cussing the document. In Milwaukee the issue became involved with municipal politics-one candidate for mayor upholding the constitution,' the other condemning it. A ward canvass was made of the city. Among those who labored industriously for its rejection were: Byron Kilbourn, H. N. Wells, James Holliday, Moses Kneeland, Rufus King, Solomon Juneau, John H. Tweedy, and Jonathan Arnold. Among those who urged its adoption were: E. G. Ryan, I. P. Walker, W. K. Wilson, and G. H. Walker.

The objectionable features of the constitution may be classi

fied as follows:

1. The rights of married women.

2. Homestead exemption clause.

3. St. Croix boundary dispute.

4. Number of members of the legislature.

5. An elective judiciary.

6. Lack of a corporation article.

7. Salaries of state officers unalterable by the legislature. 8. The anti-banking article.

The article on the rights of married women was by one faction of the Democrats urged as objectionable. Recognized as such privileges are now, it is interesting to note that the article was omitted from the adopted constitution put upon the statute books a few years later.

The banking clause was particularly aggravating both to the citizens of Milwaukee, where there were of course several useful banks, and to the people of southwest Wisconsin, where four banks were then in operation.

3

An elective judiciary system being uncommon in that decade, was considered unsuitable; but regardless of the opposition evoked it became a part of the second constitution which received the consent of the voters the following year.

1Ibid., p. 187.

2 Thomson, Political History of Wisconsin, p. 56.

3 Bashford, "Early Banking in Wisconsin," pp. 1-8.

Probably the most vital error was the omission of a corporation clause, which in our later day has become so important. Another was the limited appointing power of the executive; and a third the St. Croix boundary cut-off.

By election day (April 5), the voters were well informed on the issues of the constitution and negro suffrage, which were before them for judgment. The result gave 7,664 votes for

negro suffrage, and 14,615 against; and 14,119 votes for the constitution and 20,233 against it.1

A detailed examination of the vote develops interesting differences, showing the result of inherent political ideas and principles. Southwestern Wisconsin, early settled by people from the Southern states, voted against negro suffrage, as did the Germans who predominated along the Michigan lakeshore. It appears that the antagonism of the Germans had been aroused because an attempt had been made in the convention to couple the vote on foreign with that on negro suffrage.' The whole of south-central Wisconsin, settled by New England and New York immigrants, cast almost a solid vote in favor of extending the franchise to negroes.*

The vote on the constitution is more complicated. Anxious to join the new territory of Minnesota, St. Croix County voted for a constitution which was pledged to grant her this privilege. The old French-Canadian settlements in Brown County, desir ous of any sort of government that would afford them pro tection, voted for adoption; while all the rest of the territory, with the exception of Iowa and Washington counties, rejected the proposed constitution. Washington was settled mostly by foreigners who were democratic in tendency, and they naturally voted for adoption of an instrument so nearly according with their views. Iowa County, however, requires a different explanation. The vote therein was almost evenly divided. The bulk of the settlement was in the southern part of the county, and their vote overbalanced that of the northern towns. Although the newspapers of the time give but meagre information on the subject, yet the result in this county seems to have been related to the educational views of the inhabitants and their strong democratic sentiments. This same county cast a 1 Journal of Council (1847), p. 62; Baker, "Elective Franchise," p. 7; Tenney and Atwood, Fathers of Wisconsin, p. 367.

2 Baker, "Elective Franchise," p. 10.

3 R. G. Thwaites, Story of Wisconsin (Boston, 1890), p. 235.

* See accompanying map illustrating the vote.

solid anti-Free Soil vote in 1848, and again in 1853.1 The enthusiastic miners gave a strong vote for the constitution, uninfluenced by the discussion attending the campaign.

The constitution had been defeated, although it is conceded that had the articles been submitted separately, all, with the possible exception of the banking clause, would have received popular sanction. But even though the vote was lost, the

1 Theodore C. Smith, "Free Soil Party in Wisconsin," in Wis. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 1894, p. 161.

efforts of the framers had not been in vain. The people were now fully aroused to an appreciation of the benefits accompanying statehood. Although the election had passed, the effect of the campaign over the first constitution lingered in politics for years. In the autumn of 1847, candidates for congress tacitly used this as an issue; the result was that the Whig candidate, John H. Tweedy, carried the state.

The constitution adopted a year later was almost an exact counterpart of the one rejected, and legislation under it has advanced in the direction of what was in the first document denounced as "radical." Over half a century has passed, and with comparatively few amendments the new constitution has stood the test of time.

1 Tenney and Atwood, Fathers of Wisconsin, p. 19. 2 Ibid, p. 389.