In accordance with the provisions of the act of February 12, 1844, and
the act of June 19 amendatory thereof, seventy-three delegates to a
Constitutional Convention were elected at the general Territorial
elections in August, 1844. These delegates were chosen on partisan
grounds. With the electorate the primary question was not, "Is the
candidate well grounded in the principles of government and
administration?" but "What are his political affiliations?"
When the votes were counted it was found that the Democrats had won a
great victory. The Whigs had not succeeded in electing one third
of the whole number of delegates.
Events were making rapidly toward the realization of State government.
On Monday, October 7, 1844, sixty-three of the delegates elected met in
the Old Stone Capitol at Iowa City and organized themselves into a
constituent assembly.
The meeting was informally called to order by Francis Gehon of Dubuque
County. Ralph P. Lowe was chosen to act as President _pro tem_. After a
temporary organization had been fully effected the Convention of 1844
was formally opened with prayer. Upon the call of Counties by the
Secretary the delegates presented their credentials and took their
seats. One committee was appointed to examine credentials, and
another to draw up rules of proceeding. The Convention then adjourned
for the day.
When the Convention met on Tuesday morning the Committee on Credentials
presented the names of all the delegates who had produced certificates
of election. A report from the Committee on Rules was laid on the table.
Mr. Bailey's resolution that "the editors of this Territory be permitted
to take seats within the bar of this House" was adopted. The Convention
then proceeded _viva voce_ to the election of permanent officers, that
is, a President, a Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, a Door-Keeper, and
a Sergeant-at-Arms.
The honor of the Presidency fell to Shepherd Leffler of Des Moines
County. George S. Hampton and Alexander B. Anderson, who were elected
Secretary and Assistant Secretary respectively, were not members
of the Convention. Warren Dodd was elected Sergeant-at-Arms, and Ephraim
McBride, Door-Keeper.
Upon being conducted to the chair Mr. Leffler addressed the Convention
in a most earnest manner. He tried to impress upon the members the
serious importance of the work before them. "You meet gentlemen," he
said, "on an occasion of the deepest interest. We are in the progress
of an important change, in the midst of an important revolution, 'old
things are to be done away and all things are to become new.' The
structure and organization of our government are to be changed,
territorial relations with the parent government are soon to cease,
and Iowa must soon take upon herself the duties and the
responsibilities of a sovereign State. But before this important
change can be fully consummated, it is necessary for us to form a
republican constitution, for our domestic government. Upon you,
gentlemen, a confiding people have entrusted this high responsibility.
To your wisdom, to your prudence, to your patriotism, they look for
the formation of that instrument upon which they are to erect the
infant republic--under your auspices the youngest and fairest daughter
of the whole American family is to commence her separate political
existence, to take her rank in the Union of the American States, and
to add her star to the proud flag of our common country. Recollect,
gentlemen, that the labor of your hands, whatever may be its fashion,
will not be the fashion of a day, but permanent, elementary, organic.
It is not yours to gild or to finish the superstructure, but to sound
the bottom, to lay the foundation, to place the corner stone. Unlike
the enactments of mere legislation, passed and sent forth to-day and
recalled to-morrow, your enactments, when ratified by the people are
to be permanent and lasting, sovereign and supreme, governing,
controlling and directing the exercise of all political authority,
executive, legislative and judicial, through all time to come."
Mr. Leffler hoped that the Convention would frame a Constitution which
would, "in all its essential provisions, be as wise and as good if not
wiser and better than any other instrument which has ever yet been
devised for the government of mankind," so that "Iowa, young, beautiful
and blooming as she now is, endeared to us by every attachment
which can bind us to our country, may at no distant day, for every thing
that is great, noble or renowned, rival if not surpass the proudest
State of the American confederacy."
On the same day, and after the election of officers, the report of the
Committee on Rules was taken up, slightly amended, and adopted. In the
afternoon Mr. Hall, who came from a back county in which no newspapers
were printed, moved "that each member of the Convention have the
privilege of taking twenty copies weekly of the newspapers published in
this city," and at the expense of the Convention. A lively discussion
followed. Some favored the motion because its object was to provide the
people with information concerning the Convention, others because
they had already promised papers to their constituents. But Mr. Grant
thought that it was both useless and corrupt. The delegates had come to
the Convention with economy on their lips and therefore should resist
such "useless expenditures." The motion was lost.
