THE CONSTITUTION OF 1844 DEBATED
AND DEFEATED BY THE PEOPLE
While Congress was discussing the boundaries of Iowa and carefully
considering the effect which the admission of the new State might
possibly have upon matters of National concern, the Constitution of
1844 was being subjected to analysis and criticism throughout the
Territory. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the only provision
of the Constitution which was held up and debated in Congress was the
very one which was generally accepted by the people of the Territory
without comment. Whigs and Democrats alike were satisfied with the
_Lucas boundaries_. Nor did the people of Iowa at this time
think or care anything about the preservation of the "balance of
power." Their adoption of, and adherence to, the _Lucas boundaries_
was founded upon local pride and commercial considerations.
Opposition to the Constitution of 1844 was at the outset largely a
matter of partisan feeling. The Whigs very naturally opposed the
ratification of a code of fundamental law which had been formulated by
a Democratic majority. Then, too, they could not hope for many of the
Federal and State offices which would be opened to Iowans after the
establishment of Commonwealth organization. And so with genuine
partisan zeal they attacked the instrument from Preamble to Schedule.
Nothing escaped their ridicule and sarcasm. By the Democratic
press they were charged with "an intent to keep Iowa out of the Union,
so that her two Senators shall not ensure the vote of the United
States Senate to Mr. Polk at the next session."
But the Whigs were not altogether alone in their opposition to the
proposed Constitution, not even during the early weeks of the
campaign. There was some disaffection among the Democrats themselves,
that is, among the radicals who thought that the new code was not
sufficiently Jeffersonian. The editor of the _Dubuque Express_, for
example, was severe in his criticisms, but he intimated that he would
vote for the Constitution in the interests of party discipline. The
_Bloomington Herald_, on the other hand, although a strong organ
of the Democracy, emphatically declared through its editorial columns
that "admission under the Constitution would be a curse to us as a
people."
As a party, however, the Democrats favored the Constitution of 1844,
defended its provisions, and urged its adoption by the people. They
held that as a code of fundamental law it was all that could be
expected or desired, and with a zeal that equaled in every way the
partisan efforts of the Whigs they labored for its ratification at the
polls.
An examination of the arguments as set forth in the Territorial press
reveals two classes of citizens who opposed ratification. First, there
were those who were hostile to the Constitution because they did not
want State government. Secondly, there were others who could not
subscribe to the provisions and principles of the instrument itself.
The out-and-out opponents of State government continued to reiterate
the old argument of "Economy." They would vote against the
Constitution in order to prevent an increase in the burdens of
taxation. This argument of itself could not possibly have defeated
ratification, since there was at this time an overwhelming majority
who desired admission into the Union. And yet the plea of economy
(which always appealed strongly to the pioneers) undoubtedly
contributed somewhat to the defeat and rejection of the Constitution
of 1844.
Prior to the first of March, 1845, opposition to ratification was
expressed chiefly in objections to the proposed Constitution. As
a whole that instrument was characterized as "deficient in style,
manner, and matter, and far behind the spirit of this enlightened
age." It could not even be called a code of fundamental law, since it
contained legislative as well as Constitutional provisions. It
confounded statute law with Constitutional law.
In its detailed provisions and clauses the Constitution of 1844 was
still less satisfactory to the opponents of ratification. They seemed
to see everywhere running through the whole instrument erroneous
principles, inexpedient provisions, and confused, inconsistent, and
bungling language. They declared that the legislative, executive, and
judicial departments of the government were not sufficiently separate
and distinct. The principle of the separation of powers was
clearly violated (1) by giving to the Executive the power of veto, and
(2) by allowing the Lieutenant Governor to participate in the debates
of the Senate. Nor were the popular powers--namely, the powers of
sovereignty--always differentiated from the delegated powers--or, the
powers of government.
The Constitution was roundly abused because it provided for the
election of the Judges of the inferior courts by the people. To the
minds of the critics the office of Judge was too sacred to be dragged
into partisan politics and through corrupting campaigns. Judges ought
not to be responsible to the people, but solely to their own
consciences and to God. Likewise, it was contrary to the principles of
efficient and harmonious administration to provide for the
popular election of the Secretary of State, Auditor of Public
Accounts, and Treasurer. Such positions should be filled by executive
appointment.
Again, the Constitution was attacked because it provided for biennial
instead of annual elections. The salaries fixed for State officers
were "niggardly and insufficient." The method prescribed for amending
the Constitution was altogether too tedious and too uncertain. The
provisions relative to corporations were too narrow, since they
restrained the General Assembly from providing for internal
improvements. By requiring all charters of banks and banking
institutions to be submitted to a direct vote of the people, the
Constitution practically prevented the organization and establishment
of such institutions.
Finally, objections were made to that section of the Bill of Rights
which provided that no evidence in any court of law or equity should
be excluded in consequence of the religious opinions of the witness.
