Thursday]

TRAER-GILLASPY.

[February 5th.

State, I believe, are almost crazy upon the sub-fifteen dollars a day for his board, and it seems ject of speculation. to me he should evince the same liberality now upon this matter.

Mr. GILLASPY. If the gentleman will examine the reports of our proceedings, he will find that I referred to board by the week. The remarks I made were in allusion to the remark of the gentleman from Scott [Mr. Ells] when he said that board could be had in first class hotels at Davenport for seven dollars a week. When I pretend to be liberal. I design to take the money out of my own pockets, and not out of the State Treasury.

Mr. TRAER. I do not know that this matter about paying board has anything to do with this question.

This Convention is about to adopt a provision here, that will allow banking in the State of Iowa. My opinion is, that if we increase the amount of this restriction, the next general assembly will not adjourn until they have made appropriations for various purposes to the full amount that they are allowed to contract debts by the constitution. If we adopt a provision here of that kind, it would be hailed with acclamation by every broker in the State, and the bonds of the State would offer the best security for banking that could be possibly presented, and by that very inducement you could persuade every body in the community to sign petitions asking the legislature to make appropriations for I wish to remark here, that if the gentleman building a new capitol, asylums, and various will take up the last message of the executive, other public institutions. What would be the he will find that the total indebtedness of the result of all this? Why, the issue of bonds State amounts to $128,000. It appears to me, upon the treasury of the State, which the specu- that when the constitution provides that the inlators might buy up for the purposes of banking.debtednes of the State shall not exceed, in the I undertake to say, had it not been for the pro-aggregate, the sum of $100,000, and when the vision in the constitution upon this subject, that executive tells us that the State has incurred a the people ere this would have voted appropriations for railroads of upwards of ten millions of dollars. Every gentleman upon this floor will readily come to that conclusion if he will examine the act passed by the legislature four years I have taken considerable pains to ascertain ago memorializing Congress for a grant of the the views of gentlemen in different parts of the public lands. It was thought then that they State upon this question of State indebtedness, would be unable to obtain these appropriations, and I find very few who are not decidedly in faand from what I saw and heard here in this cap-vor of enlarging the amount beyond that now ital, I have no doubt that had it not been for prescribed in the present constitution. It seems this provision in the constitution, that there would have been a log-rolling system got up here, and by one act they would have voted ten millions of dollars.

debt of $128,000, we had better amend the constitution so as to give the officers of State an opportunity of meeting the ordinary expenses of the government.

to me that the same argument which the gentleman applies to sustain his position might be brought to bear on the opposite side of the question.

If you make the restriction three hundred I know that it is necessary to place some thousand dollars, the State will run in debt to limit in the constitution, and it will not do to that amount, or if you increase the amount to give the legislature full power to go as far as ten millions dollars. five years will not elapse they should deem fit. In making a provision of before the State will be in debt to that amount. this kind, we should take into consideration the This old dilapidated building would not be suf- exigencies that may arise under this constituficient, and you would be obliged to build a tion. It is evident to every one here that the magnificent capitol, a splendid asylum in one natural resources of Iowa for agriculture and county, and a new university building in anoth-commerce will combine to make it a wealthy er, and so the expenditure would go on, and there would be no end to it.

I hope that the provision reported by the committee will be adopted. I believe that the people demand it, and I know that my constituents desire to have a restriction of this kind incorporated into the constitution. If the people desire to go into debt, they can do so by their own vote, but I would not have the state incur a debt beyond the amount prescribed here, through the intiuences that may be exerted in the legisla

ture.

