENDIX. SEC. 22. No Bill shall be passed by either House of the Legisla ture upon the day prescribed for the adjournment of the two Houses. But this Section shall not be so construed as to preclude the enroll ment of a Bill, or the signature and passage from one House to the other, or the reports thereon from committees, or its transmission to the Executive for his signature. SEC. 23. The Legislature shall provide by law for the enumera tion of the inhabitants of this State in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and every tenth year thereafter. At their first session after each enumeration so made, and also at their first session after each enumeration made by the authority of the United States, the Legislature shall have the power to prescribe the bounds of Congressional, Senatorial and Representative Dis tricts, and to apportion anew the Senators and Representatives among the several Districts, according to the provisions of Section second of this Article. SEC. 24. The Senators shall also be chosen by single Districts of convenient contiguous Territory, at the same time that the mem bers of the House of Representatives are required to be chosen, and in the same manner, and no Representative District shall be divided in the formation of a Senate District. The Senate Districts shall be numbered in regular series, and the Senators chosen by the Districts designated by odd numbers, shall go out of office at the expiration of the first year, and the Senators chosen by the Districts designated by even numbers, shall go out of office at the expiration of the second year; and thereafter the Senators shall be chosen for the term of two years, except there shall be an entire new election of all the Senators at the election next succeeding each new apportionment provided for in this Article. SEC. 25. Senators and Representatives shall be qualified voters of the State, and shall have resided one year in the State, and six months immediately preceding the election in the District from which they are elected. SEc. 26. Members of the Senate of the United States from this State shall be elected by the two Houses of the Legislature in Joint Convention, at such times and in such manner as may be pro vided by law. SEC. 27. No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. SEc. 28. Divorces shall not be granted by the Legislature. SEc. 29. All members and officers of both branches of the Legislature, shall, before entering upon the duties of their respective trusts, take and subscribe an oath or affirmation to support the 658 APPENDIX. ,Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully and impartially discharge the duties devolving upon him as such member or offcer. SEC. 30. In all elections to be made by the Legislature, the members thereof shall vote viva voce, and their votes shall be entered on the Journal. SEC. 31. The Legislature shall never authorize any lottery, or ,the sale of lottery tickets. ARTICLE FInTi —Exeeutive Devartment. SECTION 1. The Executive Department shall consist of a Gov. ernor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, and Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors of the State. SEC. 2. The returns of every election, for the officers named in the foregoing Section, shall be made to the Secretary of State, and by him transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall cause the same to be opened and canvassed before both Houses of the Legislature, and the result declared within three days after each House shall be organized. SEC. 3. The term of office for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor shall be two years and until their successors are chosen and qualified. Each shall have attained the age of twenty-five (25) years, and shall have been a bona fide resident of the State for one year next preceding his election. Both shall be citizens of the United States. SEC. 4. The Governor shall communicate by message to each session of the Legislature such information touching the state and condition of the country as he may deem expedient. He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Military and Naval forces, and may call out such forces to execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. He may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons, after conviction, for offenses against the State, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Sen ate, to appoint a State Librarian and Notaries Public; and such other officers as may be provided by law. He shall have power to appoint Commissioners to take the acknowledgment of Deeds, or other instruments in writing, to be used in the State. He shall have a negative upon all laws passed by the Legislature, under such rules and limitations as are in this Constitution prescribed. 42 659 APPENDIX. He may on extraordinary occasions convene both Houses of the Legislature. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully execu ted, fill any vacancy that iay occur in the office of Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney Gbneral, and such other State and District offices as may be hereafter created by law, until the next annual elect on, and until their successors are chosen and qualified. SEC. 5. The official term of the Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Attorney General shall be two years. The official term of the Auditor shall be three years, and each shall continue in office until his successor shall have been elected and qualified. The Gover nor's salary for the first term under this Constitution shall be Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars per annum. The salary of the Secretary of State for the first term shall be Fifteen Hundred Dollars per annum. The Auditor, Treasurer, and Attorney General shall each, for the first term, receive a salary of One Thousand Dollars per annum. And the further duties and salaries of said Executive officers shall each thereafter be prescribed by law. SEc. 6. The Lieutenant-Governor shall be ex-officio President of the Senate; and in case a vacancy should occur, from any cause whatever, in the office of Governor, he shall be Governor during such vacancy. The compensation of LieutenantGoyernor shall be double the compensation of a State Senator. Before the close of each session of the Senate, they shall elect a President pro tempore, who shall be Lieutenant-Governor in case a vacancy should occur in that office. SEc. 7. The term of each of the Executive offices named in this Article shall commence upon taking the oath of office, after the State shall be admitted by Congress into the Union, and continue until the first Monday in January, 1860, except the Auditor, who shall continue in office until the first Monday in January, 1861, and until their successors shall have been duly elected and qualified. SEC. 8. Each officer created by this Article, shall, before entering upon his duties, take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, and faithfully discharge the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability. SEc. 9. Laws shall be passed at the first Session of the Legislature after the State is admitted into the Union to carry out the provisions of this Article. ARTICLE SIXTH —Judiciary. SECTION 1. The Judicial power of the State shall be vested in a 660 APPENDIX. Supreme Court, District Courts, Courts of Probate, Justices of the Peace, and such other Courts, inferior to the Supreme Court, as the Legislature may from time to time establish by a two-thirds vote. SEc. 