To some it was horrifying to think of admitting the testimony of
non-believers and Atheists.
Such were the arguments against ratification which were advanced by
the opponents of the Constitution of 1844. However, that instrument
was not so defective as pictured, since back of all objections and all
opposition was the mainspring of partisan politics. The Whigs were
bent on frustrating the program of the Democrats. Were they able to
defeat the Constitution on the issue of its imperfections? No, not
even with the assistance of the radical Democrats! But fortunately for
the cause of the opposition a new and powerful objection to
ratification appeared in the closing weeks of the campaign. The news
that Congress had, by the act of March 3, 1844, rejected the
boundaries prescribed by the Iowa Convention reached the Territory
just in time to determine the fate of the Constitution of 1844.
A close examination of this act of Congress revealed the fact that the
fourth section thereof conditioned the admission of Iowa upon the
acceptance of the _Nicollet boundaries_ "by a majority of the
qualified electors at their township elections, in the manner and at
the time prescribed in the sixth section of the thirteenth article of
the constitution adopted at Iowa City the first day of November, anno
Domini eighteen hundred and forty-four, or by the Legislature of
said State." Moreover, it was found that the provisions of the
Constitution of 1844 just quoted read as follows: "This constitution,
together with whatever conditions may be made to the same by Congress,
shall be ratified or rejected by a vote of the qualified electors of
this Territory at the township elections in April next, in the manner
prescribed by the act of the Legislative Assembly providing for the
holding of this Convention: _Provided, however_, that the General
Assembly of this State may ratify or reject any conditions Congress
may make to this Constitution after the first Monday of April next."
In the light of these provisions it appeared to the people of Iowa
that a vote cast for the Constitution would be a vote for the
Constitution as modified by the act of Congress. This view was
altogether plausible since no provision had been made for a separate
ballot on the conditions imposed by Congress. And so it was thought
that a ratification of the Constitution would carry with it an
acceptance of the _Nicollet boundaries_, while a rejection of the
Constitution would imply a decided stand in favor of the _Lucas
boundaries_.
Those who during the fall and winter had opposed ratification now
renewed their opposition with augmented zeal. The Whigs turned from
their petty attacks upon the provisions of the Constitution to
denounce the conditions imposed by Congress. They declared that the
Constitution must be defeated in order to reject the undesirable
_Nicollet boundaries_.
The boundary question now led a considerable number of the more
moderate Democrats to oppose ratification. Prominent leaders of the
party took the stump and declared that it would be better to reject
the Constitution altogether than to accept the limited boundaries
proposed by Congress. They declared that the "natural boundaries" as
prescribed by the Constitution should not be curtailed, and called
upon all good Democrats to vote down their own Constitution. Many,
however, continued to support ratification, believing that the
boundaries imposed by the act of Congress were the best that could be
obtained under the existing conditions. Augustus Dodge, the Iowa
Delegate in Congress, took this stand.
When the Constitution of 1844 was before Congress Mr. Dodge had
stood firmly for the boundaries as proposed in that instrument. But on
the day after the act of March 3, 1845, had been signed by the
President, he addressed a letter to his constituents in Iowa advising
them to ratify the Constitution and accept the _Nicollet boundaries_
as prescribed by Congress. Mr. Dodge thought that the State would
still be large enough. He knew that the country along the Missouri
river was fertile, but "the dividing ridge of the waters running into
the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, called the 'Hills of the
Prairie,' and which has been excluded from our new State, is barren
and sterile." He called attention to the fact that the boundaries
prescribed by Congress were those suggested by Mr. Nicollet, a United
States Geologist, "who had accurately and scientifically
examined the whole country lying between the Mississippi and Missouri
rivers." Then he pointed out the influences which operated in reducing
the boundaries, and concluded by saying: "Forming my opinion from
extensive inquiry and observation, I must in all candor inform you
that, whatever your decision on the first Monday in April next may be,
we will not be able hereafter under any circumstances to obtain _one
square mile more_ for our new State than is contained within the
boundaries adopted by the act of Congress admitting Iowa into the
Union."
From the returns of the election it was evident that Mr. Dodge's
constituents either did not take him seriously or were sure that he
was mistaken in his conclusions. The Constitution of 1844 was
rejected by a majority of 996 votes.
The result of the election was such as to "astound the friends of the
Constitution and to surprise everybody, both friend and foe." Those
who had labored for ratification throughout the campaign abused the
Whigs for opposing so perfect an instrument, censured the Convention
for submitting the Constitution to Congress before it had been
ratified by the people, and preferred general charges of
misrepresentation. The friends of the Constitution clamored loudly for
a resubmission of the code of fundamental law as it had come from the
Convention, so that the people might have an opportunity to pass upon
it free from conditions and without misrepresentation. Within a few
weeks the seventh Legislative Assembly of the Territory was to
meet in regular session. The members would be asked to give the
Constitution of 1844 another chance.