chooses to nominate a candidate who comes "reeking" from the ranks of another party, every member of the party is bound to pronounce him a Democrat, good and true, and never call his political consistency in question. We cannot subscribe to such slavish doctrines, nor recognize the principle that the party can do no wrong. But we are told, if conventions are unfairly managed, the people are alone to blame, because it [is] to their business to attend the primary meeting and prevent unfair management. As well might it be said that the people are responsible for every theft that is committed by those who prowl about in the dark to do mischief. The truth is, the great body of the people have other employments than standing sentinels to watch the movements of those whose only business is political intrigue and chicanery. But we shall be asked, What do we gain by refusing to recognize as binding the doings of the Democratic convention, and by uniting with the other political creeds? We answer, in the first place, we deem it the duty of every honest man never to sanction a wrong, because by sanctioning a wrong we are guilty with the wrongdoers. The intrigue of getting up the convention of the twenty-fifth ult. was a gross wrong, and the action of the convention itself was a wrong, and if Democrats continue to countenance such wrongs then will such wrongs continue to multiply. Will it be said the ticket nominated at the people's convention is comprised of opposite political creeds? The same may be said of the ticket nominated at the Democratic convention, if the authority which we have referred to may be relied upon. We are frequently told by our Democratic friends that it is of vital importance to have a Democratic majority in the convention to form a state constitution, in order that our state constitution may have the full benefits of Democratic principles. However important it may be to have Democratic majorities in bodies elevated to power by the political votes of the people, we cannot see that it has any particular application to the business of forming a state constitution. The convention is not expected to form a constitution for any political party, but for the whole people. Besides, who can tell what the views of the Democratic party are, in relation to the fundamental points which are to be embodied in the constitution? So far as we can judge from the sentiments put forth in the public prints by members of the party, there are almost every sort of opinions entertained. Some Democrats are for an elective judiciary, others are opposed. Some want the constitution should prohibit the legislature from granting bank charters; others want no such thing. Some want biennial legislative sessions; others oppose it. Some want the common law thrown away; others want to retain it. Some go for exempting a portion of real estate from seizure from debt; others go against it. Some want the lawyers should be a privileged profession; others want no exclusive privileges. Some want the state prohibited from contracting debts except for extraordinary emergencies; others want no such prohibition. Some want persons of color to be voters; others sneer at giving them such a privilege. And so of every question which enters into the formation of a state constitution; there is the same diversity of opinions among Democrats. Who, then, as we said before, will undertake to speak for the party, and say what are its doctrines in relation to the constitution? The Democrats of this county have put forth no sentiments; the candidates may be in favor of certain great measures which the people desire, or they may not; nobody can tell; every voter is in the dark. Such is not the case with the people's convention; that body put forth some essential principles which the candidates will be expected to carry out if elected. But we ask again, Is the formation of a state constitution a party measure? Let us appeal to facts. The delegates now assembled to form a new constitution in the state of New York were, with few exceptions, elected on strict party grounds. That convention has now been in session three months; the only question in that convention which assumed a party character was the election of its officers. It is an undeniable fact that, among the vast number of propositions that have been discussed and voted upon in that body, not one was discussed or voted upon on party grounds. Democrats have been arrayed against Democrats and Whigs against Whigs upon every important question pertaining to the constitution, which has for twelve years past been agitated in that body. In both of the conventions to form a constitution for Iowa scarcely a single question divided the convention on party grounds. The same is true of the late convention in Missouri, assembled to form a new constitution for that state. We say, then, there are no facts in the history of past conventions to form state constitutions which justify the assumption that it is so very important that there should be a political majority of our party in order to obtain a good constitution. The truth is, the most important matters in a constitution are not such as divide the great political parties of the day; the organization of the judiciary department of the government is by far the most important to the people. Yet who can tell what is the Democratic doctrine, or what the Whig doctrine, or what that of any other party, in relation to the arrangement or organization of the judiciary department? If the people have any particular wishes they desire to have carried out and incorporated into the constitution, their only safety is to ascertain the views of the candidates for whom they vote. To vote for a Whig or Democrat simply because he is a Whig or Democrat secures no definite feature in the constitution. None of the exciting questions which enter into national politics have anything to do with the formation of a state constitution. The subject of the tariff, the public lands, the sub-treasury, the Texas question, the Oregon question, the Mexican War, the army, the navy, etc., etc., are all entirely foreign to the business of framing a constitution for the state of Wisconsin. To the facts and views which we have here presented we ask the unprejudiced attention of our Democratic friends. If our statements are untrue and our positions unfairly taken, all we ask is that they be met and disproved by facts and arguments. Those who treat the positions we have taken only with denunciation or ridicule show the weakness of their cause, for if we are wrong the wrong should be shown by fair reasoning. The constitution about to be framed for the state of Wisconsin is of vital interest to every citizen; the benefits it will confer or the evils it will inflict will probably last for many years to come. We entreat every voter for once to rise above the consideration of mere party names, especially as we have shown that party has nothing to do in the work. Let us for once hold the interests of our country dearer to ourselves and to our children than a mere political triumph. We are about to adopt a government for the whole people, where those of every party, sect, condition, or birth may enjoy its general blessings. Let us then discharge our duty as becomes freemen-unshackled by the mandates of political demagogues and party cliques, let us act independently, fearlessly, and honestly. T. NEWELL, J. R. PHELPS, N. B. The above exposition of sentiments was written at the suggestion of Democrats in different parts of the county, and intended for their signatures; but, in consequence of the want of time to submit it to their approval before the paper publishing it goes to press, we are compelled to let it go abroad without being signed as intended. Under these circumstances, no one will be held responsible for the statements and sentiments put forth but ourselves. TERRITORIAL CONVENTION [September 26, 1846] On Monday the fifth of October the convention will assemble at the capitol for the purpose of forming a constitution for the state of Wisconsin. The transactions of the convention will be of far greater moment to the people than any representative body which has ever been convened in the territory, or any which will probably be assembled for a number of years to come. The future destiny of Wisconsin, as relates to its political existence, and the character of its governmental institutions will be essentially controlled by the instrument which shall be framed and adopted as the charter of the people's rights. However imperfect or impolitic may have been our legislation since our territorial existence, it could not be productive of any lasting inconvenience for the reason that it was only temporary. The law-making power was exercised to subserve present wants and necessities; it was like attempts to patch and mend a garment of little value, and make it do until an entire new one should be obtained-until we should throw off our territorial habilaments, and pass from our minority to state independence. But the convention is to frame for us an instrument of a permanent and lasting character—an instrument which cannot be changed every year, as the convenience or good of the body politic may require. It is probable that nearly a quarter of a century will pass away before another convention will assemble to revise or make a new constitution. The result of the convention, therefore, is one of surpassing importance, and we confess ourselves rather surprised that so little real interest appears to be manifested. Every taxpayer, every friend of good government, of morality and law has an interest of no small magnitude at stake. Previous to the meeting of the constitutional convention in the |