the law screw is applied a few times, and all is gone-the little pittance which would enable the poor devil to subsist himself and family, and call himself a man,—his log hut, his last cow, his last bed are gone—and himself, wife, and children are in the streets. Where next do you find them? The toiling, drudging slaves of some lordling-perhaps of the very man who has ruined them. How, you ask, is this to be remedied? Exempt to the poorer class from the merciless graspings of the rich enough to keep them from utter destitution and want: that, though poor, they may still be free. Exempt to every man from his creditor's grasp the clothes which cover his nakedness, the house that covers his head, and his necessary furniture, the tools and implements of his trade or calling, a sufficiency of land on which to dig a living, and enough of its products to live upon. And then, though poor, he may be as free and independent as the millionaire.

It is the policy of every republic to keep all its citizens as nearly equal as it is possible for them to be; to give to all equal political privileges-for that is power; to give to all free access to common schools-for knowledge is power; and to prevent wealth from accumulating in the hands of the few -for wealth is power.

How necessary, then, is it in adopting a state constitution, that there should be provisions to protect the poorer and weaker classes of the community against the rich and powerful. Some men will tell you that they are in favor of all this, but, they say, put no such things in the constitution— that it will lumber it up too much, and that it is best to leave such things for the legislature. Men who talk thus are aristocrats. They know that such provisions in the constitution are permanent, but that an act of the legislature is subject to repeal whenever the wealth of the state may demand it. And that they will demand it is as certain as that the big fish will devour the little ones.

FREE SUFFRAGE

[August 25, 1846]

The Argus of last week has a long article in reply to our interrogatories relative to Whig opposition to universal suffrage. The Argus asserts and attempts to prove that the Whig party has made such opposition, but its effort is about as bungling and unsuccessful as was that of the Democrat. The editor first cites as proof a Native American movement in the city of New York, and misrepresents it as having been "a great demonstration got up by the Whigs"; and then in order to make the Whigs appear responsible for that movement he quotes a paragraph from the Albany Daily Citizen and declares that Native organ to be "a rank Whig, high tariff paper!" The editor very well knew the demonstration he speaks of to have been a Native American and not a Whig demonstration, and also that the Albany Daily Citizen was a thorough-going Native American paper. Hence this paltry trick of his to saddle the responsibility of the acts of a political squad, consisting largely of Locofoco dissenters, upon the Whig party, is seen to be destitute of facts to sustain it. It is rather too stale a joke to be told to people of intelligence and discernment.

The Argus next endeavors to show that the Whigs opposed the principle of free suffrage by refusing to aid the Locofocos in 1843-4 in making a radical change in the established method of choosing public officers. This change was proposed, not from any motive of benefiting the mass of [the] community-not from a disinterested desire on the part of its abettors to redress a public grievance-but it was designed solely as a temporary expedient to be used on a particular occasion for the exclusive benefit of Locofoco officeseeking demagogues. If a portion of the Whigs opposed the measure, it was only because they considered it a delusive scheme intended to subserve sinister purposes, and calcu

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. 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]3 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.