On the third day standing committees were announced on the following
subjects: (1) Bill of Rights; (2) Executive Department; (3) Legislative
Department; (4) Judicial Department; (5) Suffrage and Citizenship; (6)
Education and School Lands; (7) Incorporations; (8) State Boundaries;
(9) County Organization; (10) Internal Improvements; and (11) State
Debts. The Convention was now in condition to take up the great task of
drafting a code of fundamental law. On Thursday--the fourth
day--the real work of the Convention began with a report from the
Committee on State Boundaries.
Of the seventy-two members who labored in the Convention and signed the
Constitution there were twenty-one Whigs and fifty-one Democrats.
Twenty-six of the delegates were born in the South, twenty-three in the
Middle States, ten in the New England States, ten in the States of the
Old Northwest, one in Germany, one in Scotland, and one in Ireland. Of
those born in the United States thirteen were from Pennsylvania, eleven
from Virginia, nine from New York, eight from Kentucky, eight from Ohio,
six from North Carolina, six from Vermont, and one each from
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey,
Tennessee, Indiana, and Illinois. The oldest member was sixty-six, the
youngest twenty-seven; while the average age of all was about forty
years. As to occupation or profession, there were forty-six farmers,
nine lawyers, five physicians, three merchants, two mechanics, two
miners, two mill-wrights, one printer, one miller, and one civil
engineer.
The Convention lost no time in procrastinating delays. Committees were
prompt in making reports. Parliamentary wranglings were infrequent.
There was no filibustering. The discussions were, as a rule, neither
long, wordy, nor tiresome. Indeed, the proceedings were throughout
conducted in a business-like manner. The Democrats were determined to
frame a Constitution in accordance with what they were pleased to
call "the true principles of Jeffersonian Democracy and Economy." They
had the votes to carry out this determination.
And yet the proceedings of the Convention were by no means formal and
without enlivening discussion. The fragments of the debates which have
come down to us contain many remarks suggestive of the life, character,
and political ideals of the people of early Iowa. For example, the
discussion concerning newspapers, already referred to, brought out an
expression of the popular ideal of economy and frugality. To be sure,
newspapers containing information concerning the Convention and the
fundamental instrument of government which was in the process of making
would, if circulated widely throughout the Territory, educate and
enlighten the people. But since the proposition involved the expenditure
of several hundreds of dollars it was extravagant. The sacred principle
of "Economy" could not be sacrificed to enlightenment. This pioneer
ideal of thriftiness persisted among the Iowans for more than a
generation.
Strict even to parsimoniousness in the matter of public expenditures,
the pioneers of Iowa were not always puritan in observing the forms of
religion. Their liberal attitude and their fearless courage in
expressing views on so delicate a subject were displayed in an
interesting debate in the Convention on a resolution offered by Mr.
Sells to the effect "that the Convention be opened every morning by
prayer to Almighty God."
Mr. Chapman favored the resolution, since "the ministers would gladly
attend and render the services without compensation."
Mr. Gehon objected on the ground that "it would not be economical, for
the Convention sat at an expense of $200 to $300 per day, and time was
money."
Mr. Hall moved to amend the resolution so that the exercise of prayer
might "commence at least one half hour before the assembling of the
Convention." But Mr. Chapman thought that such a provision would be an
insult to the Clergy and to "those who believed in the superintendence
of Almighty God."
Mr. Kirkpatrick said that he too believed in a "superintending
Providence" that "guided and controlled our actions." He was a
firm believer in Christianity, but he "did not wish to enforce prayer
upon the Convention." Prayer, he argued, was a moral precept which could
not be enforced without violating or infringing the "natural right" of
the members to worship God each in his own way. If "we can enforce this
moral obligation, then we have a right . . . . to make every member of
this Convention go upon his knees fifty time a day." Mr. Kirkpatrick
cared nothing for precedent. "This was a day of improvement. Let those
who believed so much in prayer, pray at home." After all "public prayer
was too ostentatious."