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of one Chief Justice and two Associate Justices, but the number of the Associate Justices may be increased to a number not exceeding four, by the Legislature, by a two-thirds vote, when it shall be deemed necessary. It shall have original jurisdiction in such remedial cases as may be prescribed by law, and appellate jurisdiction in all cases, both in law and equity, but there shall be no trial by jury in said Court. It shall hold one or more terms in each year, as the Legislature may direct, at the seat of Government, and the Legislature may provide by a two-thirds vote, that one term in each year shall be held in each or any Judicial District. It shall be the duty of such Court to appoint a Reporter of its decisions. There shall be chosen by the qualified electors of the State, one Clerk of the Supreme Court, who shall hold his office for the term of three years, and until his successor is duly elected and qualified, and the Judges of the Supreme Court, or a majority of them, shall have the power to fill any vacancy in the office of Clerk of the Supreme Court until an election can be regularly had. SEc. 3. The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the electors of the State at large, and their term of office shall be seven years, and until their successors are elected and qualified. SEc. 4. The State shall be divided by the Legislature into six Judicial Districts, which shall be composed of contiguous Terri tory, be bounded by county lines, and contain a population as nearly equal as may be practicable. In each Judicial District, one Judge shall be elected by the electors thereof, who shall con stitute said Court and whose term of office shall be seven years. Every District Judge shall, at the time of his election, be a resi dent of the District for which he shall be elected, and shall reside therein during his continuance in office. SEc. 5. The District Courts shall have original jurisdiction in all civil cases, both in law and equity, where the amount in con troversy exceeds one hundred dollars, and in all criminal cases where the punishment shall exceed three months imprisonment, or a fine of more than one hundred dollars, and shall have such ap pellate jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law. The Legislature may provide by law that the Judge of one District may discharge the duties of the Judge of any other District not his own, when convenience or the public interest may require it. SEC. 6. The Judges of the Supreme and District Courts shall be 661 APPENDIX. men learned in the law, and shall receive such compensation, at stated times, as may be prescribed by the Legislature, which com pensation shall not be diminished during their continuance in office, but they shall receive no other fee or reward for their ser vices. SEc. 7. There shall be established in each organized County in the State a Probate Court, which shall be a Court of Record, and be held at such times and places as may be prescribed by law. It shall be held by one Judge, who shall be elected by the voters of the County, for the term of two years. Hle shall be a resident of such County at the time of his election, and reside therein during his continuance in office, and his compensation shall be provided by law, He may appoint his own Clerk, where none has been elected, but the Legislature may authorize the election by the electors of any County, of one Clerk or Register of Probate for such County, whose powers, duties, term of office and compensa tion shall be prescribed by law. A Probate Court shall have jurisdiction over the estates of deceased persons and persons un der guardianship, but no other jurisdiction, except as prescribed by this Constitution. SEC. 8. The Legislature shall provide for the election of a suffi cient number of Justices of the Peace in each County, whose term of office shall be two years, and whose duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law: Provided, That no Justice of the Peace shall have jurisdiction of any civil cause where the amount in controversy shall exceed one hundred dollars, nor in a criminal cause where the punishment'shall exceed three months impris onment, or a fine of over one hundred dollars, nor in any cause involving the title to real estate. SEC. 9. All Judges other than those provided for in this Constitution shall be elected by the electors of the Judicial District County or City, for which they shall be created, nor for a longer term than seven years. SEc. 10. In case the office of any Judge shall become vacant before the expiration of the regular term for which he was elected, the vacancy shall be filled by appointment by the Governor until a a successor is elected and qualified. And such successor shall be elected at the first annual election that occurs more than thirty days after the vacancy shall have happened. SEC. 11. The Justices of the Supremte Court and the District Courts shall hold no office under the United States, nor any other office under this State. And all votes for either of them for any elective office under this Constitution, except a Judicial office, tc) 6 2 APPENDIX. given by the Legislature or the people, during their continuance in office, shall be void. SEc. 12. The Legislature may at any time change the number of Judicial Districts or their boundaries, when it shall be deemed expedient, but no such change shall vacate the office of any Judge. SEC. 13. There shall be elected in each County where a District Court shall be held, one Clerk of said Court, whose qualifications, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law, and whose term of office shall be four years. SEC. 14. Legal pleadings and proceedings in the Courts of this State shall be under the direction of the Legislature. The style of all process shall be "The State of Minnesota," and all indictments shall conclude "against the peace and dignity of the State of! Minnesota." SEC. 15. The Legislature may provide for the election of one person in each organized County in this State, to be called a Court Commissioner, with judicial power and jurisdiction not exceeding the power and jurisdiction of a Judge of the District Court at Chambers; or the Legislature may, instead of such election, confer such power and jurisdiction upon Judges of Probate in the State. ARTICLE SEYENTH —Elective Franchi8se. SECTION 1. Every male person of the age of twenty-one years or upwards, belonging to either of the following classes, who shall have resided in the United States one year, and in this State for four months next preceding any election, shall be entitled to- vote at such election, in the Election District of which he shall at the time have been for ten days a resident, for all officers that now are, or hereafter may be, elective by the people. First. White citizens of the United States. Second. White persons of foreign birth, who shall have declared their intention to become citizens, conformably to the laws of the United States upon the subject of naturalization. Third. Persons of mixed white and Indian blood, who have adopted the customs and habits of civilization. FoUrth. Persons of Indian blood residing in this State, who have adopted the language, customs, and habits of civilization, after an examination before any District Court of the State, in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall have bees pronounced by said Court capable of enjoying the rights of citizenship within the State. SEc. 2, No person not belonging to one of the classes specified 66'3 APPENDIX. in the preceding Section; no person who has been oonvicted of treason or any felony, unless restored to civil rights, and no person under guardianship, or who may be non compos mentis or insane, shail be entitled or permitted to vote at any election in this State. SEc. 3. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have lost a residence by reason of his absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged upon the waters of this State or of the United States; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any alms-house or asyulm; nor while confined in any public prison. SEC. 4. No soldier, seaman, or marine in the army or navy of the United States, shall be deemed a resident of this State in consequence of being stationed within the same. SEC. 5. During the day on which any election shall be held, no person shall be arrested by virtue of any civil process. SEC. 6. All elections shall be by ballot except for such town officers as may be directed by law to be otherwise chosen. SEC. 7. Every person who, by the provisions of this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election, shall be eligible to any office which now is, or hereafter shall be, elective by the people in the district wherein he shall have resided thirty days previous to such election, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, or the Constitution and Laws of the United States. ARTICLE EIGiITH —Sc8hool Fundg, Education and Science. SECTION 1. The stability of a Republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish a general and uniform system of Public Schools. SEC. 2. The proceeds of such lands as are or hereafter may be granted by the United States for the use of Schools within each township in this State, shall remain a perpetual School Fund to the State, and not more than one-third (1-3) of said lands may be sold in (2) years, one-third (1-3) in five (5) years, and one-third (1-3) in ten (10) years; but the lands of the greatest valuation shall be sold first, provided that no portion of said lands shall be sold otherwise than at public sale. The principal of all funds arising from sales, or other disposition of lands, or other property, granted or entrusted to this State in each township for educational purposes, shall forever be preserved inviolate and undiminished; and the income arising from the lease or sale of said School Lands, shall be distributed to the different townships throughout the State, in proportion to the number of scholars in each township between the '664 APPENDIX. .ages of five and twenty-one years, and shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the original grants or appropriations. SEC. 3. The Legislature shall make such provisions, by taxation or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of Public Schools in each township in the State. SEC. 4. The location of the University of Minnesota, as established by existing laws, is hereby confirmed, and said institution is hereby declared to be the University of the State of Minnesota. All the rights, immunities, franchises and endowments heretofore granted or conferred, are hereby perpetuated unto the said University, and all lands which may be granted hereafter by Congress, ,or other donations for said University purposes, shall vest in the institution referred to in this Section. ARTICLE NINTH —Finances of the State, acd Banks and Banking. V 1. He SECTION 1. All taxes to be raised in this State shall be as nearly equal as may be, and all property on which taxes are to be levied shall have a cash valuation, and be equalized and uniform throughout the State. SEC. 2. The Legislature shall provide for an Annual Tax sufficient to defray the estimated expenses of the State for each year, and whenever it shall happen that such ordinary expenses of the State for any year shall exceed the income of the State for such year, the Legislature shall provide for levying a Tax for the ensuing year sufficient, with other sources of income, to ppy the deficiency of the preceding year, together with the estimated expenses of such ensuing year. SEC. 3. Laws shall be passed taxing all moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock companies, or otherwise, and also all real and personal property, according to its true value in money; but public burying grounds, public school houses, public hospitals, academies, colleges, universities, and all seminaries of learning, all churches, church property used for religious purposes, and houses of worship, institutions of purely public charity, public property used exclusively for any public purpose, and personalpro. perty to an amount not exceeding in value two hundred dollars for each individual, shall, by general laws, be exempt from taxation. SEc. 4. Laws shall be passed for taxing the notes and bills dis counted or purchased, moneys loaned, and all other property effects or dues of every description, of all banks, and of all bank APPENDIX. ers; so that all property employed in banking shall always be subject to a taxation equal to that imposed on the property of in dividuals. SEC. 5. For the purpose of defraying extraordinary expenditures, the State may contract public debts, but such debts shall never in the aggregate exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars; every such debt shall be authorized by law, for some single object to be distinctly specified therein; and no such law shall take effect until it shall have been passed by the vote of two-thirds of the members of each branch of the Legislature, to be recorded by yeas and nays on the Journals of each House respectively; and every such law shall levy a tax annually sufficient to pay the annual interest of such debt, and also a tax sufficient to pay the principal of such debt within ten years from the final passage of such law, and shall specially appropriate the proceeds of such taxes to the payment of such principal and interest; and such ap propriation and taxes shall not be repealed, postponed or dimin ished, until the principal and interest of such debt shall have been wholly paid. The State shall never contract any debts for works of internal improvement, ortbe a party in carrying on such works, except in cases where grants of land or other property shall have been made to the State, especially dedicated by the grant to specific purposes, and in such cases the State shall devote thereto the avails of such grants, and may pledge or appropriate the revenues derived from such works in aid of their completion. SEC. 6. All debts authorized by the preceding section shall be contracted by loan on State Bonds of amounts not less than five hundred dollars each, on interest, payable within ten years after the final passage of the law authorizing such debt, and such bonds. shall not be sold by the State under par. A correct registry of an such bonds shall be kept by the Treasurer, in numerical order, so as always to exhibit the number and amount unl aid, and to whom severally made payable. SEC. 7. The State shall never contract any public debt, unless in time of war, to repel invasion or suppress insurrection, except in the cases and in the manner provided in the fifth and sixth sections of this Article. SEc. 8. The money arising from any loan made or debt or liability contracted, shall be applied to the object specified in the act authorizing such debt or liability, or to the re-payment of such debt or liability, and to so other purpose whatever. SEc. 9. No money shall ever be paid out of the Treasury of this, State, except in pursuance of an appropriation by law. 666 APPENDIX. SEc. 10. The credit of the State shall never be given or loaned in aid of any individual, association or corporation. SEC. 11. There shall be published by the Treasurer, in at least one newspaper printed at the seat of government, during the first week of January in each year, and in the next volume of the Acts of the Legislature, detailed statements of all moneys drawn from the Treasury during the preceding year, for what purpose, and to whom paid, and by what law authorized, and also of all moneys received, and by what authority, and from whom. SEC. 12. Suitable laws shall be passed by the Legislature for the safe keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the State and School funds, and all officers and other persons charged with the same shall be required to give ample security for all moneys and funds of any kind, to keep an accurate entry of each sum received, and of each payment and transfer, and if any of said officers or other persons shall convert to his own use in any form, or shall loan with or without interest, contrary to law, or shall deposit in banks, or exchange for other funds, any portion of the funds of the State, every such act shall be adjudged to be an embezzlement of so much of the State funds as shall be thus taken, and shall be declared a felony; and any failure to pay over or produce the State or School funds intrusted to such persons, on demand, shall be held aid taken to be primaface evidence of such embezzlement SEC. 13. The Legislature may, by a two-thirds vote, pass a General Banking Law, with the following restrictions and require ments, viz First, The Legislaturesshall have no power to pass any law sanc tioning in any manner, directly or indirectly, the suspension of specie payments by any person, association or corporation issuing bank notes of any description. Second, The Legislature shall provide by law for the registry of all bills or notes issued or put in circulation as money, and shall require ample security in United States stock or State stocks for the redemption of the same in specie, and in case of a depreciation of said stocks, or any part thereof, to the amount of ten per cent. or more on the dollar, the bank or banks owning said stock shall be required to make up said deficiency by additional stocks. Third, The stockholders in any corporation and joint association for banking purposes issuing bank notes, shall be individually lia ble in an amount equal to double the amount of stock owned by them for all debts of such corporation or association, and such individual liability shall continue for one year after any transfer or sale of stock by any stockholder or stockholders. 