History of the Constitutions of Iowa Part 11

XV

THE CONVENTION OF 1846

When the members of the eighth Legislative a.s.sembly of the Territory of Iowa met in the Capitol on the first Monday of December, 1845, they found that, as a result of the rejection of the Const.i.tution of 1844, they were face to face with the question which for six years had confronted the pioneer law-makers of Iowa as the greatest political issue of the Territorial period. They found that the whole problem of State organization was before them for reconsideration.

It was found also that Politics had worked some changes in the government of the Territory. John Chambers, who upon the completion of his first term as Governor had been promptly reappointed in 1844 by President Tyler, was as cheerfully removed by President Polk in 1845.

And the Democracy of Iowa rejoiced over this manifestation of Jacksonianism. They believed that they would now have a Governor after their own heart--a Democrat who would have confidence in the people and respect the acts of their representatives. To be sure, the first Governor of the Territory of Iowa was a Democrat; but Robert Lucas had been altogether too independent. He had presumed to point out and correct the errors and blunders of the a.s.sembly; whereas a true Democratic Governor was one who did not lead, but always followed the wisdom of the ma.s.ses.

James Clarke, the new Governor, was a citizen of Burlington and editor of the _Territorial Gazette_. During his residence in the Territory he had always taken an active part in Politics. In 1844 he served as a Delegate in the Const.i.tutional Convention. Before this he had acted as Territorial Librarian; and for a short time he filled the office of Secretary of the Territory.

Governor Clarke regretted the fate of the Const.i.tution which he had helped to frame. In his message of December 3, 1845, he said: "Since your adjournment in June last, a most important question has been decided by the people, the effect of which is to throw us back where we originally commenced in our efforts to effect a change in the form of government under which we at present live.--I allude to the rejection of the Const.i.tution at the August election. This result, however brought about, in my judgment, is one greatly to be deplored.--That misrepresentation and mystification had much to do in effecting it, there can be no doubt; still it stands as the recorded judgment of the people; and to that judgment until the people themselves reverse the decree, it is our duty to submit."

As to recommendations in reference to this problem the Governor was cautious. He favored State organization, because he thought that "the prosperity of Iowa would be greatly advanced by her speedy incorporation into the Union as a State." But he did not presume to recommend a particular course of action; he simply a.s.sured the a.s.sembly of his hearty co-operation in any measure which might be enacted looking toward the accomplishment of the desired end, that is, the early admission of Iowa into the Union.

Confident that the people of Iowa really desired State organization and were anxious for its immediate establishment, the Legislative a.s.sembly pa.s.sed a bill providing for the election of delegates to a Const.i.tutional Convention. This act, which was approved January 17, 1846, called for the election by the people of thirty-two delegates at the towns.h.i.+p elections in April. The delegates were directed to meet at Iowa City on the first Monday of May, 1846, "and proceed to form a Const.i.tution and State Government for the future State of Iowa." When completed the draft of the code of fundamental law was to be submitted to the people for ratification or rejection at the first general election thereafter. If ratified by the people it was then to be submitted to Congress with the request that Iowa be admitted into the Union "upon an equal footing with the original States." Thus the Legislative a.s.sembly forestalled the possibility of a repet.i.tion of the blunder of submitting to Congress a Const.i.tution before it had been pa.s.sed upon by the people. There was no serious opposition to the course outlined by the a.s.sembly, for a large majority of the people were now anxious to see the matter of State organization carried to a successful conclusion.

Owing to the absence of vital issues, the canva.s.s preceding the election of delegates was not what would be called an enthusiastic campaign. There was of course a party struggle between the Whigs and the Democrats for the seats in the Convention. But the Whigs, "aware of their hopeless minority," advocated a "non-partisan election." They clamored for a "no-party Const.i.tution,"--one free from party principles--for they did not want to see the Const.i.tution of the State of Iowa made the reservoir of party creeds. They contended, therefore, that the delegates to the Convention should be chosen without reference to party affiliations.

The Democrats, however, were not misled by the seductive cry of the Whigs. They proceeded to capture as many seats as possible. Everywhere they instructed their candidates to vote against banks. When the returns were all in it was found that they had elected more than two-thirds of the whole number of delegates.

Of the thirty-two delegates who were elected to seats in the Convention of 1846, ten were Whigs and twenty-two were Democrats.

Fifteen of the members were born in the South, eight in the New England States, four in the Middle States, and five in Ohio. Of those born in the South six were from Kentucky, four from Virginia, three from North Carolina, one from Alabama, and one from Maryland. The eight members born in New England were four from Vermont and four from Connecticut. The oldest member of the Convention was sixty-seven, the youngest twenty three; while the average age of all was about thirty-seven years. As to occupation, there were thirteen farmers, seven lawyers, four merchants, four physicians, one mechanic, one plasterer, one smelter, and one trader.

