Ex-Governor Lucas, who was a member of the Convention, was astonished at Mr. Hall's amendment. He said that "if ever an a.s.semblage needed the aid of Almighty Power, it was one to organize a system of Government."

Furthermore, he believed that "it was due to the religious community, and to our own character" to have prayer. To reject the resolution would, he thought, "give us a bad name abroad."

Mr. Hooten reminded Lucas of the story told of Franklin, who, when a boy, asked his father why he did not say grace over the whole barrel of pork at once.

Mr. Hall was "opposed to any attempt on the part of the Convention to palm themselves off to be better than they really were, and above all other things, to a.s.sume a garb of religion for the purpose of giving themselves character." He doubted the efficacy of prayers invoked at political meetings, and cited an instance where a "Reverend gentleman" fervently prayed for the release of Dorr, the election of Polk and Dallas, and the triumph of Democratic principles. To believe in the efficacy of such a prayer implied that "Deity was a Democrat." Now, "if the Almighty was a Democrat, he would perhaps grant the prayer; if not a Democrat he would not grant it." Mr. Hall desired to know what was to be prayed for in the Convention. As for himself, "he would pray as did the man in New Orleans, that G.o.d would 'lay low and keep dark,' and let us do the business of the Convention." Prayers in the Convention were, he thought, inappropriate. "There were places where the Almighty could not be approached in a proper spirit--and this was one."

Mr. Bailey asked the members who voted against taking papers on the grounds of economy to be consistent and vote against this resolution to have prayers. It would save some two or three hundred dollars.

Then, too, he thought that "people were becoming more liberal in [their religious] sentiment. No man could say that he ever opposed another on account of religion; he respected men who were sincerely religious; but he wanted to have his own opinions." Mr. Bailey feared that members might be compelled, under the resolution, "to hear what they were opposed to. This was contrary to the inalienable rights of man. If members did not feel disposed to come, it took away their happiness, contrary to the Declaration of Independence and the principle laid down by Thomas Jefferson, the Apostle of Liberty."

Mr. Cutler said that "he had not lived a great while, but long enough not to be afraid of meeting such a question openly." He opposed the resolution and desired the yeas and nays recorded on the motion.

Mr. Fletcher "regretted the opposition that he saw, and was unwilling that it should go forth to the world that Iowa refused to acknowledge a G.o.d."

Mr. Evans did not believe in progression to the exclusion of prayer. He favored "providing a room for those who did not wish to hear prayers."

Mr. Hepner opposed the resolution because he thought that it was inconsistent with the principle of religious freedom as set forth in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Sh.e.l.leday wished to represent the moral and religious feelings of his const.i.tuents by supporting the resolution.

Mr. Quinton thought that his const.i.tuents were as moral as those of Mr.

Sh.e.l.leday. But he "did not believe praying would change the purposes of Deity, nor the views of members of the Convention." "In the name of Heaven," he exclaimed, "don't force men to hear prayers."

By a vote of forty-four to twenty-six the resolution was indefinitely postponed.

The liberal religious spirit of the pioneers is further evidenced by the principle of toleration which was incorporated into section four of the Bill of Rights. As introduced by the Committee the section provided that "no religious test shall be required as qualification for any office or public trust, and no person shall be deprived of any of his rights, privileges, capacities, or disqualified for the performance of any of his duties, public or private, in consequence of his opinion on the subject of religion." Mr. Grant thought that the report "was meant to cover _everything_." But, to make sure that it did not exclude Atheists from giving testimony in the courts, Mr. Galbraith moved to insert the words "or be rendered incompetent to give testimony in any court of law or equity."

Mr. Lowe, of Muscatine, favored leaving the law on this subject as it was; that is, he thought that "Atheists should not be admitted to give testimony" because "there was nothing that such a person could swear by. An oath called upon Deity to witness the truth of what was said, and to withdraw his favor from the person if it was untrue.

Atheists consequently could not take an oath." It would be "unsafe" to permit them to testify.

Mr. Hempstead wanted to "do away with this inquiring into a man's religious opinions. He desired to keep it out of the Const.i.tution. It was the fear of the penalties of perjury that restrained men from stating what was not true--not future punishment."

Mr. Kirkpatrick thought that to refuse to allow Atheists to testify would be an "infringement of the natural rights of man."

Mr. Grant said that "he hoped this Convention would take high grounds upon this subject and silence . . . . these inquiries into men's belief, and exclusions for opinion's sake."

When the test vote was taken it was found that only ten members of the Convention were willing to deny to Atheists the right to give testimony in the courts.

An interesting debate on salaries led to the adoption of section thirty-five, Article IV., of the Const.i.tution which fixed the compensation of the State officers "for the first ten years after the organization of the government." The discussion was provoked by a report from the Committee on State Revenue in which the following salaries were recommended: For Governor, $1000; for Secretary of State, $500; for Treasurer, $400; for Auditor, $700; for Superintendent of Public Instruction, $700; and for Judges of the Supreme Court, $800. Several motions were made which aimed to increase slightly the sums recommended by the Committee; but the bent of the Convention was manifestly in favor of a reduction of salaries all along the line.

Sums ranging from $600 to $1200 were suggested for the Governor. Mr.

Hooten "thought the salary was about right at $1000. The Governor was rather than else considered as public property, would have to entertain a good deal of company, &c., and should have a pretty liberal salary."

Mr. Davidson said that "he came here for low salaries. He did not like $1000, but $1200 was worse." The Convention finally agreed upon $800 as a proper salary for the Governor of the State of Iowa. No cut was made in the sum ($500) reported for the Secretary of State; but the Treasurer's salary was reduced to $300. The Convention was willing that the Judges of the Supreme Court should receive the same pay as the Governor, that is, $800.