Mr. Sells was shocked, and would "regret to have it said of Iowa that
she had so far travelled out of Christendom as to deny the duty of
prayer."
Ex-Governor Lucas, who was a member of the Convention, was astonished at
Mr. Hall's amendment. He said that "if ever an assemblage 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 assume 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 God 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
God."
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. Shelleday wished to represent the moral and religious feelings of
his constituents by supporting the resolution.
Mr. Quinton thought that his constituents were as moral as those of Mr.
Shelleday. 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 Constitution. 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 Constitution 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 institution 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 passed over
by an ordinary majority in the two branches of the General Assembly.
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 Constitution he wished to throw off the trammels of
fashion and precedent. He had so pledged himself to his constituents.
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 pass 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 Constitution."
Ex-Governor Lucas took part in the discussion. "We were," he said,
"engaged in making a Constitution 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 Constitution.
Not even the Judiciary was spared from the influence of Western
Democracy as it rose up and asserted itself in the Convention of 1844.
The day of executive appointment and life tenure of judges had passed
or was passing. The Committee on the Judiciary recommended that "the
Judges of the Supreme Court and District Court shall be elected by the
joint vote of the Senate and House of Representatives and hold their
offices for six years;" but a minority report, introduced by Mr.
Fletcher, proposed that all of the judges be elected by the qualified
voters of the State.
In discussing this question the Convention desired to follow the
wishes of the people; but it was not known that the people themselves
really desired to elect the Judges. On the other hand there is
no evidence that anyone favored executive appointment. So the question
before the Convention was: Shall the Judges be elected by the people
or shall they be chosen by the General Assembly?
Mr. Hempstead favored direct election by the people on the assumption
"that in a Republican or Democratic government the people were
sovereign, and all power resided in them." He did not believe that the
influence of politics would be worse in the election of Judges by the
people than in the election of members of the General Assembly. "Joint
ballot," he declared, "was one of the most corrupt methods of election
ever devised."
Mr. Bailey did not doubt "the capacity of the people to elect their
Judges;" but he thought that "there was real danger in the
Judges becoming corrupt through political influences. They were liable
to form partialities and prejudices in the canvass, that would operate
on the bench." He had "no objection to the people electing the Judges;
but he did not think they desired the election--they had never asked
to have it."
Ex-Governor Lucas said "the question would seem to be, whether there
was any officer in the government whose duties were so sacred that
they could not be elected by the people. All officers were servants of
the people, from the President down." He repudiated the idea that the
people were not capable of electing their own servants.
Mr. Quinton supported the proposition to elect the Judges, since
"this was said to be an age of progress." In his opinion "the ends of
Justice would be better served by elections by the people than by the
Legislature."
Mr. Kirkpatrick declared that the selection of Judges by the General
Assembly was "wrong both in principle and in policy." He was opposed
to "voting by proxy." He believed that "we should choose our Judges
ourselves and bring them often to the ballot box."
Mr. Fletcher "came pledged to go for the election of Judges by the
people." He believed that "the surest guaranty, which could be had for
the fidelity and good conduct of all public officers, was to make them
directly responsible to the people."
The outcome of the discussion was a compromise. The Judges of the
Supreme Court were to be named by the General Assembly; but the Judges
of the District Court were to be elected by the people.
That the pioneers of Iowa, including the members of the Convention of
1844, were Democratic in their ideals is certain. They believed in
Equality. They had faith in Jeffersonianism. They clung to the dogmas
of the Declaration of Independence. They were sure that all men were
born equal, and that government to be just must be instituted by and
with the consent of the governed. Such was their professed philosophy.
Was it universally applicable? Or did the system have limitations? Did
the Declaration of Independence, for example, include negroes?
The attitude of the Convention on this perplexing problem was perhaps
fairly represented in the report of a Select Committee to whom had
been referred "a petition of sundry citizens praying for the admission
of people of color on the same footing as white citizens." This same
Committee had also been instructed to inquire into the propriety of a
Constitutional provision prohibiting persons of color from settling
within the State.