Mr. TRAER. I am surprised at the remarks of the gentleman from Wapello [Mr. Gillaspy]. I have so much confidence in his judgment, that I supposed he would favor an amount larger than that fixed in the present constitution. If I recollect rightly, a certain gentleman, when we were discussing the propriety of an adjournment to some other place, talked about paying ten or

State, and we should not, therefore, cramp the hands of the government, as we should by placing in the constitution the restriction reported by the committee. When the present constitution was formed, and when that restriction was placed in it, the State was in a very different situation from that in which she is now placed. When the state government was first organized, there were but a few inhabitants then to pay the taxes necessary to pay the interest upon the debt which was then created. Now, our population has greatly increased, and our wants are increasing every day. There is no doubt that we will soon be called upon to erect public buildings for the use of the State, and I would ask gentlemen how they can be erected with such a clause as that on State indebtedness contained in the present constitution? I am aware that the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Wilson), in whose judgment I place a great deal of reliance,

Thursday]

GIBSON-TRAER-SCOTT--WILSON.

[February 5th.

Another reason the gentleman urges for increasing the sum named in the report is, that the State will be called upon to build a State capitol, and other public buildings in a short time.

says that we can submit the question of the ne- the power entrusted to him? Why did he not do cessity of an increase of the State indebtedness it in this case? to the people. Is it necessary for this State government to cramp her hands in such a way that they will have to submit this question to the people? I think not, and I think we had better, in framing this constitution, provide for the public exigencies which may arise hereafter. I am opposed to this idea of getting the General Assembly to legislate for us, and then submitting their action to the people. We should then have propositions to be submitted to the people almost every day. I am in favor of striking out the words one hundred thousand dollars," in this section, and inserting a larger sum.

Mr. SCOTT. I would ask the gentleman for what object the sum of twenty-eight thousand dollars was appropriated?

Mr. GIBSON. I am not dealing in items, and I suppose the report upon the subject of appropriations will show for what purpose this twenty-eight thousand dollars was appropriated. It is not a matter to which I wish to refer, and should not have done so, had I not been induced to do so by the remarks of the gentleman from Benton [Mr. Traer]. That gentleman says that we will be required to build a state capitol in a

Mr. GIBSON. Being a member of the committee on State debts, I feel it my duty to say to the Convention, that I heartily concur with the report that has been submitted. I believe it is the wish of that portion of the State that I rep-short time, and how are we to build it, he asks, resent, not to have the constitution changed in this respect. They believe that an indebtedness of $100,000 is an amount sufficient for the state to contract at any one time. This being the case, as I before remarked, I heartily concur in the report.

amount? If you were able to commence and

complete a building from your own resources, why, that would be a safe and prudent business

unless we borrow money? This, it seems to me, would be very singular economy. If you, Mr. Chairman, were about to undertake an enterprise, what would we think of you, as a financier, if the first question you asked was, where shall I borrow the money to commence this speculation? Would it not look more like a The gentleman from Benton [Mr. Traer], it seems to me, takes a very singular view of this prudent and safe course, if you should apply question. He undertakes to prove to this com- your own resources, and not go to borrowing If you wanted to put up mittee, that it is necessary to increase this in- money from others? a dwelling, would it be proper economy, even debtedness, and what reasons does he assign? The most prominent is, that it appears by the re-lars for that purpose, and incur a debt to that if you had credit, to borrow five thousand dolcent message of the Governor, the state is now in debt $128,000; but I do not consider it as aay argument further than this: that it places the Governor and his Republican legislature in a beautiful predicament; for the chief executive of this State, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of his office, has to take an oath to support the constitution of the State, and that constitution forbids the State from contracting a debt which, either singly or in the aggregate, shall exceed one hundred thousand dollars a year. The gentleman from Benton now tells you that the Legislature has made appropriations which fasten a debt upon the State of twentyMr. WILSON. I wish to submit my views eight thousand dollars over the amount presrib- briefly upon this subject. I will state that this new State capitol, asyed by the constitution. I do not see what ob- question of building a ject the gentleman can have in bringing forward lums, and other public buildings, was fully dis this fact in order to show that this State ought cussed by the committee before they agreed upto have more liberality, so far as State debts are on their report. It was with a view to the neconcerned, for it places the legislature and the cessity of erecting these various public buildgovernor in a very unpleasant predicament, to ings, that the committee reported this sum of say the least of it. I shall leave it for the gentleman and his republican friends to relieve themselves from it in the best way they can.

