for office until the old stagers shall have lost popularity or have been promoted, and under the county system when one of them goes his place is supplied by another from the same clique.

Another advantage yet would be the breaking up of the influence of those little knots of politicians, who, lacking any other capabilities to gain power, gain it by industriously canvassing a county and then let themselves out for the hire of some little office as tools to some ambitious man who has rather more sense than they and guides their exertions.

We are inclined to the belief that the single-district system would be far the best for us and far the most popular among us; and we hope the convention will so arrange the matter that the election of members for both houses will be brought as near the people as possible, and the candidate for office chosen from such a small territory that he may be as well known as possible to those who send him on to do for them the duties that must be performed by delegate.

SELECTIONS FROM THE PLATTEVILLE INDEPENDENT AMERICAN

LETTERS OF "A FARMER OF GRANT"-No. 1

[December 31, 1845]

As we are shortly to be employed in forming a constitution for the government of the state of Wisconsin, it is right and proper that every paper should begin to discuss the subject; and indeed every citizen has a right, through the press, to give his views of what features in the fundamental law of the country would, or would not, be likely to promote justice and happiness.

We are here collected from all the states of the Union and other countries; therefore we ought to exchange ideas freely, with an honest intention of stifling prejudice and coming at truth, by inquiring of many people. It is not uncommon for men to believe that the things to which they have been habituated are preferable to all others. This disposition has shown itself in all the conventions, from that that formed the Constitution of the United States down to that of Texas. John Adams once said, at the table of Mr. Jefferson, "The British government is the best in the world, if it were trimmed of some of its little errors." Mr. Hamilton being present replied, "As it is, it is the best." Likely they were both right, but an original thinker, like Franklin or Jefferson, would have been likely to inquire whether it could be made better, or whether it fully answered the purpose for which governments were instituted among men, viz: to secure their rights, and to promote justice and happiness. This should be the polar star to guide the framers of all constitutions and laws, and perhaps the whole should be resolved into the word justice; for when a man has strict jus

tice done him in every respect, if he is not happy it is not the fault of the laws of his country. Nearly all robberies that have been committed by legislation have been carried through under the pretence of promoting happiness. All the bankrupt laws, the stay laws, the loan office laws, the lottery laws, the distribution laws, the state debt and internal improvement laws, the bank and tariff laws, with a thousand others of a similar cast for individual benefit, have been carried forward with the pretence of promoting happiness; but in my view he that is willing to sacrifice justice to promote general happiness is on the wrong track, and will not accomplish his object, and all such legislation should be prohibited by the constitution.

As the constitution of Texas is the latest improvement in that way, I will notice a few of its sections. Article I, section 11, says: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.

It can easily be seen that this section is the production of a lawyer. This remedy is just no remedy at all. To sue a man at law is about equal to challenging him to fight a duel, and as dueling is prohibited in another part of this constitution, it was perhaps thought right to let them fight their battles in court. When a man is about to challenge his adversary to fight a duel, he reasons thus: "The scoundrel has done me an injury; therefore I will take the risk of getting a shot in my body for the chance of putting one into his." So if he sues him at law: "The rascal has done me an injury, I will take the risk of a shot into my pocket for the chance of putting one into his"; but there is this difference-in the latter case both shots are sure to take effect, while in the former they may both miss: of the two evils the dueling is undoubtedly the least.

Article I, section 12. "No person for the same offense shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall a per

son be again put on trial for the same offense, after a verdict of not guilty; and the right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." Here again we meet with protection for the craft of the lawyer. Trial by jury was once a valuable thing, but what was then called trial by jury is now called trial by arbitration. What we now call trial by jury is merely a trial by law; and law is costly, tedious, and not understood by any man now living. The judge instructs the jury, according to law "as he understands it"; if they decide agreeably to the instruction, well; if not, the verdict is set aside as contrary to law, so that the substance of trial by jury is gone, and nothing but the shadow is left.

Were I making a draft of a constitution for Wisconsin, I would include the above two sections in one, as follows: "Section That jumble of nonsense called the common law shall be forever eradicated from our system of jurisprudence, and its place be supplied with common justice, administered by common sense and common honesty; and, that justice may be cheap, quick, and brought home to every man's door, all disputes shall be settled by arbitration instanter, or as soon as the facts can be ascertained. The number and qualification of arbitrators should be regulated by law, and in such manner that they would be likely to understand the cases which they were called to decide.

Article 1, section 15. "No person shall ever be imprisoned for debt." One of these two things is clear: a person should be compelled to pay his debts, or he should not. If he should be compelled to pay, then every means should be resorted to to force him; but if he should not be compelled to pay, then this section should read, "No person shall ever be forced by law to pay debts hereafter contracted." If A. could compel B. to give him credit, then justice would require that the law should compel A. to pay, but, as this is not the case, B. ought to have great confidence in A. before he gave him credit, and A. ought upon honor pay, or his credit be gone forever.

Section 22 of article 17 of this constitution makes provi

sion for the legislature to pass a law to allow the head of a family $2,000 worth of property to be exempt from forced sale. This should not be. If a man uses industry and economy till he acquires wealth, there should be no law against him in favor of those who either went idle or spent their earnings as they went along; there should be no law to punish good actions and reward bad ones; there should not be a law for the man worth two thousand dollars and another for the man worth three thousand.

Article 3, section 27. "Ministers of the gospel, being by their profession dedicated to God and to the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the duties of their functions; therefore no minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination whatever shall be eligible to the legislature." This is a good section as far as it goes, and it [is] copied in substance from some of the best constitutions of the older states; but it ought to have continued: "and lawyers being directly interested in having the laws ambiguous, unintelligible, hard to be understood, and even without meaning, therefore no practising lawyer shall ever be eligible to the legislature." The necessity of this clause may be seen in all the constitutions and laws of the Union.

Article 7, section 19, is a sample. It says, "All property, both real and personal of the wife, owned or claimed by her before marriage, and that acquired by gift, devise, or descent, shall be her separate property, etc." Now I would like to know if a young girl were to claim ten leagues square of land in Texas, whether the clause of the constitution would confirm her title and make it her separate property after her marriage. If it has any meaning at all, that is the idea it would seem to convey, and likely some smart lawyer had it inserted for that very purpose.

Should you think this worth a place in your paper, in my next I will consider the doctrine held forth in this section and the preceding one.

A FARMER OF GRANT.12

12 "A Farmer of Grant" was Stewart McKee, an unsuccessful candidate for election to the first constitutional convention.