667 APPENDIX. Fourth, In case of the insolvency of any bank or banking association, the bill-holders thereof shall be entitled to perference in paymient over all other creditors of such bank or association. Fifth, Any General Banking Law which may be passed in accordonce with this Article, shall provide for recording the names of all stockholders in such corporation, the amount of stock held by each, the time of transfer, and to whom transferred. ARTICLE TENTH —Of Uorporatgons having no Bankiv Privileges. SECTION 1. The term "Corporations," as used in this Article, shall be construed to include all associations and joint stock companies having any of the powers and privileges not possessed by individuals or partnerships, except such as embrace banking privileges, and all corporations shall have the right to sue, and shall be liable to be sued in all courts in like manner as natural persons. SEc. 2. No corporation shall be formed under special acts, except for mnunicipal purposes. SEC. 3. Each stockholder in any corporation shall be liable to the amount of the stock held or owned by him. SEC. 4. Lands may be taken for public way,;for the purpooe of granting to any corporation the franchise of way fr public de. In all cases, however, a fair and equitable compensation shall be paid for such land, and the damages arising from the taking of the same; but all corporations being common -carriers, enjoying the right of way in pursuance of the provisions of this section, shall be bound to carry the mineral, agricultural and other productions or manufactures on equal and reasonable terms. ARTICLE ELEVENTH-(Io Untie8 ad Townships. SECTION 1. The Legislature mayfrom time to time, establish and organize new counties, but no new county shall contain less than four hundred square miles; nor shall any county be reduced below that amount; and all laws changing county lines in counties already organized, or for removing county seats, shall, before taking effect, be submitted to the electors of the county or counties to be affected thereby, at the next general election after the passage thereof, and be adopted by a majority of such electors. Counties now established may be enlarged, but not reduced below four hundred (400) square miles. SEc. 2. The Legislature may organize any city into a separate county when it has attained a population of twenty thousand inhab {668 669 itants, without reference to geographical extent, when a majority of the electors of the county in which such city may be situated, voting thereon, shall be in favor of a separate organization. SEC. 3. Laws may be passed providing for the organization, for municipal and other town purposes, of any Congressional or fractional townships in the several counties in the State, provided that when a township is divided by county lines, or does not contain one hundred inhabitants, it may be attached to one or more adjoining townships or parts of townships, for the purposes aforesaid. SEC. 4. Provision shall be made by law for the election of such County or Township officers as may be necessary. SEC. 5. Any County and Township organization shall have such powers of local taxation as may be prescribed by law. SEC. 6. No money shall be drawn from any County or Town ship treasury except by authority of law. ARTICLE TwFLFTII-Of the Mlta. SECTION 1. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws for the organization, discipline, and service of the Militia of the State as may be deemed necessary. ARTICLE Tti.RTEENTH —-eac]ment and Removal from Offce. SECTION 1. The Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Auditor, Attorney General, and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts, may be impeached for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors; but judgment in such case shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit, in this State. The party convicted thereof shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. SEC. 2. The Legislature of this State may provide for the re moral of inferior officers from office, for malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of their duties. SEc. 3. No officer shall exercise the duties of his office after he shall have been impeached and before his acquittal. SEC. 4. On the trial of an impeachment against the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor shall not act as a member of the Court. SEC. 5. No person shall be tried on impeachment before he shall have been served with a copy thereof at least twenty days previ ous to the day set for trial. APPENDIX. APPENDIX. A.RnCLE FoUlrTENri —Amendment to the Constition. SECTION 1. Whenever a majority of both Houses of the Legisla ture shall deem it necessary to alter or amend this Constitution, they may propose such alterations or amendments, which pro posed amendments shall be published with the laws which have been passed at the same session, and said amendments shall be submitted to the people for their approval or rejection; and if it shall appear in a manner to be provided by law, that a majority of voters present and voting shall have ratified such alterations or amendments, the same shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as a part of this Constitution. If two or more alterations or amendments shall be submitted at the same time, it shall be so regulated that the voters shall vote for or against each separately. SEc. 2. Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the Legislature shall think it necessary to call a Convention to revise this Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors to vote, at the next election, for members of the Legislature, for or against a Convention; and if a majority of all the electors voting at said election shall have voted for a Convention, the Legislature shall, at their next session, provide by law for calling the same. The Convention shall consist of as many members as the House of Representatives, who shall be chosen in the same manner, and shall meet within three months after their election for the purpose aforesaid. ARTICLE FrrEENT —Xiseellaneo uS Subjects. SEcTION 1. The seat of Government of the State shall be at the City of St. Paul, but the Legislature at their first, or any future session, may provide by law for a change of the seat of Government by a vote of the people, or may locate the same upon the land granted by Congress, for a seat of Government to the State, and in the event of the seat of Government being removed from the City of St. Paul to any other place in the State, the Capitol building and grounds shall be dedicated to an institution for the promotion of science, literature and the arts, to be organized by the Legislature of the State, and of which institution the Minnesota Historical Society shall always be a department. SEC. 2. Persons residing on Indian lands within the State shall enjoy all the rights and privileges of citizens as though they lived in any other portion of the State, and shall be subject to taxation. SEc. 3. The Legislature shall provide for a uniform oath or 670 APPENDIX. affirmation to be administered at elections, and no person shall be compelled to take any other or different form of oath to entitle him to vote. SEC. 4. There shall be a seal of the State, which shall be kept by the Secretary of State, and be used by him officially, and shall be called by him the Great Seal of the State of Minnesota, and shall be attached to all official acts of the Governor (his signature to acts and resolves of the Legislature excepted) requiring authentication. The Legislature shall provide for an appropriate device and motto for said seal. SEC. 5. The Territorial prison as located under existing laws shall, after the adoption of this Constitution, be and remain one of the State prisons of the State of Minnesota. SCHEDULE. SECTION 1. That no inconvenience nmay arise by reason of a change from a Territorial to a permanent State Government, it is declared that all rights, actions, prosecutions, judgments, claims and contracts, as well of individuals as of bodies corporate, shall continue as if no change had taken place; and all process which may be issued under the authority of the Territory of Minnesota previous to its admission into the Union of the United States, shall be as valid as if issued in the name of the State. SEC. 2. All laws now in force in the Territory of Minnesota not repugnant to this Constitution, shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation, or be altered or repealed by the Legislature. SEC. 3. All fines, penalties or forfeitures accruing to the Territory of Minnesota, shall inure to the State. SEC. 4. All recognizances heretofore taken, or which may be taken before the change from a Territorial to a permanent State Government shall remain valid, and shall pass to and may be prosecuted in the name of the State, and all bonds executed to the Governor of the Territory, or to any other officer or court in his or their official capacity, shall pass to the Governor or State authority, and their successors in office, for the uses therein respectively expressed; and may be sued for and recovered accordingly: and all the estate of property, real, personal or mixed, and all judgments, bonds, specialties, choses in action, and claims and debts of what soever description, of the Territory of Minnesota, shall inure to and vest in the State of Minnesota, and may be sued for and re covered in the same manner and to the same extent by the State of Minnesota as the same could have been by the Territory of Min 671 APPENDIX. nesota. All criminal prosecutions and penal actions which may have arisen or which may arise before the change from a Territorial to a State government, and which shall then be pending, shall be prosecuted to judgment and Execution in the name of the State. All offenses committed against the laws of the Territory of Minnesota before the