Mr. TRAER. If the gentleman will examine the record he will find that one branch of the Assembly was Democratic.

Mr. GIBSON. If that were the fact it would not alter the case at all. If the legislature through some mistake made appropriations by which the State contracted a debt of one hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars, is it not the duty of the chief executive of the State to guard against such legislation by the exercise of

operation. If the legislature will provide the ways and means, independent of a State debt, tion, but if they cannot do it, rather than fasten to build a State capitol, then I have no objeca debt upon the State, I would put up with an inferior building.

With these views I shall vote for the proposition as it comes from the hands of the committee.

one hundred thousand dollars. We wished to prevent, if possible, the legislature from commencing a set of buildings that would cost to complete them from one to two millions of dollars. We wanted to have it understood before

they were commenced, how much they would cost, and then let the people pass upon that question. Some states have commenced erecting their public buildings without limiting in the first place, the amount of expenditure, and the consequence has been, that it has cost more to complete them than was originally intended.-This was the case with the building of the new state house in Ohio, and it was found before its

Mr. TRAER. I am a little apprehensive, that the gentleman by pursuing this course will get into the same difficulty in which some of our counties have been involved. In the place of making a contract in the manner the gentle"The General Assembly shall not in any man-man speaks of, they went on and erected their ner create any debt or debts, liability or liabili- public buildings and issued warrants upon ties, which shall singly or in the aggregate, treasury for the payment of the expenses thus with any previous debts or liabilities, exceed incurred; and the consequence was, that those the sum of one hundred thousand dollars." I warants have depreciated in some cases 25 per don't understand that this means issuing the cent. I apprehend that the State will be placed in the same position if the gentleman's construction of this provision be correct; and they would have the power to go on and build a State House, issue warrants for the expenses incurred, and the consequence would be, that you might run the State millions of dollars in debt.

Mr. WILSON. The only construction that can be placed upon that article in the Constitution is, that it applies to the bonded debt of the State, and for that reason I hope the provision will be adopted just as it came from the hands of the committeee. I do not believe that $300, - Mr. WILSON. I would ask the gentleman 000 will be sufficient to cover the objects which from Benton this question: Suppose the esti have been named by the gentleman, and you mated expenses of the State for two current would have to increase the sum to a still great-years should be $300,000, and the probable er amount. If we are compelled to run the State in debt in order to meet the exigencies of the government, why not wipe away the restriction entirely, in order that the legislature may have full play?

Mr. PARVIN. I do not understand what a debt means, if the gentleman is correct in the proposition be has laid down, that the State

Thursday]

TRAER-WILSON-EDWARDS-PALMER-WINCHESTER-SKIFF-&c. [February 5th.

to make any appropriations beyond the one hundred thousand dollars, over and above the revenue estimated for the next two years. If they exceed this limit it would be unconstitutional. Mr. WILSON. I would ask the gentleman from Benton, whether these warrants, when they go out are not debts? If they are issued to the amount of three hundred thousand dollars, do they not exceed the sum prescribed in the constitution?

Mr. TRAER. I contend that the Legislature have no power to do that. If they make such an appropriation it is an unconstitutional act. If the legislature see fit to go on and make provision for building a State house, and issue warrants, which, according to the gentleman's construction would not create a debt, the banks would catch them up, and consequently they would raise the money to pay for the building of the State House, and yet the gentleman says the State would not be in debt a dollar.

Mr. WILSON. During the past session of the legislature a bill was introduced, and which passed the senate, appropriating one hundred thousand dollars for a lunatic asylum. Now, the estimated receipts of the treasury for the next two years, I understand, will be something over three hundred thousand dollars. I ask any gentleman of this convention, whether the leg islature have not the constitutional right to pass appropriations for this asylum, and other public buildings to the full amount of three hundred thousand dollars, and draw warrants upon the treasury for that amount, although the money has not yet been collected? I think that there can be no question at all about it. It is not to be presumed, that the legislature will go on and make appropriations beyond the probable receipts, but the State has a right to anticipate her revenue.