In the opening paragraph of their remarkable report the Committee
freely admitted (1) "that all men are created equal, and are endowed
by their Creator with inalienable rights," and (2) that these rights
are "as sacred to the black man as the white man, and should be so
regarded." At the same time they looked upon this declaration as
"a mere abstract proposition" which, "although strictly true when
applied to man in a state of nature, . . . . becomes very much
modified when man is considered in the artificial state in which
government and society place him."
The Committee then argued that "government is an institution or an
association entered into by man, the very constitution of which
changes or modifies to a greater or less extent his natural rights.
Some are surrendered others are modified . . . . In forming or
maintaining a government it is the privilege and duty of those who are
about to associate together for that purpose to modify and limit the
rights or wholly exclude from the association any and every species of
persons who would endanger, lessen or in the least impair the
enjoyment of these rights. We have seen that the application of this
principle limits the rights of our sons, modifies the privileges of
our wives and daughters, and would not be unjust if it excluded the
negro altogether.--'Tis the party to the compact that should complain,
not the stranger. Even hospitality does not sanction complaint under
such circumstances. True, these persons may be unfortunate, but the
government is not unjust."
Thus the problem of negro citizenship was not one of abstract right,
but must be settled on grounds of expediency. "Would the admission of
the negro as a citizen tend in the least to lessen, endanger or impair
the enjoyment of our governmental institutions?" The answer of the
Committee reads as follows:
"However your committee may commiserate with the degraded condition of
the negro, and feel for his fate, yet they can never consent to open
the doors of our beautiful State and invite him to settle our lands.
The policy of other States would drive the whole black population of
the Union upon us. The ballot box would fall into their hands and a
train of evils would follow that in the opinion of your committee
would be incalculable. The rights of persons would be less secure, and
private property materially impaired. The injustice to the white
population would be beyond computation. There are strong reasons to
induce the belief that the two races could not exist in the same
government upon an equality without discord and violence, that might
eventuate in insurrection, bloodshed and final extermination of
one of the two races. No one can doubt that a degraded prostitution of
moral feeling would ensue, a tendency to amalgamate the two races
would be superinduced, a degraded and reckless population would
follow; idleness, crime and misery would come in their train, and
government itself fall into anarchy or despotism. Having these views
of the subject your committee think it inexpedient to grant the prayer
of the petition."
Nor was it thought expedient by the Committee to introduce an article
into the Constitution which would exclude altogether persons of color
from the State, notwithstanding the fact that "the people of Iowa did
not want negroes swarming among them." Even Mr. Langworthy, who
had been instructed by his constituents "to get something put into the
Constitution by which negroes might be excluded from the State," felt
that the matter could safely be left with the General Assembly. Mr.
Grant thought that an exclusion clause in the Constitution would
"endanger our admission into the Union."
Although the report was laid on the table, it nevertheless represented
the dominant opinion then prevalent in Iowa. Our pioneer forefathers
believed that the negroes were men entitled to freedom and civil
liberty. But more than a score of years had yet to elapse before there
was in their minds no longer "a doubt that all men [including the
negroes] are created free and equal."
When the delegates were elected to the Convention of 1844 the people
of the Territory were still suffering from the effects of
over-speculation, panic, and general economic depression. Many of them
still felt the sting of recent bank failures and the evils of a
depreciated currency. Hence it is not surprising to learn from the
debates that not a few of the delegates came to the Convention
instructed to oppose all propositions which in any way favored
corporations, especially banking corporations.
The opposition to banks and bank money was not local; it was National.
The bank problem had become a leading party issue. Democrats opposed
and Whigs generally favored the banks. It was so in Iowa, where the
agitation was enlivened by the presence of the "Miners' Bank of
Du Buque." This institution, which was established in 1836 by an act of
Congress, had been the local storm center of the bank question. Prior
to 1844 it had been investigated four times by the Legislative
Assembly of the Territory.