change from a Territorial to a State Government, and which shall not be prosecuted before such change, may be prosecuted in the name and by the authority of the State of Minnesota, with like effect as though such change had not taken place, and all penalties incurred shall remain the same as if this Constitution had not been adopted. All actions at law and suits in equity which may be pending in any of the Courts of the Territory of Minnesota at the time of the change from a Territorial to a State Government, may be continued and transferred to any Court of the State which shall have jurisdiction of the subject-matter thereof. SEC. 5. All Territorial officers, civil and military, now holding their offices under the authority of the United States or the Territor of Minnesota, shall continue to hold and exercise their respective offices until they shall be superseded by the authority of the State. SEC. 6. The first session of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota shall commence on the first Wednesday of December next, and shall be held at the Capitol in the City of St. Paul. SEc. 7. The laws regulating the election and qualification of all District, County and Precinct officers, shall continue and be in force until the Legislature shall otherwise provide by law. SEC. 8. The President of the Convention, shall, immediately after the adjournment thereof, cause this Constitution to be deposited in the office of the Governor of the Territory: and if after the submission of the same to a vote of the people, as hereinafter provided, it shall appear that it has been adopted by a vote of the people of the State, then the Governor shall forward a certified copy of the same, together with an abstract of the votes polled for and against the said Constitution, to the President of the United States, to be by him laid before the Congress of the United States. SEC. 9. For the purposes of the first election, the State shall constitute one district, and shall elect three members to the House of Representatives of the United States. SEC. 10. For the-purposes of the first election for members of State Senate and the House of Representatives, the State shall be divided into Senatorial and Representative Districts, as follows, viz: 1st District, Washington county; 2d District, Ramsey county; 3d District, Dakota county; 4th District, so much of Hennepin county 672 4. APPENDIX. as lies west of the Mississippi; 5thi District, Rice county; 6th District, Goodhue county; 7th District, Scott county; 8th District, Olmsted county; 9th District, Fillmore county; 10th District, Houston county; 11th District, Winona county; 12th District, Wabashaw county; 13th District, Mower and Dodge counties; 14th District, Freeborn and Faribault counties; 15th District, Steele and Waseca counties; 16th District, Blue Earth and Le Sueur counties; 17th District, Nicollet and Brown counties; 18th District, Sibley, Renville, and McLeod counties; 19th District, Carver and Wright counties; 20th District, Benton, Stearns, and Meeker counties; 21st District, Morrison, Crow Wing, and Mille Lac counties; 22d District, Cass, Pembina, and Tod counties; 23d District, so much of Hennepin county as lies east of the Mississippi; 24th District, Sherburne, Anoka, and Manomin counties; 25th District, Chisago, Pine, and Isanti counties; 26th District, Buchanan, Carlton, St. Louis, Lake, and Itasca counties. SEe. 11. The counties of Brown, Stearns, Tod, Cass, Pembina, and Renville, as applied in the preceding Section, shall: ot be deemed to include any Territory west of the State line, but shall be deemed to include all counties and parts of counties east of said line as were created out of the Territory of either, at the last Session of the Legislature. Sec. 12. The Senators and Representatives at the first election shall be apportioned among the several Senatorial and Representative Districts as follows, to wit: 1st District........... 2 Senators........... 3 Representatives. _..._.. ........................... ............ 2 ............. ............ 4 .............2 ............ 2 ............ 2 ............ 2 ........... ............ 2 ............. ............. ............ ............ 1 ............ ............ ............. 1 2t.................. 22................[ 673 2d 11............ 3 11 ............ 6 ............. ............ 4 ............. ............ 4 ............ ............ 4 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 3 ............ .......... 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1, 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Ilth 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19t], 20th 21st 22d 11 1, 11 I I 11 1, I.' I I 11 11 11 1. 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1. 1. 11 11 11 11 11 11 1, 11 11 11 11 11 4 1 1 1 APPENDIX. .......... S tor.. 2 Representatives. ............. 1 " ............ 1 as 2t............ I. 26t...............1 37 80 SEc. 13. The returns from the 22nd District shall be made to, and canvassed by the Judges of Election at the precinct of Otter Tail City. SEC. 14. Until the Legislature shall otherwise provide the State shall be divided into Judicial Districts as follows, viz The counties of Washington, Chisago, Manomin, Anoka, Itaski, Pine, Buchanan, Carlton, St. Louis, and Lake, shall eonstitute the First Judicial District. The county of Ramsey shall constitute the Second Judicial District. The counties of Houston, Winona, Fillmore, Olmsted, and Wabashaw, shall constitute the Third Judicial District. The counties of Hennepin, Carver, Wright, Meeker, Sherburne, Benton, Stearns, Morrison, Crow Wing, Mille Lac, Itasca, Pembina, Tod, and Cass, shall constitute the Fourth Judicial District. The c nties of Dakota, Goodhue, Scott, Rice, Steele, Waseca, Dodge, Mower, and Fre rn, shall constitute the Fifth Judicial District. The counties of Le Sueur, Sibley, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Faribault, McLeod, Renville, Brown, and other counties in the State, not included within the other Districts, shall constitute the Sixth Judicial District. SEC. 15. Each of the foregoing enumerated Judicial Districts may, at the first election, elect one Prosecuting Attorney for the District. SEc. 16. Upon the second Tuesday, the 13th day of October, 1857, an Election shall be held for members of the House of Representatives of the United States, Governor, Lieutenant Governor Supreme and District Judges, Members of the Legislature, and all other officers designated in this Constitution, and also for the submission of this Constitution to the people for their adoption or rejection. SEc. 17. Upon the day so designated as aforesaid, every free white male inhabitant over the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided within the limits of the State for ten days previous to the day of said election, may vote for all officers to be elected under this Constitution at such election, and also for or against the adoption of this Constitution. SEC. 18. In voting for or against the adoption of this Constitution, the words "for Constitution," or "against Constitution," may be written or printed on the ticket of each voter; but no voter shall vote for or against this Constitution on a separate ballot from that cast by him for officers to be elected at said election under this Constitution; and if, upon the canvass of the votes so 674 23d 24th 25th 26th ............ I 11 675 APPENDIX. polled it shall appear that there was a greater number of votes polled for than against said Constitution, then this Constitution shall be deemed to be adopted as the Constitution of the State of Minnesota; and all the provisions and obligations of this Constitution, and of the Schedule hereunto attached, shall thereafter be valid to all intents and purposes as the Constitution of said State. SEc. 19. At said election the polls shall be opened, the election held, returns made and certificates issued in all respects as provided by law for opening, closing and conducting elections and making returns of the same, except as hereinbefore specified, and excepting also that polls may be opened and elections held at any point or points, in any of the counties where precincts may be established as provided by law, ten days previous to the day of election, not less than ten miles from the place of voting in any established precinct. SEc. 20. It shall be the duty of the Judges and Clerks of Election, in addition to the returns required by law for each precinct, to forward to the Secretary of the Territory by mail, immediately after the close of the election, a certified copy of the poll book containing the name of each person who has voted in the precinct, and the number of votes polled for and against the adoption of this Constitution. SEc. 21. The returns of said election for and against this Con stitution, and for all State officers and members of the House of Representatives of the United States, shall be made, and certifi cates issued in the manner now prescribed by law for returning votes given for Delegate to Congress, and the returns for all Dis trict officers, Judicial, Legislative or otherwise, shall be made to the Register of Deeds of the senior county in each District, in the manner prescribed by law, except as otherwise provided. The returns for all officers elected at large shall be canvassed by the Governor of the Territory, assisted by JOSEPH R. BROWN and THOMAs J. GALBRAITH, at the time designated by law for canvassing the vote for Delegate to Congress. SEc. 22. If, upon canvassing the votes for and ag,ainst the adoption of this Constitution, it shall appear that there has been polled a greater number of votes against than for it, then no cer. tificates of election shall be issued for any State or District officer provided for in this Constitution, and no State organization shall have validity within the limits of the Territory until otherwise pro vided for, and until a Constitution for a State Government shall have been adopted by the people. 