This arose in the first instance upon a proposition of Mr. BAKER for a separate submission of an article giving the right of suffrage to "colored male citizens." The proposition was discussed at great length, and defeated by a vote of 47 to 51.

The article was then adopted substantially as reported by the committee, except that voting by ballot was substituted for a viva voce vote, as recommended by the committee.

Afterward a resolution was introduced by Mr. RANDALL for the separate submission of a separate article, which provided that all colored male citizens should have the right to vote for all elective officers, and after being amended so as to provide that they should also be eligible to all offices, was adopted by a vote of 53 to 46. The delegates who changed votes on this question were Messrs. BURCHARD, GRAHAM, HACKETT, JANSSEN, and WILSON.

THOMAS P. BURNETT, one of the delegates from Grant county, was one of the most distinguished members of the convention.

Detained at his residence by the sickness of his wife and mother, he did not take his seat until the 14th of October, and remained only ten days, when he was called to his home by their more serious illness.

On the first day of November his mother died at the age of seventy-three, and four days later, on the fifth, Mr. BURNETT and his wife both, on the same day, yielded to the same fatal disease, and their mortal remains were buried in one common grave.

It was not until Tuesday, the 10th of November - so slow were the means of communication at that time between the Capital and his secluded home that Mr. J. ALLEN BARBER made the announcement to the convention of the death of his illustrious colleague.

The usual resolutions of respect and sorrow were adopted and as a further mark of respect the convention adjourned over until the following Thursday.

THOMAS PENDLETON BURNETT was born in Pittsylvania county, Virginia, September 3, 1800. When he was but a child his father migrated to Kentucky. He studied law, was admitted to the bar, and commenced practice at Paris, Kentucky. In October, 1829, he was appointed sub-Indian agent at Prairie du Chien, and removed there in the following month of June.

In December, 1836, he married LUCIA MARIA, second daughter of Rev. ALFRED BRUNSON, then about twenty years of age. In the spring of 1837 he changed his residence to Cassville in Grant county, and soon after removed to a large and valuable farm, which he had made in the town of Patch Grove, where he continued to live until his death.

On the 27th of October, the committee on the organization and functions of the judiciary, in the formation of which there had been so much trouble, by Mr. C. M. BAKER, its chairman, submitted an extended report, accompanied by an article on the subject, which was proposed as part of the constitution.

The report says:

"The leading features of the system proposed for adoption are briefly these:

First, a supreme bench composed of three justices distinct from the circuit judges. Second, five circuit courts subject to increase or modification as the Legislature shall deem expedient.

Third, the union of law and equity powers in the judges of the supreme and circuit courts, reserving to the Legislature the right to establish a distinct court of chancery whenever it shall be deemed expedient.

Fourth, interchange of circuits by the circuit judges, so that no judge shall preside in the same circuit more than one year in five successive years; and

Fifth, the election of the supreme and circuit court judges by the people, the former by general ticket, the latter by districts."

The largest part of the report was devoted to presenting the arguments in favor of an elective judiciary.

Two members of the committee, Messrs. GEORGE B. SMITH and O'CONNOR, submitted the next day a minority report, which differed from the majority report in only one very important feature.

It proposed a separate supreme court of three judges, elected by the State at large, and five district judges, one to be elected in each of the five districts, and that moreover there should be elected in each county, two or three associate judges, and that the district judge and the associate judges should form the district court of that county, and that the associate judges in each county should have jurisdiction of all probate matters.

It was not until the 19th of November that the articles relative to the judiciary came up for consideration. They were then considered in committee of the whole where they were discussed and amended for four days and some very material changes were made.

The sentiment in favor of an elective judiciary proved to be so strong, that only a small part of the time was spent upon that question. The vote in favor of it was 78 to 20. The twenty were Messrs. ATWOOD, J. M. BABCOCK, BAIRD, BRACE, CLOTHIER, DRAKE, ELMORE, HACKETT, HUNKINS, GEO. HYER, KELLOGG, PRENTISS, RANDALL, ROGAN, RYAN, MARSHALL M. STRONG, MOSES M. STRONG, TWEEDY, VLIET and WILLARD.

The principal controversy was, whether there should be a separate Supreme Court, or whether the circuit judges should constitute the Supreme Court. This was known as the nisi prius system.

These differences were adjusted by a proposition which was finally. adopted by a vote of 77 to 12, in this form:

For the term of five years from the first election of the judges of the circuit courts, and thereafter until the Legislature shall otherwise provide, the judges of the several circuit courts shall be judges of the Supreme Court," etc.

