Mr. Douglas said that he was now in favor of the new boundaries as proposed by the Committee on the Territories. He declared that the boundaries of the act of March 3, 1845, "would be the worst that could be agreed upon; the most unnatural; the most inconvenient for the State itself, and leaving the balance of the territory in the worst shape for the formation of other new States." As to the memorial from Dubuque recommending the parallel of forty-two degrees, Mr.

Douglas said that he was aware of the influences which produced it.

The people of Dubuque "wished either for such an arrangement as should cause Dubuque to be the largest town in a little State, or else to make it the central town of a large State."

Mr. Rathburn, of New York, was opposed to the lines laid down in the bill. He favored less extensive boundaries because he desired to preserve "the balance of power" in the Union by the creation of small States in the West. He "was against making Empires; he preferred that we should have States in this Union."

Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, said that in the last session of Congress "no question except that of Texas had excited more interest in the House." He did not think that the people of the Territory should decide the question of boundaries; and he a.s.serted that "if Congress was willing to let the people of Iowa cut and carve for themselves, he did not doubt that they would have their State extend to the mouth of the Columbia."

The strongest speech, perhaps, in the whole debate was that of the Iowa Delegate. Mr. Dodge reviewed the history of the boundary dispute and pointed out that both he and the people of Iowa had pursued a firm and honorable course. He showed that many of the States were as large as or even larger than the proposed State of Iowa. Referring to the boundary proposed in the act of March 3, 1845, he said: "It will never be accepted by the people of Iowa." But he produced letters to show that the Iowa Convention of 1846 were willing to accept the compromise boundary proposed in the bill under discussion. "Thus, sir, it is now apparent that, if the House will pa.s.s the bill reported by the Committee on Territories, it will put an end to this question.

The convention of Iowa have met the advances of the Committee on Territories of this House."

Mr. Vinton then "moved an amendment, fixing the 43d parallel as the northern boundary." This was a tempting proposition. But Mr. Dodge stood firmly for the parallel of forty-three degrees _and thirty minutes_, and closed his remarks with these words: "I admonish the majority of this House that if the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio is to prevail, they might as well pa.s.s an act for our perpetual exclusion from the Union. Sir, the people of Iowa will never acquiesce in it."

From the Journal of the Iowa Convention of 1846, it appears that when the Committee on Preamble and Boundaries made their report on the morning of the second day of the Convention they recommended the compromise boundaries which had already been proposed by the Committee on the Territories in the National House of Representatives. But when the report was taken up for consideration several days later an amendment was offered which proposed to subst.i.tute the boundaries as described in the Const.i.tution of 1844. On a test ballot the vote of the Convention stood twenty-two to eight in favor of the amendment.

This was on the eighth of May. Six days later a resolution instructing the Committee on Revision to amend the article on boundaries so as to read as follows was adopted by a vote of eighteen to thirteen:

"Beginning in the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river, at a point due east of the middle of the mouth of the main channel of the Des Moines river; thence up the middle of the main channel of the said Des Moines river, to a point on said river where the northern boundary line of the State of Missouri, as established by the Const.i.tution of that State, adopted June 12th, 1820, crosses the said middle of the main channel of the said Des Moines river; thence westwardly, along the said northern boundary line of the State of Missouri, as established at the time aforesaid, until, an extension of said line intersects the middle of the main channel of the Missouri river; thence, up the middle of the main channel of the said Missouri river, to a point opposite the middle of the main channel of the Big Sioux river, according to Nicollet's map; thence up the main channel of the said Big Sioux river, according to said map, until it is intersected by the parallel of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes north lat.i.tude; thence east, along said parallel of forty-three degrees and thirty minutes, until said parallel intersects the middle of the main channel of the Mississippi river; thence down the middle of the main channel of said Mississippi river to the place of beginning."

These were in substance the compromise boundaries which were first proposed in Congress by the Committee on the Territories on March 27, 1846. Their precise description, however, was the work of the Iowa Convention. Congress promptly adopted this description in the Act of August 4, 1846, by striking out the words of the bill then pending and inserting the language of the Iowa Convention as used in the Preamble to their Const.i.tution.