43 APPENDIX. Done in Convention, this twenty-ninth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-second year. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names, at the Capitol, in the City of St. Paul, this twenty-ninth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eiglit hundred and fifty-seven. HENRY H. SIBLEY, of Dakota County, President of thle Constitutional CUo?vention of Minnesota. WILLIAM HOLCOMBE, of Washington County, JAMES S. NORRIS, " " HENRY N. SETZER, " GOLD T. CURTIS, " NEWINGTON GILBERT, CHARLES J. BUTLER, " R. H. SANDERSON, " GEORGE L. BECKER, of Rtnaisey County, MOSES SHERBURNE, " LAFAYETTE EMMIETJ', " WILLIAM P. MURRAY, " WILLIS A. GORMAN, " JOHN S. PRINCE,. PATRICK NASH, " WILLIAM B. McGRORTY, " " PAUL FABER, " MIICHAEL E. AMES,. B. B. MEEKER, of Hennepin County, CHARLES L. CHASE, " CALVIN A. TUTTLE, " WILLIAM M. LASHELLE, " EDWIN C. STACEY, of Freeborn County, DAVID GILMAN, of Benton County, H. C. WAIT, of Stearns County, J. C. SHEPLEY, " JOHN W. TENVOORPDE, " " WILLIAM STURGIS, of Morrison County, W. W..KINGSBURY, of St. Louis County, R. H. BARRETT, " ROBERT KENNEDY, of Scott Countly, FRANK WARNER,' WILLIAM A. DAVIS, " " DANIEL J. BURNS, of Dakota County, JOSIAH BURWELL, " HIENRY G. BAILLY, " ANDREW KEEGAN, " JAMES McFETRIDGE, of Pembina County J. JEROME, " XAVIER CANTELL, " JOSEPH ROLETTE, " " LOUIS VASSEUR, " " J. P. WILSON, JAMES C. DAY, of HIouston County, 0O. W. STREETER, THOMAS H. ARMSTRONG, of Mower County, JOSEPH R. BROWN, of Sibley County, CHARLES E. FLANDRAU, of Nicollet County, FRANCIS BAASEN, of Brown County, WILLIAM B. MeMAHAN, of Blue Earth County. J. H. SWAN, of Le Sueur County, ALFRED E. AMES, of Hennepin County. Attest: J. J. NOAH, Secretary of the-Constitutional Conventiot. 676 APPENDIX. VOTE UPON THIB CONSTITUTION. 1 C ANVASSEERS' |RECINCT RETURN. RETURNs. COUNTIES. For Ags't. For Ags't Anoka...................................... 10 477 10 Benton....,j 295 1 29,53 Benton.................................... 9 3 Blue Earth...... 1,090 29 Brown....................................'488''488 Brown.. | 488 1.... 1 488.... Carver.......................... 4...... 45 5 845 5 Cass -..................... 126 5 Cass ~~~~~~~~~~~~........................... 2 Chisago.....................................60. 600.... Cottonwood..................................... 73 3 Crow Wing............................. I..... 96 1 96 1 Dakota..................................... 2,010 6( 2,041 6 Davis............................................... 35 Dodge...............................................812 16 ~~~~~............... Faribault................................... 219 2 219 2 Fillmore.................................. 1,874 60 1,874 60 Freeborn.................................... 63 3 635 3 Goodhue.................................... 1,810 12 1,810 12 Hennepin...................................3,662 70 3,662 Houston.........................1,1......... 188 8 1 188 Isanti...................................... 1 Lake.............................................. 86 Le Sueur................................... 819 87 819 87 Manomin................................... 113.... 1 1.i Martin...................................................31 Mcbeod..................................... 06 220. Meeker...................................... 194 111 194 1 Mille Lac................................... 1 9 11 Morrison......! 114 9 304 9 Morrison........................4 9 304 9 Mower..................................... 639 14 656 14 Murray............................................. 66 Nicollet............................................. 958 10 Olmst ed.................................. 1 343 11 1,629 13 Pembina.................................... 313... Pierce.........................2.... Pine........................................50 50 Ramsey.................................. 2,567 4,608 $ Renville............................................ 119 Rice........................................ 1,798 14 1,798 14 Rock............................... 7........ S c o t t........................................ 943 9 1,393 11 Sherburne................................... 94 94 Sibley... -.663 10 663 10 Stearns... 14 354 14 Steele............... 613 69 624 69 St. L ouis..................................... 93 44 T od....................................... 102 11 102 11 Wabashaw.................................. 83 10 889 10 Waseca..................................... 509 84 509 84 Washington.............................. i 1,662 25 1,875 26 Winona..................................... 1,362 8 1,621 15 Wright..................................... 605 52 605 52 TOTAL........................... 30,055 571 t 36,240 700 NOTF.-The vote under the heading of the Canvassers' Return is the official count as declared by tle 13Board of Canvassers designated in the Schedule. Their return was made up from the returns of the Register, who in several instances failed to return the vote for and against the Constitution. The vote under the heading of Precinct Returns embraces the whole vote of' th State upon the Constitution, and is compiled from the Precinct returns in the Secretary's office so far as they were received; and wbhere these returns have failed to show the full vote, the Register's Canvass has been taken. 67Bi ANALYTICAL INDEX TO THE CONSTITUTION OF MINNESOTA. Absence, when not to affect residence'for purpose of voting, Actions, Penal and Civil, on bonds, recognizances, forfeiture, &c. to vest in the State, - - - ScUIIEDLe4 Adjournment, power of each house on, - - - Bills not to be passed on day of, - - - Allodial, all lands declared to be, - - - Amendments to Constitution, mode of makingi - - Mode of revising same, - - - - A2pointnmetts, State Librarian, Notaries Public, Commissioners, etc. how made, - - - - To fill vacancies in offices, - - - Of Reporter of Supreme Court, and vacancy in office of Clerk of same -, Apportionment, for Legislative and Congressional purposes, when to be made, - - - - - For Congressional, at first election - SCIIEDULE For Legislative,. at first election, - SCHEDULE Army, Standing, in time of peace, prohibited, - - Attainder, bill of prohibited, - - - - Attorney General, an executive officer, how chosen, - - Term of office, salary of first term, - - Auditor of State, an executive officer, how chosen, - - Term of office, salary of first term, - - Bail, shall not be excessive, - All persons entitled to, exception, Ballot, all elections to be by, exception, - - - Baznks, property of, how taxed, - - - - Public funds not to be deposited in, - - - Law for chartering may be enacted, with certain restrict'ns Bills, rules regulating passage of, - - - To be signed by presiding officer of each house, Penalty of refusal to sign, - - - How certified to Governor in such case, - - Not to be passed on day of adjournment, construction of this rule, - - - - Bonds of State. See State Debt. Boundary of State, how defined, - - - - Bribery, disqualification of persons convicted of, Census, to be taken in 1865, and every ten years thereafter, Church, not to be supported by State, - - - Property of, not exempt from taxation, - - i i I I Art.'Sec. 7 3 Page. 663 674 c'?, 5 608 653 670 670 6.59 659 661 658 672 613 i 603 651 659 660 659 660 651 652 664 665 667 667 657 657 657 657 652 4: 6 22 1 I-) 1 2 4 4 2 4 4 1 14 14 5 5 6 4 2'', 9 12 14 11 1 5 1 5 1 . 