Mr. EDWARDS. I think the gentleman from Jefferson [Mr. Wilson] puts the wrong interpretation upon his own report. I think that the true meaning of the section is, that the legislature connot contract a debt beyond the amount of one hundred thousand dollars, whether it be a bonded debt or not. If he is right in his position, that it applies alone to a bonded debt, I see no difficulty in making some compromise about this matter, that will be satisfactory on all sides. My own opinion is, that the gentleman is wrong in his construction, and that according to the article he has proposed, the State cannot contract a debt of any description beyond one hundred thousand dollars. Suppose there were three hundred thousand dollars in the State Treasury. The legislature at one session may expend this sum and an additional sum of one hundred thousand dollars, a portion of which might be for incidental expenses. and a portion might be bonded debt.

It appears to me, if at the time our present constitution was adopted, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars was considered a proper limit for State indebtedness, that at this time the amount proposed by the gentleman from Cedar,

[Mr. Gower] would not be too large an amount. I am distinctly opposed to the proposition contained in the fourth section, which provides, that expenses of this character shall be submitted to a vote of the people. I am opposed to going back to the barbarous days of ancient Greece, when the whole people met for the purpose of making laws for their government. Ours is a representative form of government, and we are not compelled to look to ancient, and different forms of government for models upon which to shape our conduct. If the system be adopted, of submitting all acts passed by the legislature, to the people for their action before they become the laws or the land, the expenses of the State would run up to an enormous extent.

If the committee shall settle upon the amount of three hundred thousand dollars, as the limit of State indebtedness, I shall move to strike out the fourth section, which proposes, that all questions of this character shall be submitted to the people before they become laws.

Mr. PALMER.

I am not willing to vote for

striking out separately. I do not know but what might be induced to vote for the striking out, the motion. I do not like to make a blank until I have some idea of what it is to be filled with. I suppose it would be proper to move to strike out, and fill up at the same time, and unless the motion is put in that way I must vote against it.

if the number to be inserted was included in

The question being then taken upon the motion to strike out the words "one hundred thousand," it was agreed to upon a division—ayes, 18-nays, 9.

The question was then upon filling up the blank.

Mr. SKIFF moved to fill the blank with the words, "five hundred thousand."

Mr. WINCHESTER moved to fill the blank with the words, "two hundred and fifty thou sand."

Mr. PARVIN moved to fill the blank with the words, "three hundred thousand."

The CHAIRMAN stated that the question would be first taken upon the highest number.

Mr. SKIFF. My object in moving to insert the number "five hundred thousand" is, that it is the number that I have always favored. 1 have conversed with persons well acquainted with affairs of this kind, and my opinion has been confirmed. It has been suggested here by some members, that we should throw off limitations entirely, and let the legislature run at large in this matter, and go into debt as much as they please. Now, I am not willing to agree to that. I am in favor of having the State limited in this matter, but I do not desire to have it limited to the small amount now fixed in the constitution, of one hundred thousand dollars. We want to build a State House, and some asylums for the unfortunate, the deaf and dumb, the blind, and the still more unfortunate, the

insane; but in our present cramped condition we cannot do it.

Now, although we may levy a tax upon the people to build these institutions, and not run into debt at all, still I do not think it is good policy, or just and right, that the present generation, this year or next, should pay out their money for benefits that will be enjoyed altogether by posterity. If those to come after us are to derive the benefits from these institutions, let them pay for them. Our money is worth more than the six or ten per cent. the State would pay for a loan. If we authorize the State to go into debt to the amount of five hundred thousand dollars, and issue her bonds, bearing interest at ten per cent, those bonds can probably be sold at par, and this money can be obtained, and our charitable institutions, and the State house, can be built, and the burden will not be felt. It is not for the purpose of having bonds issued, upon which men can go to banking, or for anything of that sort. As soon as all these works are accomplished, I am in favor of having the State without any debt at all. I do not want the bonds of Iowa offered for sale, in England, Germany, New York, California, and everywhere else they can be sold. I want to have the State of Iowa out of debt as soon as possible. But I think it is only good policy, and right and just, to authorize the State, at this time, to go into debt to the amount of five hundred thousand dollars, and I trust the limitation will not be put down lower than that sum.

