SELECTIONS FROM THE LANCASTER WISCONSIN HERALD

CANDIDACY OF THOMAS P. BURNETT

[January 29, 1846]

To the People of Grant County:

FELLOW CITIZENS: During the spring and early part of the summer, I was frequently solicited by citizens in different parts of the county to become a candidate for delegate to the convention. To these requests I generally replied that I thought the station one of too much importance, the duties to be performed too serious in their consequences to the people and to posterity, to be sought after with avidity and managed for by the common tricks of electioneering. I said that as a citizen I would rather see the people act deliberately and select from among themselves the men best qualified by their capacity and integrity to serve them, than to see individuals pushing themselves forward for a trust of such high responsibilities. I, however, said that, if the people desired that I should serve them in that capacity I would not refuse to do so.

When I left home to attend the supreme court at Madison I knew not whether I should or should not be a candidate. While absent, I was written to from this county upon the subject, and I authorized some of my friends, if they should be satisfied upon inquiry that it was the wish of the people, to place my name before the public; and these are the circumstances under which it has appeared among the list of candidates. Trusting the matter entirely to the candid judgment of the people, who alone have a right to say who shall serve them, I had not intended to say anything upon the subject myself. Having prescribed this course for my own action, neither feeling nor making any opposition whatever

to any candidate for popular favor, and considering the circumstances under which my name had been presented, I had hoped that my merits, whatever they may be, would be considered fairly, and that it would not be thought necessary by anyone to misrepresent me. A little reflection, however, might have satisfied me that this was a vain expectation.

Upon reaching home from Madison on the twelfth instant, after an absence of near four weeks, I received a letter that had been sent to my house before I returned, by a friend in Beetown, informing me that a report had been started "that I was in favor of the 'Alien Law,' "' and that in proof thereof it was stated, “that, in a public speech in Madison last winter, I declared that personally I was in favor of that law, and the reason why I opposed it was because my constituents wished its repeal." I received another letter from a friend at Lancaster written about the same time communicating the same information.

My first impression was to pay no attention whatever to so gross a falsehood. Some of my friends, however, seem to think that silence might be construed unfavorably by some, and have urged me to correct the impression that has been attempted to be made against me; and in accordance with this desire on their part, I now address you this communication.

The report alluded to has not the semblance of truth for its foundation. Since the legislature first undertook to confer the right of suffrage upon foreigners not naturalized, I have never expressed any such sentiments as those attributed to me by it, either at Madison or elsewhere, in any public speech or private conversation. I have always believed, and still believe, that the power is possessed by Congress alone of prescribing the terms upon which foreigners may become entitled to the rights and privileges of nativeborn citizens, and that the local governments cannot constitutionally exercise that power. I have expressed no opinion to the contrary of this upon any occasion. I believe that many who favor the contrary doctrine do so for the purpose of courting foreign influence to advance their own selfish

views. I have never, myself, courted any such influences. I am willing to be judged by the truth, by all parties and by men from all countries. I have no prejudices or unkind feelings against foreigners. I do not wish to see them deprived of the smallest portion of their just rights and privileges. I consider the naturalization laws to be about as they should be, and that if they are wrong Congress is the only power that can, constitutionally, alter or amend them. When foreigners come into our political household by the right door, I am not in favor of making any distinction in relation to them, except such as I would make towards all mankind— that sort of distinction that virtue and intelligence may demand.

When the state government bill was before the House of Representatives last winter, Mr. Pole, of Iowa, offered an amendment to it, the object of which was to restrict the right of suffrage to citizens of the United States. I, with my colleagues from this county, voted for the amendment. I had consulted with Mr. Pole on the subject before the amendment was offered, and we came to the conclusion that he should offer it instead of myself, though, if remembered correctly, it was originally drawn by me. I also voted against the passage of the bill, principally on account of its provisions respecting the qualifications of voters, although the bill was to my mind highly objectionable in other particulars. In view of what has been my uniform course upon this subject, both in public and in private, I am at a loss to conceive who could have been so lost to all sense of truth and justice as to have fabricated so false a statement as that which has been put in circulation against me. I am unwilling to believe that it was anyone who possesses the smallest claim to respectability in any community. From the manner of putting forth the report, and the time selected for it, when I was absent from the county and not expected to return in time to obviate its effects before the election, it would be a violence to reason to imagine any honorable object designed to be effected by it.

From what I have observed for more than a year past, I

have no doubt that a strong effort will be made in the convention to incorporate the alien suffrage principle into the constitution. I believe this to be the ulterior object of the friends of the present law from the beginning, though there were but few who would avow it. They have since grown more confident, and some of the candidates for delegate to the convention in other parts of the territory have already given pledges in favor of the measure, and they confidently expect now to establish their principles permanently by the constitution. I think, then, that it is important that every man who seriously reflects upon the consequences of such a measure ought to consider well as to whom he will cast his vote [for] at the coming election.

I commenced writing this address a week since, but was prevented from completing it by a sudden attack of fever and have not been able to finish it before this time, and it may now be too late to have any effect. I do not expect to be able to see the people generally before the election, nor do I feel very much disposed to make stump speeches upon an occasion like the present. My name has been placed before the public as a candidate under the circumstances already stated. I did not seek to have myself placed in this position. I had no desire of my own to become a candidate. It is the right of the people to do just as they please in relation to the matter, and whatever their decision may be, it will be cheerfully submitted to by me. I trust, however, that the people of Grant will not give a response to falsehood and misrepresentation, directed against one who has endeavored to serve them faithfully, and, whatever may have been his errors, has tried in all things to act consistently and for the best. Should I be chosen among others to represent you in the convention I can only say that this renewed confidence shall be met with renewed exertions on my part to fulfill all just expectations.

Respectfully, your fellow citizen,

THOS. P. BURNETT.

Grant County, August 25, 1846.

THE CONSTITUTION

[February 14, 21, 28, March 7, 14, 1846]

One of the most important objects to be secured by our new constitution will be the proper and safe distribution of power. We must clothe the state with ample power, and the question is, how can it be made at the same time most efficient and most secure from abuse.

DISTRIBUTION OF POWER

All experience of popular governments in America shows the necessity of dividing power into three distinct departments, composed of separate bodies, and each department confined strictly to its own sphere. Upon the nice and accurate adjustment of these checks and balances, greatly depends the well government of the state. These departments are: First, the legislative; second, the executive; third, the judicial.

OF THE LEGISLATURE

The legislature is the grand medium through which the popular will expresses its decrees and infuses vitality into the body politic. Even in our present embryo political condition, it is the umbilical cord of our territory. It enacts laws and provides the money and means necessary for the enforcement of its will. The legislature is the popular voice, speaking through the constitution and modified by the constitution alone. It is composed of two branches, a senate and house of representatives, both elected by the people and both representing precisely the same interests. The Senate in Rome, like the House of Lords in England, represented the landed and aristocratic interest. We have only one interest to be represented; still it is found to be a salutary check upon rash and inconsiderate legislation to be represented in two legislative branches, in each of which every bill must pass through all its stages in regular form before its final enactment, thus affording time for deliberation, and