5 7 4 12 1 il-11 20 21 21 21 22 I 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 7 9 9 9 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 9 653 657 658 653 665 i 15 23 - 16 3 INDEX TO THE CONSTITUTION. E Art. Citizens, rights of, (see Elective Fraechwiise) - - - 15 Cities, when may be organized as counties, - - 11 61 Clerk, of Supremne Court, how elected, term of office, vacancy in, 6 of Probate Court, - - - 6 of District Court, -.. - 6 Commissioners of Deeds, how appointed,. - - 5 Congress, members, three tobe elected, State one district, SCHEDULE Constitution, mode of amending, - - - - 14 Mode of Revising, - - - - - 14 To be deposited in office of Governor, - SCeEDULE A certified copy to be sent to President of the United States, if adopted, - - - - ScHEDULE Shall be submitted to vote of people, - SCiEDULE dMode of voting on, - - - - SCHEDULE 1 Effect of, if adopted, - - - SCEDULE 1 Effect of, if not adopted, - - - SCIEDuIEL Contracts, obligations of not to be impaired, - - 1 Corporations, definition of, rights and privileges of, - - 10 Restrictions, exception, - - - - 10 Liability of stockholders in, - - - - 10 3 How lands may be taken for use of, - - 10 Duties as common car-riers, - 10 Curts, (see Supreane, District and Probate Courts) pleadings and pro- ceedings in, -- 6 Successors of Territorial Courts, - - SCEIDULE Court Cbmmissioner, jurisdiction, who may be, - Counties, provisions for forming and changing, seats of justice in, etc. - -. 1 Cities may be organized as counties, - - 11 Election of officers, - - - - 11 Powers of local taxation, - - - - 11 6How money may be drawn from treasury, - 11 Territory west of State line, - - SCEDULE Crintes, rights of persons charged with, - - 1 Same subject, - 1 7 Conviction of, not to work corruption of blood or forfeit ure of estate, - - - - - 1 Disqualification of persons convicted of certain, - 4 Same subject, - - - -. 7 Debt, imprisonment for, prohibited, except for fraud in con tracting same, - - - - 1 Of State, limits of, manner of contracting, etc. - 9 District Courts, how composed, number of Judges, how chosen, term of office, - - - - - 6 Jurisdiction, etc. - 6 5 Qualification of Judges, comnpensation not to be diminished 6 Judges ineligible to other offices, votes cast for void,-ex ception, - 6. Change of district not to vacate office of Judge, 6 Clerk of, elective, etc. - - - - 6 Districts, for Congressional purposes, - SCHFDULE For Legislative purposes, - - - SCHEDULE Twenty-second District, vote of, where and by whom to be canvassed, - - - - SCHEDULE For judicial purposes, - - -SCHEDULE Each judicial, may elect a Prosecuting Attorney, SCH.EDULE 1 Divorces, Legislature prohibited from granting, - - 4 Education. See School Fund. Election, to fill vacancy in Legislature, - 4 Contested, - - - - 4 By Legislature, to be viva voce, etc. - - - 4 Of executive officers, to whom returns made, and by whom canvassed, etc. - - - - I I I i I I I 680 Page. 670 668 661 662 663 659 672 670 670 C)72 672 674 674 674 675 652 668 668 668 668 668 66f', 671 663 668 668 669 669 669 673 651 652 6,52 657 663 652 666 661 661 661 662 663 663 672 672 674. 664 675 658 657 Sec. I 2 2 il 13 4 9 .1 2 8 8 16 18 18 22 11 1 2 3 4 4 14 4 15 1 2 4 5 11 iI 12 15 2 12 5 4 5 6 11 12 13 9 10 13 14 15 28 17 1 17 30' 2 INDEX TO THE CONSTITUTION. Page. I Art, S 64 Election., on day of, arrests in civil cases prohibited, - (664 Alito be by ballot, exception, - - - 7 672 Laws of continued in force, - - - ScalEDULE 674 When held for voting on Constitution and election of State officers, - - - - SCIEDULE 75 Manner of conductihg, returns how made, precincts of, exception, -- SCHiDULE I 675 | Duties of officers of, - - - SCHEDULE F 675 Provisions relating to returns of the first election, who to canvass votes for officers at large, - - SCIEDULE 663 Electors, qualifications of, four classes, - - 7 663 Persons disqualified from being, - - 7 664 - Residence of not affected by absence, - - 7 664; Privileged from arrest, - - - 7 674 Who may vote at first election, - - SCHEDULE 1 667.Einbezzlement, of public funds, what constitutes, declared a felony, 9 1 654 Enabling Act, accepted, etc. - - -2 3 659 Executive Department, of what offices composed, and how chosen, 5 660 Terms of office, when to commence and end, - 5 660 Members of to take oath of office, - - - 5 652 Exeotption, of property from sale, a certain amount to be deter mined by law, - - - - 1 652 E: post facto Laws, prohibited, - - - 1 651 Fines, excessive, shall not be imposed, - - - 1 671 Accruing to Territory, to inure to State, SCIIEDULE 651 Government, object of, - - -. 1 654 Distribution of powers of Goverinient,-prohibition, 3 654 Governor, head of Executive department, - 3 1 655 To approve of all laws, - - - - 4 657 To issue writs of election to fill vacancies in Legislature, 4 659 To be chosen by electors of State, - - 5 6(59 Term of office and qualifications of, - - - 5 659 To communicate by message to Legislature at each session the condition of the State, etc. - - - 5 659 Shall be Commander-in-Chief of, and call out militia, etc. 5 659 May require opinion of other Executive officers on sub jects relating to their departments, - - o 5 659 A-lay grant reprieves and pardons, exception, | 659 With Senate, may appoint State Librarian and Notaries Public, - - I. 5 659 Miay appoint Commissioners of Deeds, - - 5 659 Has negative on laws, - - 5 659 May convene Legislature, - - - - 5 659 Shall see that the laws are executed, - - - 5 659 Mtay appoint, to fill vacancies in certain offices, 5 4 660 Salary of first term, - - - - - 5 660 Vacancy in office, office to devolve on Lieut. Governor, 56 662 To appoint to fill vacancy in office of any Judge, 6 652 HIbeas Cmopus, shall not be suspended, exception, - 1 Historical Society of Minnesota. See Seat of Government. 657 XImpeachment, House of Representatives has sole power of, - 4 657 Shall be tried by Senate, - - - 4 669 Who liable to, - i 13 669 Extent of judgment on, - - - - 13 1 669 Liability to other punishment, - - - 13 1 669 Person impeached forbidden to exercise duties of office before acquittal, - - - 13 669 Of Governor, Lieutenant Governor not to sit on trial, 13 669 Copy of, to be served on person before trial, - - 13 660 Judiciary Department, powers of vested in certain courts, (see Courts) 6 662 Judges, other than those provided for in this Constitution, how elected, term of office, - - - 6 Vacancy in office of, to be filled by appointm't by Gov'n'r, 6 681 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 i0 7 INDEX TO TIlE CONSTITUTION. 6 tdicial Districts, six created, - - - - - Changes in, not to vacate office of any Judge, Jurisdiction of State, concurrent on waters formining common boun dary, - Jury, rights of trial by secured, but may be waived, No trial by in Supreme Court, - - Jlstices of the Peace, number to be elected in each county, term of - office, compensation, jurisdiction,-prohibition, Judye of Proebate, election of, term of office, jurisdiction, powers and duties, - May be Court Commissioner, - - - - 5ands, all allodial, feudal tenures prohibited, - - Leases of agricultural, in certain cases void, Of individuals, how taken for use of corporations, 65 is,-ex post facto, impairing the obligations of contracts, and bills of attainder prohibited, - - - Must be approved by Governor, - - - How passed over Governor's veto, - - How bills to become laws without approval of Governor, Style of, - - - Must be passed by majority elected to both houses, Each law to embrace but one subject, expressed in title, To organize Executive department, - - tleceipts and expenditures to be published with laws, Shall be passed for safe keeping of public moneys, - Of Territory, to remain in force, if not inconsistent with Constitution, - - SCHEDULE Territorial election, continued in force. - SCHEDULE Legislative I)epartiment, to consist of Senate and House of RP,epre sentatives,; To meet at seat of government, times of meeting to be prescribed by law, - Number of members prescribed by law, - - Apportionment and ratio of representation, Each house to judge of election returns and eligibility of its own members, - - - A quorum to do business, - - Each house to determine its rules, - - Punishment and expulsion of members, - - Each house to elect its own officers (except President of Senate), and to keep and publish a Journal, on which yeas and nays (when taken) shall be entered, Neither house to adjourn for more than three days with out consent of other, etc. - - - Pay of members, not to be increased, etc. - - 6Members of, privileged from arrest, exception, - 6Members of, to hold no other office except as Postmaster, P,Revenue bills to originate in House, - - - Of Governor's veto. etc. - - - - Further provisions relating to veto power, - - 6All money to be appropriated by bill, - - Style of laws, how passed, - - - Vacancies how filled, contested seats - - Disorderly persons, not members, how punished, - Sessions of each house to be open except when secrecy requires,.4 Bills to be read on three different days in each