The Auditor's salary received the most attention. The Committee on State Revenue had recommended $700. "Mr. Grant moved to strike out $700, which would leave the salary blank."

Ex-Governor Lucas hoped that the salaries would not be reduced so low that competent men could not afford to accept them.

Mr. Chapman "desired to pay a fair price for services rendered, but he was not willing to pay a single dollar for dignity. He did not want to have men paid to live as gentlemen, with no services to perform.

. . . . What were the duties of Auditor, that they could not be performed for a salary of $500 or $600? A farmer toiled from the rising of the sun to its going down, and at the end of the year had not perhaps $100;--there were hundreds of men qualified for that office who labored the whole year for less than half of $700. In this country we are all poor, and have to do with but little."

Mr. Strong came to the Convention with a "desire for economy, and felt disposed to go for as low salaries as any man; but he thought gentlemen were disposed to reduce them too low."

Mr. Hempstead thought that the Convention was "running this thing of economy into the ground." He knew that there were men who would take the offices at almost any salary; but "they would plunder to make it up."

Mr. Quinton declared that the services rendered by the Auditor were not worth more than $400. He would "continue to advocate economy in the State offices, whether it was displeasing to some gentlemen or not."

Mr. Fletcher supported the recommendation of the Committee on State Revenue because the object was to secure as Auditor a man of "the best business talents."

Mr. Hall observed that the proposition to pay "such large salaries to our officers was based upon a misunderstanding of the importance of our little State. We were just commencing to totter, and not to walk."

Mr. Harrison said "we were in a youthful condition, and were poor, and we could not afford to pay such salaries as the great and wealthy State of Ohio." Furthermore, "he wanted the officers to share something of the hardships and privations of the citizens. He would not have them gentlemen of leisure, walking about the streets, talking with their friends, &c., with plenty of money in their pockets. An honest man would perform the duties of Auditor as well for $300 as $1000. If he was not honest we did not want him."

Mr. Bissell favored a reduction. "He did not want to support government officers at high salaries, to ride about in their coaches and sport gold spectacles. He did not want them paid for giving wine parties, and electioneering the Legislature. They should walk from their residences to their offices, as other citizens."

And so the salary of Auditor was fixed at $500. What wonder that Mr.

Hempstead "felt disposed to make a motion that no gentleman or man of respectability should be appointed to any office under the Government of the State of Iowa."

From the fragments of the debates which were chronicled in the newspapers of the Capital, it is clear that the Convention of 1844, in providing for the exercise of executive power in Iowa, aimed (1) to make the Chief Magistracy a representative inst.i.tution and (2) to limit the influence of the Governor in legislation.

The Committee on the Executive Department, of which the venerable Ex-Governor Lucas was the chairman, reported in favor of vesting the supreme executive power in "a Governor, who shall hold his office for four years." A Lieutenant Governor "was to be chosen at the same time and for the same term." Furthermore, section five of the report provided that "no person shall be eligible to the office of Governor or Lieutenant Governor more than eight years in any term of twelve."

Mr. Chapman made a motion to strike out the provisions relative to a Lieutenant Governor, "which motion he enforced upon the principle of economy, and the non-necessity of the office." But the Convention refused to take a step so radical.

Mr. Langworthy moved to strike out _four_ and insert _two_ "as the term for which the Governor should hold his office." This was "to test whether any officer in the State of Iowa was to hold his office more than two years." Mr. Langworthy "wanted the whole government to be changed once in two years." His motion prevailed.

On the motion of Mr. Peck section five of the report, which aimed to prevent the Governor and Lieutenant Governor from succeeding themselves in office more than once in twelve years, was stricken out.

The question of an executive veto on legislation naturally received considerable attention, since the administration of Lucas was still fresh in the minds of many members of the Convention.

The Committee on the Legislative Department had reported a form of executive veto which was so limited that it could be pa.s.sed over by an ordinary majority in the two branches of the General a.s.sembly.

Mr. Peck favored a two-thirds majority of the members present.

But Mr. Hall moved to strike out the whole section and said that "in making this Const.i.tution he wished to throw off the trammels of fashion and precedent. He had so pledged himself to his const.i.tuents.

This veto power was a trammel, and an unnecessary restraint on the freedom of legislation. The law of progress required that it should be abolished."

Mr. Bailey "thought the veto power was a valuable one; it was the people's power . . . . The Governor was more the representative of the people, than the Representatives themselves. The Representatives were chosen by sections, and represented local interests, and they might continue to pa.s.s bad laws. But the Governor had no local feelings."

Mr. Peck said that "the veto power was a qualified negative to prevent hasty and ill-advised legislation." He declared that the executive veto was a wholesome remedy for over-legislation. "It was a Democratic feature of any Const.i.tution."

Ex-Governor Lucas took part in the discussion. "We were," he said, "engaged in making a Const.i.tution to protect the rights of the people.

The veto was one of the instruments that had been used to defend the people's rights . . . . It might have been exercised imprudently at times, but that was not a good argument against the power."

Mr. Hall discussed the question at length. "Gentlemen," he said, "supposed that the Legislature might be corrupt--he would suppose on the other hand, that the Governor might he corrupt, and his supposition was as good as theirs. Some gentlemen were afraid of the tyranny of the representatives--he would suppose that the Governor would be the tyrant; or he would suppose that the Governor would combine with the Legislature, and they would all be corrupt and tyrannical together. A number of persons were not so liable to corruption and combination as a single individual;--just as numbers increased the probability of corruption decreased." He declared that "there was no need of the power in this Territory."

The Convention finally agreed upon the form of the limited executive veto as provided for in the Federal Const.i.tution.