It was on the morning of May 4, 1846, that the second Const.i.tutional Convention met in the rooms of the Old Stone Capitol at Iowa City.

Thirty names were entered on the roll. James Grant, a delegate from Scott county who had served in the first Convention, called the members to order. William Thompson (not a member) was appointed Secretary _pro tem_. Such was the temporary organization. It lasted but a few minutes; for, immediately after the roll had been called, Enos Lowe, of Des Moines county, was chosen, _viva voce_, President of the Convention. Mr. Thompson was retained as permanent Secretary, Wm.

A. Skinner was named as the Sergeant-at-Arms. At this point "the Rev.

Mr. Smith invoked a blessing from the Deity upon the future labors of the Convention." This was the only prayer offered during the entire session. Some time was saved by the immediate adoption of the rules of the Convention of 1844.

In the afternoon it was agreed to have six regular standing Committees. These were: (1) On Boundaries and Bill of Rights; (2) On Executive Department; (3) On Legislative Department, Suffrage, Citizens.h.i.+p, Education, and School Lands; (4) On Judicial Department; (5) On Incorporations, Internal Improvements, and State Debts; and (6) On Schedule.

It is unfortunate that only the barest fragments have been preserved of what was said in the Convention of 1846. The official journal and a few speeches are all that have come down to us. The debates could not have been very long, however, since the entire session of the Convention did not cover more than fifteen days. The discussion for the most part was confined to those subjects upon which there had been a marked difference of opinion in the earlier Convention or which had received attention in the campaigns of 1845.

Indeed, the fact that Boundaries, Incorporations, Banks, Salaries, Suffrage, Executive Veto, Elective Judiciary, and Individual Rights were among the important topics of debate is evidence of a desire on the part of the Convention to formulate a code of fundamental law that would not meet with the criticisms which were so lavishly heaped upon the Const.i.tution of 1844.

The Convention of 1846 was certainly in earnest in its desire to draft a Const.i.tution which would be approved by the people. Enos Lowe, the President, had at the outset informed the members that they were elected "to form a _new_ Const.i.tution." But the att.i.tude of the Convention is nowhere better expressed than in the following action which was taken on the eleventh day of May: "Whereas, In the opinion of this Convention, it is all important that the Const.i.tution formed here at this time, be so framed as to meet with the approbation of a majority of the electors of this Territory, therefore,

"_Resolved_, That a committee of three be added to the Supervisory Committee, whose duty shall be to enquire into the sectional feelings on the different parts of a Const.i.tution, and to report such alterations as to them appears most likely to obviate the various objections that may operate against the adoption of this Const.i.tution."

By the nineteenth of May the Convention of 1846 had completed its labors. In comparison with the Convention of 1844 its history may be summed up in the one word, "Economy." The Convention of 1846 contained thirty-two members; that of 1844, seventy-two. The former continued in session fifteen days; the latter twenty-six days. The expenditures of the second Convention did not exceed $2,844.07; while the total cost of the first Convention was $7,850.20. Here then was economy in men, economy in time, and economy in expenditures. The thrifty pioneers were proud of the record.

XVI

THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF 1846

The Const.i.tution of 1846 was modeled upon the Const.i.tution of 1844, although it was by no means a servile copy of that twice rejected instrument. Both codes were drawn up according to the same general plan, and were composed of the same number of articles, dealing substantially with the same subjects. The Const.i.tution of 1846, however, was not so long as the Const.i.tution of 1844 and was throughout more carefully edited.

Article I. on "Preamble and Boundaries" does not contain the quotation from the preamble of the Federal Const.i.tution which was made a part of the corresponding article in the Const.i.tution of 1844. As to boundary specifications, the only material difference is found in the s.h.i.+fting of the line on the North from the St. Peters to the parallel of forty-three and one half degrees of North lat.i.tude. This new boundary was a compromise between the boundaries suggested by Lucas and those proposed by Nicollet.

The "Bill of Rights," which const.i.tutes Article II., contained one additional section, which aimed to disqualify all citizens who should partic.i.p.ate in dueling from holding any office under the Const.i.tution and laws of the State.

Article III. on the "Right of Suffrage" reads the same as in the Const.i.tution of 1844, although in the Convention of 1846 a strong effort had been made to extend this political right to resident foreigners who had declared their intention of becoming citizens.

Article IV. on the composition, organization, and powers of the General a.s.sembly contained four items which differed materially from the provisions of the Const.i.tution of 1844. First, it was provided that the sessions of the General a.s.sembly should commence on the first Monday of January instead of on the first Monday of December.

Secondly, the Senate was to choose its own presiding officer. Thirdly, all bills for revenue must originate in the House of Representatives.

Fourthly, the salaries for ten years were fixed as follows: for Governor $1,000; for Secretary of State $500; for Treasurer $400; for Auditor $600; and for Judges of the Supreme Court and District Courts $1,000.