XVIII

THE ADMISSION OF IOWA INTO THE UNION

When submitted to the people the Const.i.tution of 1846 was vigorously opposed by the Whigs who insisted that it was a party instrument.

Their att.i.tude and arguments are nowhere better set forth than in the address of Wm. Penn Clarke to the electors of the counties of Muscatine, Johnson, and Iowa. Mr. Clarke had come to the conclusion, after reading the proposed code of fundamental law, that its ratification would "prove greatly detrimental, if not entirely ruinous to the nearest and dearest interests of the people, by r.e.t.a.r.ding the growth of the proposed State, in population, commerce, wealth and prosperity." This conviction led him to oppose the adoption of the Const.i.tution of 1846.

First, he objected to the Const.i.tution "because it entirely prohibits the establishing of banking inst.i.tutions,"--inst.i.tutions which are absolutely essential to the economic welfare and industrial development of the State. He contended that this "inhibition of banks is not an inhibition of bank paper as a circulating medium. . . . .

The question is narrowed down to the single point, _whether we will have banks of our own, and a currency of our own creation, and under our own control_, or whether we will become dependent on other States for such a circulating medium . . . . By prohibiting the creation of banks, we but disable ourselves, and _subst.i.tute_ a foreign currency for a home currency. The effect of the article on Incorporations will be to make Iowa the _plunder ground_ of all banks in the Union."

Secondly, Mr. Clarke opposed the adoption of the Const.i.tution of 1846 because of the provisions in the eighth and ninth articles. He maintained that the article on State Debts was "tantamount to an inhibition" of the construction of Internal Improvements by the State government; while the article on Incorporations aimed to prohibit the people from making such improvements.

Thirdly, he protested against the "experiment" of an elective judicial system, since the election of the judges "is calculated to disrobe our Courts of Justice of their sacred character." Mr. Clarke would not "deny the right or the competency of the people to elect their judicial officers;" but he pointed out that the effect would be "to place upon the bench _political partisans_," and "to elevate to the judiciary second or third rate men in point of talents and legal acquirements."

Fourthly, the Const.i.tution should be rejected because it contains no provision securing to the people the right to elect their township and county officers. Furthermore, it is "entirely silent with reference to county and township organization."

Fifthly, Mr. Clarke argued against the adoption of the Const.i.tution because "not a single letter can be stricken from it without calling a Convention." He declared that the Democrats, after incorporating into the Const.i.tution "partizan dogmas," so formulated the article on Amendments as to make their creed permanent.

In the closing paragraphs of this remarkable arraignment of the proposed Const.i.tution, Mr. Clarke referred to local interests in connection with the location of the State Capital. Iowa City, he said, had been founded "with a view to its being the permanent Capital of the State." But the new boundaries, proposed by the Committee on the Territories, would, if adopted, threaten the permanency of the Iowa City location. Indeed, Mr. Clarke went so far as to intimate that the relocation of the Capital was a part of Mr. Dodge's program in connection with the solution of the boundary problem. Curtailing the State on the North and extending it at the same time to the Missouri on the West meant the ultimate shifting of the Capital to the Racc.o.o.n Forks. Mr. Clarke concluded the prophecy by saying that "to quiet the center, we shall probably be promised a State University, or something of that character, and then be cheated in the end."

Such were the leading objections to the ratification of the Const.i.tution of 1846 as urged by the Whigs in the press and on the stump. They were supported by the more conservative Democrats who protested against the article on Incorporations and the article on Amendments. A large majority of the people, however, were impatient for the establishment of State organization. For the time they were even willing to overlook the defects of the proposed Const.i.tution.

Many voted for the instrument with the hope of remedying its imperfections after admission into the Union had once been effected.

The Const.i.tution of 1846 narrowly escaped defeat. At the polls on August 3, 1846, its supporters, according to the Governor's proclamation, were able to command a majority of only four hundred and fifty-six out of a total of eighteen thousand five hundred and twenty-eight votes.

On September 9, 1846, Governor Clarke, as directed by the Territorial statute of January 17, 1846, issued a formal proclamation declaring the ratification and adoption of the Const.i.tution. In the same proclamation, and in accordance with the provisions of the new Const.i.tution, the Governor designated "Monday, The 26th Day of October Next" as the time for holding the first general election for State officers. The returns of this election showed that the Democrats had succeeded in electing Ansel Briggs, their candidate for Governor, by a majority of one hundred and sixty-one votes. The same party also captured a majority of the seats in the first General a.s.sembly.

