DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

[August 8, 1846]

At the Whig convention held in this village on the twentieth ult., resolutions were adopted purporting to set forth the principles of the Whig party.14 This declaration of principles in many of its features so closely resembled the doctrines for which we had ever contended, and was so diametrically opposed to all of the precepts and practices of that party heretofore, as to lead to the conclusion that they had abandoned their old ground as untenable and impolitic, but being ashamed to acknowledge their error individually and join the party that had ever sustained the right, they were attempting to take possession of our ground by force of numbers and officer it with their own men. Had we believed that they were honest in their professions, and would carry out in good faith the measures which they avowed, it would have left us nothing to contend for but individual preferences for men a matter of no general importance where the principles were right. But we doubted the good faith of these declarations, and subsequent events have strengthened these doubts into tangible certainty that they were but words signifying nothing-the merest clap-trap to cheat the unwary into support of men, who, once in power, would use it to advance and sustain their real sentiments. We make no charge of as grave a character as that of duplicity and fraud against any man or body of men without having the most positive proof to sustain it. In this case we will condemn them out of their own mouths. The second of the resolutions to which we refer reads as follows:

"Second. A direct and positive prohibition against the granting by the legislature of any charter for banking purposes, or the passage of any law whereby any monopoly or

14 For this statement of Whig principles, see ante, 154.

any special exclusive rights and privileges may be conferred for private purposes."

The Madison Express, the accredited organ of the Whig party in this county, in an editorial in that paper of August 4 says:

The universal Whig party hold it as an incontrovertible tenet of their political creed that a mixed currency of specie and bank notes (convertible into specie at the will of the holder) is indispensable to our individual and national prosperity; the steadfast support of our commercial enterprise; the efficient propagator of industry in all its manifold branches: and that to banish the paper circulation entirely from the Union, would be not only to curse the whole people with those fearful evils which resulted so disastrously to them from the curtailment of the currency during the reign of Martin Van Buren, but would ruin their fortunes, beggar their families, and crush their fondest hopes of happiness forever.

Comment is unnecessary. A few individuals in the party, for effect, declare one thing-the organ and exponent of the party declares its opposite, and all the previous acts of the party sustain the declarations of the latter. Would it be safe to follow the new light, so dim and uncertain? But to continue the sixth resolution makes the following declaration:

"Sixth. The extension of the right of suffrage to every male resident above the age of twenty-one years in the territory at the time of the adoption of the constitution, being a citizen of the United States, and thereafter to every male resident above the age of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the United States, or having declared his intention to become so."

When this resolution was before the convention a member moved to amend it so as to read "every white male, etc." A. L. Collins Esq., who reported the resolutions, rejected the offered amendment with indignation, and asserted the equality of the negroes to the whites in such a manner as to give the impression to everyone who heard his speech that the resolution was intended to make no distinction of color

but to take them all in. Under this impression the vote was taken and carried with but one dissenting voice. There was no dispute in regard to this interpretation of the resolution until its publication. In the meantime much disaffection was exhibited in the ranks on account of it, and serious apprehensions were entertained of an open rupture. In the face of all these well-known facts, the party organ has the cool assurance to pronounce the representation that the Whigs of Dane are in favor of negro suffrage "a wilful fabrication." From the cross-shooting in their own ranks it would puzzle the keenest optics to see what they are aiming at. A reasonable conclusion would be, however, that they meant to hit all round.

By the reading of the resolution, it would exclude all from a participation in the government at the time of the adoption of the constitution, who are not citizens of the United States; but thereafter, at some future time, they will be willing to take in, on their simple declaration of intention to become citizens, persons of every nation and tongue. Give them the power first, and perhaps they will be magnanimous in the use of it.

One more incident in connection with the convention and we have done. The Express asks, "When, where, and how have the Whigs ever opposed universal suffrage?" We answer in the state of Rhode Island they opposed it by the sword, by chains and imprisonment, and the Whig convention that declares for universal suffrage endorsed that opposition by placing upon their ticket N. J. Tompkins, a Rhode Island Algerine, who makes an open boast of his opposition to Dorr and his patriot band; and this, too, over Mr. Anderson, a Whig of more liberal views. In view of all these inconsistencies, are the people willing to trust to mere professions unsustained by a single fact?

EXECUTIVE VETO

[August 15, 1846]

The New York state convention has agreed to the provisions of the present constitution in allowing two-thirds of all the members present to repass a bill after its having received the executive veto.

This veto question was very seriously debated by the framers of the national constitution, and many of the statesmen of that day were opposed to granting this right to the president; yet, whatever may have been the reason of the introduction of this provision at the first formation of the government, or the necessity of continuing the same in the federal constitution, we are satisfied that as to questions of mere state policy or expediency the governor should not be possessed of a negative power that can thwart the will of the people as expressed by the legislature elected by them. In the organization of the federal government the senators are the representatives of their respective states and under the control of the state legislatures. To prevent encroachments of the states upon the several powers, among other reasons, this veto authority is given the executive that he may be able to oppose their unconstitutional intrusions upon the rights of the whole. Under state governments the senate and house of representatives are both elected directly by the people and alike represent their will. These men come up annually "fresh from the people," and are as well qualified to represent their varied interests as the governor possibly can be. In fact, as to mere matters of expediency, they of needs must be better exponents of the public will. If, however, they should err, the error can be corrected by a majority of the next legislature, instead of being required to elect twothirds to pass the bill at the next session over the objections of the same executive, and we believe that a majority under our form of government should everywhere be respected. In

nearly every law passed by a state legislature no constitutional question can arise, but if so, let the point be submitted to the judiciary, who, from their education and pursuits are better prepared than the executive to determine constitutional objections to its validity. In nine times out of ten the members of the legislature are as well versed in such matters as the governor, and he may veto a bill upon constitutional grounds when his objections are not sound-which under the system in some of the states deprives the majority of the friends of a bill of their right to enact it as a law. In nine or ten states of this Republic the whole power rests in the representatives of the people where we believe it should always remain; the governor signs the bill and it is his duty to see the law faithfully administered. This we believe should be the only power conferred on him under state constitutions.

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES INTERROGATED

To George B. Smith, Esq:

[August 15, 22, 1846]

DEAR SIR: The undersigned, having been appointed by the Democratic Convention to draft an address to the electors of Dane County setting forth the principles of our party, have, on mature deliberation, come to the conclusion that we shall best arrive at the true opinions of the delegates on the much mooted questions embraced in the following interrogations, by allowing each candidate to express his own sentiments on them, in his own language. The circumstances in which the party is placed [make necessary], in our opinion, decisive and categorical answers to all of them, and nothing short of such answers can harmonize the party and give to you the united vote of the same; you will therefore please inform us and the public whether,

First. You are in favor of the establishment of a bank or banks either for the issue or deposit of paper money in the state of Wisconsin? Or will you place a prohibition in the constitution of Wisconsin against the incorporation of any bank or banks, by the legislature of the state, or the establishment of any branch of a bank chartered elsewhere?