lated to foster factious misrule rather than promote the ends of good government. The measure was not conceived in the pure spirit of philanthropy, but was designed to secure the success of selfish and mercenary party objects. Its authors did not intend to bestow upon foreigners the elective franchise merely as an affectionate boon, but to offer it as a bribe for their votes. If the act of opposing a measure designed expressly for such an object can properly be said to evince hostility to the genuine doctrine of universal free suffrage, then perhaps a small portion of the Whig as well as of the Locofoco party may be charged with having opposed that doctrine in some extreme cases-but not otherwise. In their anxious efforts to show that the Whigs as a party are opposed to free suffrage, our opponents have always failedwill ever fail: for they strive by sophistry to establish a falsehood.

JOHN Y. SMITH DENOUNCED

[September 1, 1846]

MR. EDITOR: Strange events are transpiring around us, and it seems that they deserve a passing notice. Whether the fact may be attributed to the influence of locality, or to a series of singular coincidences, it is a fact that Madison is peculiarly distinguished by the preeminent hauteur of its corps editorial.

Do you ask to what I allude? Let me answer your question by asking one. Have you seen the Argus-the rainbow of literature-the choice excerpt of all that is beautiful in the editorial horizon, or magniloquent on or off the stage— the able and efficient advocate of the free-trade theory? You have, you must have seen it, you "take the papers, and cannot plead ignorance of the being of that prodigy. To let it pass without notice would be worse than a blunder-a crime!

I have just arisen from a perusal of the haughty reply of the editor of that sheet to interrogatories of a "self-consti

tuted committee" who had the unblushing impudence to ask of him his "opinions" upon certain questions relating to our future state constitution.2 The committee (self-constituted) after reading his condescending reply, must have felt their own importance dwindle down to an atom, and with uplifted hands exclaim:

"Upon what meat has this our Caesar fed, that he has grown so great of late?"

What business is it of theirs whether the aforesaid editor believes this or that? Whether he is in favor of, or opposed to? The packed convention knew their business-and acting as their superior judgment dictated, asserted that principle was a matter of little or no account.

The sang-froid with which this "committee" thrusts itself upon the notice of J. Y. Smith and other Democrats par excellence is truly astounding-astounding even among the thousand miracles in that line which locofocoism has scattered far and near for the edification of those who are silly enough to dream of the possibility of human perfection, in the attributes of honor and modesty with which this "committee" is so plentifully endowed.

The "committee" probably were not aware that they had started a spirit which, like Banquo's ghost, "would never down."

Dizzy with his unexpected elevation, his weak brain forgot to look forward, and prattled prospectively, as chance or habit dictated. In him the "committee" beheld a newlyinstalled exponent of an old and corrupt faction, glittering with the spoils of victory, and destitute of all other adornment.

The "committee" need not be perplexed with this phenomenon-this magnificent example of political knavery, unlimited and unqualified. Other and better men have been foiled in endeavors to solve the enigma. He is in market for the purchase of all the sweltering rottenness of the land, and for the sale of himself, the whole included, to that party whose

2 For the reply of John Y. Smith see post, 402.

foe he has been for several of the most consistent years of his eminently consistent life.

Gentlemen of the "committee," lower your peake as becomes you, and allow me to congratulate you upon your happy choice in the selection of the once Whig orator to lead your column, and the distinguished figure you make in his procession.

Who will dare to point the [finger] of shame at you? Your good standing as citizens renders you obnoxious to the charge of hyprocrisy.

The people, and you know it, have no right to question Mr. Smith as to his views. That would be "dogmatical," "mandatory," and "menacing"-a compromise of his dignity to answer their impertinent questions. And there is much common sense in taking this position. Has he not for some time past officiated as the high priest of locofocoism? Has he not assumed all the various political hues the mind ever conceived of? Whig? Abolitionist? Locofoco? "The committee may not be aware" of these facts, but the people know all about him. A man who has ever lived that he might enjoy the spoils, who changes his opinions with every full of the moon, and knows no rule for political action but the rule of expediency, is generally well known to the people.

They wonder that such a man should talk about "established party principles." But they are not surprised to see him advocating today one set of principles, and tomorrow condemning the children of his adoption.

We record the opinion of the committee and of all honorably disposed citizens, when we say that such a man is not to be trusted with an election to frame our state constitution. A station of the highest political moment―a station involving the destiny of Wisconsin so long as she remains one of the confederacy.

K.

In the original article the cut of a hand with forefinger extended appears at this point.

"A VOTER" STATES HIS VIEWS

[September 1, 1846]

The "committee," consisting of "B. Holt & others," is in blast, and through their candidates are speaking forth the views of "the party," and surpassingly honored and edified am I thereby.

The story of Aladdin's Lamp, or Sindbad, the Sailor, possesses far less of amusement than the reply of our Locofoco candidates to the committee, in answer to interrogatories put to them by "B. Holt & others." The reply of one George B. Smith (who was nominated to save the party from a split) was very well written, and possessed evident marks of superior statesmanship. From its reading, one would have supposed that its author had just returned from at least twenty years of service in Congress. "My opinions," says this young embryo, "are so well known, that it is useless to express them here." Modest and unassuming young man, did you lay the corner-stone for the Democratic edifice? Are you the projector and father of the Locofoco creed? Are your opinions so well known, that a repetition of them is altogether unnecessary? Such a rare specimen of modesty ought to be rewarded-and the possessor elevated, at one bold push, to the highest niche in the temple of political fame. Sun Prairie was fortunate in adopting so worthy a sire to lead her sons and daughters to eminence and fame.

Next comes John Y. Smith-the modern Sampson-the political Hercules-and with one dash of his mighty pen, carries away the slender foundation on which this "B. Holt & others" had planted their hopes of political salvation. He denies their right to interrogate him, and without much ceremony bids them mind their own business. He owns, however, that he is opposed to banks or monopolies of any kind, opposed to an elective judiciary, opposed to the reservation of the farmers' homestead, etc., etc. On the whole, I think

J. Y. Smith was sincere when he published to the world that he was not related, politically, to "one G. B. Smith." I commend him for his honesty in this particular.

Benj. Fuller, Esq., comes next with his manifesto. How it will suit the views of the party remains to be seen. He acknowledges what Mr. Smith protests against, to wit: the right of the committee to interrogate him. Question I relates to banks. Read his answer:

I am not in favor of the establishment of a bank, etc., unless the corporation of the bank gives as good security, in real estate, for the redemption of their notes (aside from specie actually in their vaults) as they would ask for the loan of money.

I would place a prohibition in the constitution against the incorporation of any bank or banks, unless so restrained, and I would prohibit in the constitution the establishment of any branch of a bank chartered elsewhere.

We can have as good a constitution, as good a currency and credit as any people in the world; therefore I hope the people will not delegate power to the legislature to make "wild-cat" money, or to do anything to injure the credit of the state, so that if we have bank notes at all, we shall have such as people will be proud to see Wisconsin on the face of it.

Here is an avowal in direct opposition to the creed of the Locofoco party in Wisconsin, as expounded by the Argus. The Argus man says that if he is elected he will oppose any kind of banks; Mr. Fuller will vote for them on certain conditions. He is opposed only to "wild-cat" issues-and in the name of common sense who is not?

Mr. Fuller says he "would" impose restrictions on the elective franchise. He wishes to let the people know that if "they are convicted of a state's prison offense, they forfeit what every American holds dear"—the privilege of voting, we suppose he means. Strange doctrine, that! A most explicit and full reply to the question of the committee! I am not prepared to say whether Mr. Fuller means to evade the question, or that he does not comprehend the meaning.