Mr. RYAN moved, while this proposition was pending, to strike out the "five year" provision, so as to make the nisi prius system permanent and unchangeable.

This amendment was lost by a vote of 30 to 58.

It was proposed to strike out the provision in these words: "No election for judges, or for any single judge, shall be held within thirty days of any other general election."

The motion to strike out was lost by a vote of 30 to 63. The article as finally amended was adopted by a vote of 86 to 13. The thirteen were Messrs. BAIRD, J. ALLEN BARBER, CLOTHIER, COXE, CRAWFORD, ELMORE, GEORGE HYER, PRENTISS, RANDALL, RYAN, MOSES M. STRONG, TWEEDY, and WILLARD.

Wisconsin was a pioneer in many reforms. Perhaps the most noteworthy of novelties in its first attempt to adopt a State constitution, was the incorporation into the fundamental law of a provision securing to married women the right to their separate property, and to debtors the exemption of a homestead from the claims of their creditors.

The article upon these subjects met with strenuous opposition. With some, because they were opposed to the ideas which it embodied; with others, who, while they would have consented to the experiment as a legal enactment, liable to repeal, were unwilling to adopt it as a constitutional provision; while still others objected that the two ideas, of married women's rights and homestead exemption, had no

necessary connection or association with each other, and that incorporating the two in one article was a species of "log rolling" which ought not to be permitted.

The article as finally adopted was as follows:

"SECTION 1. All property, real and personal, of the wife, owned by her at the time of her marriage, and also that acquired by her after marriage, by gift, devise, descent, or otherwise than from her husband, shall be her separate property. Laws shall be passed providing for the registry of the wife's property, and more clearly defining the rights of the wife thereto, as well as to property held by her with her husband, and for carrying out the provisions of this section. Where the wife has a separate property from that of the husband the same shall be liable for the debts of the wife contracted before marriage.

"SECTION 2. Forty acres of land to be selected by the owner thereof, or the homestead of a family not exceeding forty acres, which said land or homestead shall not be included within any city or village, and shall not exceed in value one thousand dollars or instead thereof (at the option of the owner) any lot or lots in any city or village, being the homestead of a family and not exceeding in value one thousand dollars, owned and occupied by any resident of this State, shall not be subject to forced sale on execution for any debt or debts growing out of or founded upon contract, either express or implied, made after the adoption of this constitution. Provided, That such exemption shall not affect in any manner any mechanic's or laborer's lien or any mortgage thereon lawfully obtained, nor shall the owner, if a married man, be at liberty to alienate such real estate unless by consent of the wife."

While the article was under consideration a substitute for the first section was offered by Mr. TWEEDY, providing that the Legislature should enact suitable laws to effect the objects of the section. This was defeated by a vote of

43 to 56.

Much controversy arose as to the phraseology of the second section, and several different forms of expression were proposed and rejected, but to MR. NOGGLE belongs the honor of proposing the form of words in which it was adopted.

No separate vote was taken upon each of the two sections, but the entire article was passed by a vote of €1 to 34.

Mr. MARSHALL M. STRONG had been a strenuous opponent of this article and of each of its component parts, and had proposed several amendments to it which were rejected. After recording his vote against it as one of the 34, he left the hall of the convention to return no more, and on the evening of that day the President presented his resignation as a member of the convention.

The resignation contained no reason, but it was generally understood that the passage of this article was the immediate moving cause. At any rate, from that time forward he opposed the adoption of the constitution, and the adoption

of this article was a prominent cause assigned for his opposition.

It was provided in the schedule, which formed a part of the constitution, that it should be submitted to a vote of the electors on the first Tuesday of April, 1847.

The history given of the first convention is limited to the subjects of banks and banking, negro suffrage, judiciary and the article in relation to the rights of married women and homestead exemption. This is not because the interest of the convention was confined to these, but because they constituted the principal points of attack of those who opposed the ratification of the constitution and succeeded in defeating it.

The convention adjourned on the 16th December, and during the remaining two weeks of the year nothing occurred of sufficient importance to be worthy of record.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

TERRITORY OF WISCONSIN 1847.

There was a very great contrast between the anticipations of a change from a Territorial to a State government that pervaded the people of the Territory in the early part of the year 1846, and those which existed at the beginning of the year 1847.

Then little doubt existed that a change was imminent, and the vote in April of five eighths of the voters in favor of it seemed to insure it. As soon as circumstances would admit a convention to form a constitution was held, the result and many of the details of whose proceedings have been given.

Now, at the advent of what had been generally supposed would be the last year of Territorial government, a great change and with many a great disappointment had fallen upon the spirit of their anticipations.

The resignation a few days before the adjournment of