In the Convention a minority as well as a majority report was
submitted from the Committee on Incorporations. The majority report
provided: (1) that one bank may be established with branches, not to
exceed one for every six counties; (2) that the bill establishing such
bank and branches must be (a) passed by a majority of the members
elected to both houses of the General Assembly, (b) approved by the
Governor, and (c) submitted to the people for their approval or
rejection; (3) that "such bank or branches shall not have power to
issue any bank note or bill of a less denomination than ten dollars;"
(4) that "the stockholders shall be liable respectively, for the debts
of said bank, and branches;" and (5) that "the Legislative Assembly
shall have power to alter, amend, or repeal such charter, whenever in
their opinion the public good may require it."
The same majority report provided further: (1) that "the assent of
two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the Legislature
shall be requisite to the passage of every law for granting,
continuing, altering, amending or renewing any act of Incorporation;"
(2) that no act of incorporation shall continue in force for more
than twenty years; (3) that the personal and real property of
the individual members of a corporation shall be liable for the debts
of such corporation; and (4) that "the Legislative Assembly shall have
power to repeal all acts of incorporation by them granted."
The minority report, which was signed by two members of the Committee,
provided that "no bank or banking corporation of discount, or
circulation, shall ever be established in this State."
In the discussion that followed the introduction of these reports the
Whig members of the Convention were inclined to keep restrictions out
of the Constitution and leave the whole question of establishing banks
to the General Assembly. The Democrats were not united. The more
radical supported the minority report; others favored the
establishment of banks well guarded with restrictions.
Mr. Hempstead said that he was opposed to all banks as a matter of
principle. He pointed out that there were three kinds of banks--banks
of deposit, banks of discount, and banks of circulation. "To this last
kind he objected. They were founded in wrong, and founded in error."
He declared that such corporations should be excluded altogether from
the State. Indeed, he said that "if the whole concern--banks, officers
and all--could be sent to the penitentiary he would be very glad of
it."
Mr. Quinton thought that "the whole concern of Banks, from big A down,
were a set of swindling machines, and now was the time for the
people of Iowa to give an eternal quietus to the whole concern."
Mr. Ripley declared that "Banks had always been a curse to the country
. . . . He believed Banks to be unconstitutional, and oppressive upon
the laboring classes of the community."
Mr. Bailey was an anti-Bank man; "but he knew many Democrats who were
in favor of Banks under proper restrictions."
Mr. Hall said that "Banking was a spoiled child; it had been nursed
and petted till it had become corrupt." He objected to banking
"because it conferred privileges upon one class that other classes did
not enjoy." He believed that the people would find that "a bank of
earth is the best bank, and the best share a plough-share."
Mr. Gehon wanted to put his "feet upon the neck of this common enemy
of mankind."
Ex-Governor Lucas, who represented the conservative Democrats, said
that this was not a party issue but rather a question of expediency.
He was in favor of leaving it to the Legislature and the people.
Mr. Lowe said that "the truth was, this matter, like all other
questions of internal policy, should be left where all the other
States of the Union have left it, to the sovereign will of a free and
independent people."
Mr. Hawkins said that "the Whigs were in favor of leaving this matter
to the action of future Legislatures and to the people. When a
proposition was made for a charter, let the details be decided by them
with all the lights before them at that time."
As finally agreed to in the Convention, article nine of the
Constitution, which dealt with corporations, contained the following
provisions. First, no act of incorporation shall continue in force for
more than twenty years without being re-enacted by the General
Assembly. Secondly, the personal and real property of the members of a
corporation shall at all times be liable for the debts of such
corporation. Thirdly, the General Assembly "shall create no bank or
banking institution, or corporation with banking privileges" without
submitting the charter to a vote of the people. Fourthly, the General
Assembly shall have power to repeal all acts of incorporation by them
granted. Fifthly, the property of the inhabitants of the State shall
never be used by any incorporated company without the consent of
the owner. Sixthly, the State shall not become a stockholder in any
bank or other corporation. In this form the question of banks and
corporations was submitted to the people.
On Friday morning, November the first, the Constitutional Convention
of 1844 adjourned _sine die_ after a session of just twenty-six days.