Following the directions of the Schedule in the new Const.i.tution, Governor Clarke issued a proclamation on November fifth in which he named Monday, November 30, 1846, as the day for the first meeting of the General a.s.sembly. On December second the Territorial Governor transmitted his last message to the Legislature.

It was on Thursday morning, December 3, 1846, that the Senators and Representatives a.s.sembled together in the hall of the House of Representatives in the Old Stone Capitol to witness the inauguration of the new Governor. Here in the presence of the General a.s.sembly Judge Charles Mason, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory, administered the oath of office to the first Governor of the State of Iowa.

Twelve days after the inauguration of the State Governor at Iowa City, Mr. Dodge presented to the House of Representatives at Washington a copy of the Const.i.tution of Iowa. The doc.u.ment was at once referred to the Committee on the Territories, from which a bill for the admission of Iowa into the Union was reported through Mr. Stephen A. Douglas on December seventeenth. It was made a special order of the day for Monday, December twenty-first, when it was debated and pa.s.sed.

Reported to the Senate on the twenty-second, it was there referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. This Committee reported the bill back to the Senate without amendment. After some consideration it pa.s.sed the Senate on December twenty-fourth. Four days later it received the approval of President Polk. The existence of Iowa as one of the Commonwealths of the United States of America dates, therefore, from the TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER, ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-SIX.

The act of admission declares that Iowa is "admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever,"

and provides that all the provisions of "An Act supplemental to the Act for the Admission of the States of Iowa and Florida into the Union" approved March 3, 1845, shall continue in full force "as applicable to the State of Iowa." The conditions contained in the provisions of this act, which had been subst.i.tuted by Congress in lieu of the provisions of the Ordinance submitted by the Convention of 1844, were finally accepted by the General a.s.sembly of the State in an act approved January 17, 1849.

XIX

THE CONVENTION OF 1857

Throughout Iowa there was a very general feeling of satisfaction with the new political status which came with the establishment of State government and admission into the Union. Having outlived the conditions of Territorial government the pioneers of Iowa now entered into the new political life without regret. They rejoiced over the fact that they were recognized as a part of a great Nation. They appreciated the significance of the change. Nor were the pioneers of Iowa strangers to National political life. As settlers on the Public Domain they were in a very special sense children of the Nation.

They had always cherished the inheritances of the "Fathers." But now the days of dependence were over. Henceforth this people of the frontier would strengthen the whole country with their own political ideas and ideals. They would, indeed, help to vitalize the Politics of the Nation with the provincial spirit of Western Democracy.

On the other hand, the people of Iowa did not accept their new State Const.i.tution without reservations. Wm. Penn Clarke's address had been widely read and his arguments were accepted not alone by the Whigs. In fact the Const.i.tution of 1846 had not been adopted altogether on its merits. The people were anxious to get into the Union, and they voted for the Const.i.tution as the shortest road to admission. They meant to correct its errors afterwards.

In 1848 the editor of the _Iowa City Standard_ a.s.serted that the Const.i.tution of 1846 had been "accepted purely from motives of expediency, and with a tacit understanding that it was to receive some slight amendments as soon as they could const.i.tutionally and legally be made. And but for this it would have been rejected by a very handsome majority. No well informed citizen can deny this."

And so the Const.i.tution of 1846 had scarcely been ratified at the polls before an agitation looking toward its amendment or revision was begun. As early as August 19, 1846, the _Iowa City Standard_ declared that "three fourths of the people of Iowa have determined that, cost what it may, the Ninth Article shall not remain unaltered in the Const.i.tution."

During the first session of the General a.s.sembly of the State a bill providing for an expression of the opinion of the people of Iowa upon the subject of amendment pa.s.sed the House of Representatives, but was indefinitely postponed in the Senate by a vote of ten to eight. This was in February, 1847. In 1848 the question of Const.i.tutional amendment was made an issue in the political campaign. The Whigs advocated amendment or revision; while the Democrats as a rule stood for the Const.i.tution as ratified in 1846.

