from the learned author of the Commentaries on American law-the Blackstone of the United States.

Many may dissent from the views of Chancellor Kent, but all must respect his opinion. He says (Commentaries, I, 291) 8

So much for the authorities and precedents cited, and for the views of Chancellor Kent on the subject of the judiciary. The advocates for elective judges may quote the constitutions of Mississippi, Vermont, Rhode Island, and two or three other states, but they will hardly desire to weigh them in the balance against the great majority of the most important states in the Union and the Constitution of the United States with them.

It is true it is possible we might have good judges by electing them for a term of years. The people may have discrimination enough to choose their judges, and virtue and magnanimity enough to support them in the administration of the laws upon all occasions and in all emergencies-but it is asking too much, and risking too much. It is possible the people may always do their duty, but, as the authority I have so freely quoted from says, "all plans of government which suppose the people will always act with wisdom and integrity, are plainly Utopian, and contrary to uniform experience. Government must be framed for man as he is, and not for man as he would be if he were free from vice."

There may be many men in Wisconsin who as judges (under any circumstances) would act honestly and uprightly. But, I will repeat, it is asking too much and risking too much. We have nothing superior to men in Wisconsin, of which to make judges (except the ladies; but although they are all judges by immemorial prescription, with jurisdiction. universal and supreme, yet they will only preside—whenever they please) and therefore we cannot expect superhuman virtue and consistency.

Here follows a long citation from Kent's Commentaries, which we omit to print.

Suppose a judge is elected for a term of say six, eight, or ten years. As soon as he begins to feel easy on the bench, he begins to think of a reëlection; and it is perfectly natural that he should. Having left, perhaps, a lucrative business for a seat on the bench, he will be anxious to preserve his seat, for he will know that his former business has been flowing in new channels, and he may conceive that it might be rather difficult to get it back. As time rolls on, instead of applying himself to study and increasing his store of legal knowledge, he must begin to make political capital. He must read the newspapers, instead of "the authorities." Instead of getting acquainted with reports and decisions he must get acquainted with politicians and wirepullers; and instead of holding communion with "the illustrious dead" in his library, he must hold communion with his "fellow citizens" in the streets.

I do not say that the power of appointing by and with the advice and consent of the upper legislative chamber is not liable to abuse. The question is not what plan is perfect, for perfection in unattainable, but what plan is the best and most conducive to the public good and to the interest and honor of the state. And experience and reason seem to concur in forcing the conviction that a judiciary appointed by the executive with the advice and consent of the upper branch of the legislature, each judge holding office during good behavior, or until he should have attained the age of sixty-five or seventy years, and having secured to him, by law, a liberal, stated, yearly compensation, which should not be reduced during his continuance in office, is the best that is known, and the safest a people can have.

ORMOND.

VIEWS OF DANIEL FITZSIMMONS

[August 19, 1846]

To John A. Brown Esq., Editor of the Milwaukee Courier: DEAR SIR: You will very much oblige me and a very large portion of the Democracy of this city and county by publishing the following statement of our sentiments and wishes in relation to our state constitution.

To the Democracy of the territory of Wisconsin-I particularly address myself to that large and respectable portion of them who are anxious to extend the right of suffrage to the adopted citizen in the shortest period that has been allowed by the most liberal states in the Union, Illinois, for example. Fellow citizens, a crisis has arrived in the history of our territory, when it behooves every honest, liberal, and patriotic man to do his duty fearlessly, candidly, and perseveringly. If you carelessly permit the present opportunity to go by without a struggle to establish your rights, all our future exertions will be in vain after the constitution is formed and our hands tied up and our voices stifled by those who are hostile to our most vital interests.

Therefore, if it is your wish to have a free and liberal constitution established in Wisconsin, I earnestly request of you to attend to what I have to say, as it seems to me that the following remarks are of the utmost consequence to yourselves and your posterity.

First, let no voter cast his vote for any candidate without knowing what his principles are with respect to the right of suffrage. Let the questions be definite not vague. If he is in favor of the alien becoming a citizen in twelve months after taking the oath of allegiance, and is an honest man, capable, and otherwise a sound Democrat, use your best endeavors by all honorable means to procure his election.

This principle of aliens becoming citizens in one year after taking the oath of allegiance (I mean white men who are of age, and who contribute to the support of the state by paying taxes or otherwise) has been advocated by the liberal and enlightened ex-Governor Seward of New York, and by our no less illustrious, patriotic, and liberal governor of Wisconsin, Gen. Henry Dodge. No honester or truer patriots than these gentlemen that I have just mentioned ever, in my opinion, held office in these United States. Our present Governor in 1843 expressed himself as follows, in reply to inquiries whether he would be in favor of foreigners, without taking the oath of allegiance, voting for delegates to frame a state constitution. He answered in the affirmative, and further added that, "Taxation and representation should go hand in hand." Such was the opinion of our venerable Governor in '43; and no one doubts but that such are his opinions now, for he never was known to change his democratic creed from the day that he was first appointed by Andrew Jackson, the hero of New Orleans, up to the present day, in office or out of office.

Now let us hear what the patriotic ex-Governor Seward says upon the subject of the naturalization law. In addressing himself to the Irish repealers, he said that the Native American party principle of requiring foreigners to be twenty-one years in this country after taking the oath of allegiance was monstrous in the extreme, and at variance with our constitution, and to our free institutions, and belieing our Declaration of Independence. He further stated his wish to make an amendment to the Native American party principles by taking away the figure 2 and leaving 1. Having given the opinion of these two great statesmen I shall proceed to state some of the other articles we wish to have put in the constitution. It is our wish that upon the adoption of the state constitution every white male inhabitant who is of age, and not otherwise incapacitated, shall, by contributing towards the maintenance of the state and taking the oath of allegiance, be entitled to all the privileges of citizenship.

No property qualification to be required of voters, nor any property qualification to be required of office holders other than giving sufficient security for the faithful performance of their duty.

Third, adopted as well as native citizens to be eligible to any office in the state, governor not excepted.

Fourth, the article upon state debts in the Iowa constitution would in my opinion suit us very well, viz: "no state debts over a certain amount to be created by the legislature, or other liabilities exceeding the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, except in case of war, to repel invasion, or suppress insurrection, unless it be by a vote of the majority of the people."

Fifth, the article also in the Iowa constitution on incorporations we might adopt with perfect safety; it prohibits particularly the creation or renewal of bank charters, the making, issuing, or putting in circulation any bill, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note or other paper, or the paper of any bank to circulate as money. The general assembly of this state shall prohibit by law any person or persons, association, company, or corporation from exercising the privileges of banking, or creating paper to circulate as money.

Sixth, there shall be civil and religious liberty to persons of every denomination, without prohibition or inequality. Seventh, there shall be vote by ballot.

Eighth, the principal officers in the state to be elected by the people, the officers of the judiciary [and] circuit judges, included; and all above that grade, might, in my opinion, be left to the wisdom of the legislature to be elected. A reasonable salary to be given them, not too extravagant nor yet too niggardly; sufficient to live comfortably.

Ninth, the school lands when brought into market to be sold outright and deeds given in fee simple, not leased, and part of the purchase money to remain on bond and mortgage at a reasonable interest.