Article V. on "Executive Department" differs from the corresponding article in the Const.i.tution of 1844 in that the office of Lieutenant Governor is omitted, while the term of the Governor is made four years instead of two.

Article VI., which provides for the Judiciary, limits the term of the Judges of the Supreme Court and District Courts to four years.

Articles VII. and VIII. on "Militia" and "State Debts" respectively are the same as in the earlier Const.i.tution.

Article IX. on "Incorporations" is a radical departure from the provisions of the old Const.i.tution. The General a.s.sembly is empowered to provide general laws with reference to corporations, but is restrained from creating such inst.i.tutions by special laws. At the same time the article provides that "no corporate body shall hereafter be created, renewed, or extended, with the privilege of making, issuing, or putting in circulation, any bill, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note, or other paper, or the paper of any bank, to circulate as money. The General a.s.sembly of this State shall prohibit, by law, any person or persons, a.s.sociation, company or corporation, from exercising the privileges of banking, or creating paper to circulate as money."

Article X. on "Education and School Lands" directs the General a.s.sembly to "provide for the election, by the people, of a Superintendent of Public Instruction" and to "encourage by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral and agricultural improvement."

Article XI. on "Amendments of the Const.i.tution" provided but one method of effecting changes in the fundamental law. The General a.s.sembly was empowered to provide at any time for a vote of the people on the question of a Convention to "revise or amend this Const.i.tution." If a majority of the people favored a Convention, then the General a.s.sembly was to provide for the election of delegates.

Article XII. contains three "miscellaneous" items relative to (_a_) the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, (_b_) the size of new counties, and (_c_) the location of lands granted to the State.

Article XIII. on "Schedule" provided, among other things, that the Governor should by proclamation appoint the time for holding the first general election under the Const.i.tution; but such election must be held within three months of the adoption of the Const.i.tution.

Likewise, the Governor was empowered to fix the day of the first meeting of the General a.s.sembly of the State, which day, however, must be within four months of the ratification of the Const.i.tution by the people.

It is, moreover, interesting to note that while the Const.i.tution of 1844 prescribed in general outline a system of county and towns.h.i.+p government, the Const.i.tution of 1846 left the whole matter of local government to future legislation.

XVII

THE NEW BOUNDARIES

While the people of the Territory of Iowa were preparing for and holding a second Const.i.tutional Convention, and while they were debating the provisions of the new Const.i.tution of 1846, Congress was reconsidering the boundaries of the proposed State. The matter had been called up early in the session by the Iowa Delegate.

Mr. Dodge, having been re-elected, returned to Was.h.i.+ngton with the determination of carrying out his instructions so far as the boundary question was concerned. And so, on December 19, 1845, he asked leave to introduce "A Bill to define the boundaries of the State of Iowa, and to repeal so much of the act of the 3rd of March, 1845, as relates to the boundaries of Iowa." The original copy of this bill, which has been preserved in the office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, bears testimony to Mr. Dodge's fidelity to promises made to the people; for the description of boundaries therein is a clipping from the Preamble of the printed pamphlet edition of the Const.i.tution of 1844. In discussing the question later in the session he referred to his pledges as follows: "I know, Mr. Chairman, what are the wishes and sentiments of the people of Iowa upon this subject. It is but lately, sir, that I have undergone the popular ordeal upon this question; and I tell you, in all candor and sincerity, that I would not be in this Hall to-day if I had not made them the most solemn a.s.surances that all my energies and whatever influence I possessed would be exerted to procure for them the fifty-seven thousand square miles included within the limits designated in their original const.i.tution. It was in conformity with pledges that I had given them personally, with instructions which I knew I had received from them at the ballot-box, that I introduced, at an early day of the present session, the bill imbodying the boundaries of their choice."

It was not, however, until March 27, 1846, that Mr. Stephen A.

Douglas, from the Committee on the Territories to whom Mr. Dodge's bill had been referred, reported an "amendatory bill." This bill, which was introduced to take the place of the original bill, rejected the boundaries of the Const.i.tution of 1844 and proposed the parallel of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes as the Northern boundary line of the new State. It was committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, wherein it was discussed on the eighth of June and reported back to the House. On the ninth of June the amendatory bill was taken up by the House and pa.s.sed. It was reported to the Senate without delay, but was not pa.s.sed by that body until the first day of August. On the fourth day of August the act received the approval of President Polk.

The most important discussion of the bill was in the House of Representatives on the eighth day of June. An attempt was made to reduce the State on the North. Mr. Rockwell, of Ma.s.sachusetts, moved to amend by striking out the words "forty-three and thirty minutes" where they occur and inserting in lieu thereof "forty-two degrees." He understood from a memorial which had been presented to the House that the people in the Northern part of the Territory did not wish to be included within the proposed boundaries.