A bill providing for an expression of opinion by the people was again introduced in the House of Representatives during the second session of the General a.s.sembly, but was indefinitely postponed after the second reading. A similar bill was rejected by the House during the third session. During the fourth regular session pet.i.tions favorable to amendment were received from the people.

In the meantime Stephen Hempstead was elected to the office of Governor. He had been opposed to the agitation for Const.i.tutional revision, and in his first Message of December 7, 1852, he said: "I cannot avoid a feeling of deep concern at the opinion expressed by some portion of our fellow citizens in favor of amending the Const.i.tution of our State in such a manner as to authorize the establishment of Banks--of special acts of incorporation for pecuniary profit, and of contracting State debts without limitations of the General a.s.sembly." In the same doc.u.ment he urged "upon the General a.s.sembly the propriety of pa.s.sing a law to prohibit the circulation of all bank notes of a less denomination than ten dollars." When he retired from office in December, 1854, he still declared that he saw no "imperative reason why our Const.i.tution should be amended." But his successor, Governor Grimes, favored submitting the question of revision and amendment to the people.

The necessity for a Convention to revise the Const.i.tution of 1846 had become imperative. Iowa was flooded with a depreciated paper currency from other States. Gold and silver money was scarce. The few pieces which found their way into the State were h.o.a.rded either to pay taxes or to pay for government land.

Finally, "An Act providing for the revision or amendment of the Const.i.tution of this State" was pa.s.sed by the fifth General a.s.sembly and approved by Governor Grimes, January 24, 1855. In accordance with its provisions a poll was opened at the general election in August, 1856, "for the purpose of taking a vote of the people for or against a convention to revise or amend the Const.i.tution." On the tenth day of September the Governor declared in his official proclamation that a majority of eighteen thousand six hundred and twenty-eight votes had been cast in favor of a Convention.

In November, 1856, thirty-six delegates were elected to the Convention which met in the Supreme Court room of the Old Stone Capitol at Iowa City on January 19, 1857. Mr. Gray, of Linn County, called the Convention to order and moved that John A. Parvin, of Muscatine, be chosen President _pro tem_. On the following day Francis Springer was elected President of the Convention. The other permanent officers were as follows: Thomas J. Saunders, Secretary; Ellsworth N. Bates, a.s.sistant Secretary; S. C. Trowbridge, Sergeant-at-Arms; Francis Thompson, Door Keeper; James O. Hawkins, Messenger; and W. Blair Lord, Reporter.

Of the thirty-six delegates, six were from the New England States, eleven from the Middle States, ten from the South, and nine from the Middle West. As to occupation there were fourteen lawyers, twelve farmers, two merchants, two dealers in real estate, two bankers, one book-seller, one mail contractor, one druggist, and one pork-packer. The youngest member was twenty-six, the oldest fifty-six; while the average age of all the members was forty years. Twenty-one of the thirty-six members were Republicans; the other fifteen were Democrats.

Early in the session of the Convention of 1857 there appeared to be considerable dissatisfaction with the accommodations afforded at Iowa City. The General a.s.sembly had not yet adjourned, and so the Convention was compelled to meet for a few days in the Supreme Court room. Some of the members complained of the hotel service, and declared that they had not been welcomed with proper courtesy and hospitality by the people of Iowa City. At the same time the Convention received alluring invitations from Davenport and Dubuque. A committee of five was appointed to whom these invitations were referred. The report of this committee provoked a lively debate which Wm. Penn Clarke desired to have suppressed in the published reports. The result of the discussion was that the Convention concluded to remain in Iowa City.

On the second day the members took an oath to support the Const.i.tution of the United States. Some desired to include in this oath the Const.i.tution of the State of Iowa; but the majority did not think it proper to swear allegiance to a Const.i.tution which the Convention was called upon to amend, revise, or perhaps reject altogether.

The act of January 24, 1855, calling for the Convention, provided for "the revision or amendment of the Const.i.tution." Many would have been satisfied with a few amendments. The Convention, however, proceeded to draft a completely revised code of fundamental law. The two large volumes of printed reports show that the principles of Const.i.tutional Law were discussed from Preamble to Schedule.