Mr. WILSON. I hope this amount of five hundred thousand dollars will be voted down. ❘ And I perceive there is a misapprehension in the minds of some members I have conversed with, in relation to my position upon this matter. I will state that my position is this; the State can issue her warrants to the full extent of the probable amount of her revenue for the coming year, whether two, five, or even ten millions of dollars, without coming within the operation of this article of the constitution. But should she exceed that revenue, then she is creating a debt within the contemplation of this article.

[February 5th

have the amount of this limit placed at a higher sum. For instance, the State has negotiated for the erection of an asylum, and made an appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars. Suppose that the excess of annual revenue of the State, over and above expenses, should not be one hundred thousand dollars, that is, that the current expenses of the State should consume more than all the revenue, then this appropriation of one hundred thousand dollars for this asylum would exceed the amount fixed by the constitution as it now stands, for the limit beyond which the State may not go into debt. And as the State has engaged in these works. and as it may need a greater extension than afforded by this limitation, I can see no possible danger in increasing it to the full amount proposed by the gentleman from Jasper, (Mr. Skiff.)

And I would state farther to this committee, that owing to some unfortunate circumstances connected with the management of our school fund, the suggestion has been made, and it has met with decided approbation in all quarters, that the State itself shall absorb the school fund. Gentlemen will understand the object of this: it is to put the school fund in a situation where it will be forever safe. And if the State borrows the school fund, there is a debt at once of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. We must therefore increase the limits, in order to enable the State to carry out this idea. The question for us to consider-and I would put it to the chairman of the committee (Mr. Wilson,) if it be not so-is, whether it would not be better for us to establish a reasonable limit within which the legislature may act in making these appropriations, and within which the bonds of the State may be given, and a debt secured at once, than to place the legislature in a position where they are called upon from the necessities of the case, to make an appropriation which will exceed the revenue of the State more than one hundred thousand dollars; and thereby forcing them to exceed their constitutional limits. or let the State suffer in her most vital interests: Most certainly, no man will pretend to say, that if the general assembly should make an appropriation that would exceed the constitutional limits here fixed, any citizen of the State would wish parties, to which the State should become thereby indebted for these improvements, to lose this amount; but would rather desire that the State should pay it. It would become a debt of honor, and all we seek to do is to make what would be a debt of honor, a bonded debt from the beginning. We desire to allow the State sufficient scope to carry on these works of charity, generosity, humanity, that are demand

Mr. CLARKE, of Henry. I think I appreciate fully the remarks of the chairman of the committee on State debts, and understand clearly his position, and his idea of the State running into debt. As I understand him, his idea was this; that the State might now go on and make appropriations, when there was even nothing in the treasury, in anticipation of the incoming revenue. Say that the revenue should be three hundred thousand dollars, and the State should make appropriations for five hundred thousand dollars. Then she would have gone into debt the one hundred thousand dollars allowed by this constitution, besides having the three hund-ed by the inhabitants of the State, and to let red thousand dollars of the revenue, and the other one hundred thousand dollars would be held in abeyance, because it would be to that extent, that the State would have exceeded her constitutional power. Now if there is any necessity for the State to go into debt beyond the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, we should

them be carried on economically, without being cramped. That is the question: whether the bonds of the State shall be issued at once for funds to carry on these works, or whether the legislature shall be forced to go beyond their constitutional limits, and have the honor of the State only pledged for the payment of the debt.