house, and twice at length, before passage, - - - Of the signing of bills by presiding officer of each house, penalty of refusal to sign, - - - Bills not to be passed on day fixed for adjournment, Qualification of members, - - - - To elect United-States Senators, - - - I I 682 Page. 661 66o G54 654 661 662 662 663 653 653 668 652 666 666 666 657 657 658 660 667 (i(i7 671 672 654 655 6i55 G;55 605 6.55 Art,. S 6 6 2 1 6 6 6 6 1 1 10 7 15 15 15 4 1i 11 11 11 13 13 27 9 11 12 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 9 9 4 1 4 4 4 I1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 '(; 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 655 (;55 659656 656 l 6;56 656 657 657 1 6.57 657 i 6,57I 657 | 658 6.58 658 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 INDEX TO TITE CONSTITUTION. Legislative Department, to take oath of office, - - - All elections by, to be viva voce, - - - First session, when held, - - - SCHEDuLE Librarian of State, how appointed, - - - Lieuteenant Governor, an executive officer, when and how elected,, Term of office, qualifications, - - - Ex-ofici do President of Senate, when to act as Governor, Compensation of, when office vacated how filled, - Not to sit on trial of impeachment of Governor, Lotteries, Legislature not to authorize, - - - Ml9ilitia, Legislature shall pass laws to organize, - - Mlilitary, shall be subordinate to civil power, - - 6 ll8 nicipal Corporations, how created, - - - 66 oney, shall only be appropriated by bill, - - Shall be specifically applied, - Not to be paid out except appropriated by law, Statement of receipts and expenditures to be published annually, - - - - - Public, not to be exchanged for other funds, or deposited in banks, (see Embezzlement) - - - Paid out by authority of law, - - - I5av?vi'gatle iaters, free, - - - 6 Naame of State, -. Notaries Public, how appointed, - - - - Oath, form of, for members and officers of Legislature, Form of, for other public officers, - - At elections, to be uniform, etc. - - - Ojffce, all electors eligible to, exception, - - Cause of removal from, - - - 9 Same subject, -. Duties of, not to be exercised after impeachment before I acquittal, -. Perojury, disqualification of persons convicted of, - 6 Power, political, inherent in people, - President pro tern. of Senate, when to act as Lieutenant Governor, Press, liberty of secured, - Plecadinys, in the Courts, to be under direction of Legislature, Probate Court, to be established in each organized county, to be a Court of Record. - - - - Judge of, Clerk of, how chosen, - - - Jurisdiction of, - Judge of, may be Court Commissioner, - - 66 Prioes, style of, - - - - - - I Property, of persons, not to be taken for public nuse, without compensation, - - - - - Same, compensation made if taken by corporations, Of Territory, to vest in State, - - SCHEDULE Protest, right of, secured to members of Legislature, - 6 Prosecuting Attorney, each judicial district may elect one, SCHEDULE Psini-shineit, not to be cruel or unusual, - - - No person to be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence Of disorderly persons in session of Legislature, - Quoruem, a majority of each house of Legislature constituted, Power of a less number, - - - - Religion, freedom of, secured, - Licentiousness in, not allowed, Not a test, as a qualification for office or of an elector, Opinion on, not to disqualify any person as a witness, Property of societies of, exempt from taxation, - Reporter of Supreme Court, by whom appointed, - - tRepresentation, how apportioned, ratio of, - - R6epresentatives, (see Legislative De(partment) how chosen, term of office, - 41 #~;'.' i i 683 Page 658 659 672 659 659 659 660 660 669 6-59 669 653 668 656 666 666 667 667 669 654= 653 659 658 660 670 664 669 669 669 . I 6.57 651 660 651 663 662 662 662 663 663 653,1 668 671 674 674 651 652 657 655 655 653 603 653 653 655 661 655 658 Art. 4 4 Sec. 29 30 6 4 1 3 6 6 4 31 1 14 2 12 8 9 5 5 5 5 13 4 12 1 10 4 9 9 9 9 11 2 2 5 4 5 15 7 13 13 13 4 1 5 6 11 12 6 2 1 4 29 8 3 7 1 2 8 '15 1 6 3 14 7 7 7 11.5 14 18 3 4 16 15 5 7 18 3 .3 16 16 17 17 3 6 6 6 6 6 1 10 4 I 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 .1 9 6 4 2 2 24 4 INDEX TO THE CONSTITUTION. Residence, for purpose of voting, what not to effect, Who do not acquire, - - - - Revenue, bills shall originate in House, but Senate may amend, Rights, political, secured, - Natural, secured, - - - - - To property, character, etc. - Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited, - Enumeration of, not to impair others retained by the people, l -. Existing, not to be affected, - SCHEDULI Salaries, of members of Legislature, - - - Of Executive officers, - - - - Of Lieutenant Governor, - - - Of Judges of Supreme and District Courts, not to be di minished, - Of Probate Judges, - Of Clerk of District Court, - - - Of Justices of the Peace, - - - - Seal of State, provisions relating to, - - Seat of Government, provisions relating to, - - 1- - Senators, (see Legislative Department) how chosen, term of office, etc. Of United States, how chosen, - - - Secretary of State, an executive officer, how chosen, - - Term of office, salary, - Schools, etc. duty of Legislature to establish, - - Of lands for use of, and concerning the school fund, Of taxes to support, - - X. Property of, exempt from axatio, - - - Fund of, how kept, - - -. -.., 9 Slavery, prohibited, -.. speech, liberty of, secured, - - - - State Debt, provisions relating to, - - - - How contracted, - - - - - In time of war, etc. - Credit of State not to be loaned, etc. - - State Prison, Territorial Prison as located to remain one of the prisons of the State, - - - - Stockholders, liability of, in banks, - - - Same, in other corporations, - - - - Supreme Court, how organized, jurisdiction, powers and duties, To appoint Reporter of its decisions, - - To appoint Clerk in case of vacancy, - - Judges of, elected for seven years, - - Qualifications of Judges, their compensation not to be di minished, - Judges of, to hold no other office, all votes cast for void, except for a judicial office, - - - Taxation, non-resident property holders not to be taxed higher than resident, -. For school purposes, - To be equal and uniform, property taxed to have a cash valuation, -- For State purposes, - - - - What shall be taxed, - What shall be exempt, - - - - Banks and bankers, how taxed, - - - Powers of counties and townships, - - Of persons on Indian lands, - - - - Terms of Office, of Governor, - - - - Of Lieutenant-Governor, - - - - Of Auditor, Secretary, Treasurer and Attorney-General, Of executive office, when to commence and end, - Of Clerk of Supreme Court, - - - 4 I I V I Ft',." ; i, 684 Page. 664 664 656 661 661 652 662 653 671 655 660 -660 661 662 663 662 671 670 658 658 659 660 664 664 665 665 667 650 650 666 666 666 667 671 667 668 661 661 661 661 661 662 654 665 665 665 665 665 665 669 6 i'O 659 659 Art. 7 7 4 - 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 6 6 6 6, 6 15 16 4 4 6 5 8 8 .8 . 9 9 1 1 9 9 9 9 ec. 3 4 10 1 2 8 10 16 1 7 5 6 6 7 13 8 4 1 1 24 26 1 5 1 13 3 12 2 3 1 6 6 1 7 10 I 6 13 8 2 2 2 8 6 11 a 3 15 9 10 6 1 6 6 6 6 6 2 1 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 16 6 1 6 6 16 6 1 2 8 3 4 5 2 3 3 6 7 2 INDEX TO THE CONSTITUTION. Terns of Office, of Judges of Supreme Court, - - Of District Judges,. Of Probate Judges, - - - - Of Justices of the Peace, - - - - Of other Judges, - 5Title, State not to interfere with, when given by Congress, Territorial Officers, continued until superseded by authority of State, - - - - - SCHEDUL Towns and Townships, organization of, - - - Election of officers of, - - - - Powers of local taxation, - - - - Moneys of, how drawn from treasury, - - Teason, definition of, proof of, - - - - Disqualifications of persons convicted of, Treasurer of State, an executive officer, how chosen, - - Term of office, salary first term, - - - To register State bonds, - - - - To publish annually a detailed statement of receipts and expenditures of public money, - - - University of Minnesota, provisions relating to, - - Property of, exempt from taxation, - Veto, of bills by Governor, - -. Of joint resolutions, etc. - - - Votes, in passing laws, to be entered on Journal,.- - Same, in elections by Legislature, Vacancies, in State and other offices, to be filled by appointment by Governor,, -. In ofices of Judges, same, - - - W65 ithss, coot-comfpel person to be against self on a criminal trial, -.... 1 Opinion on religion not to disqualify any person from being Yeas and Nays. See Votes. 685 Page. 661 661 662 662 662 654 672 669 669 669 669 652 663 659 660 666 667 665 665 656 656 657 659 659 662 : 662 ~: 653 6 6 6 6 6 2 See. 3 4 7 8 9 3 5 3 4 5 6 9 2 1 5 6 11 4 3 11 12 13 30 4 10 - 7 17 11 11 -11 11 1 7 5 5 9 9 8 9 4 4 4 4 5 6 1 1 Ir A.. .'n