good a right to her established boundaries, as a state in it. The form of government to which she may at any period of her existence be subject, neither increases nor diminishes this right. It cannot be conceded that the right to admit can control the right to form a constitution, further than to require that the constitution is republican and in conformity to the principles contained in the articles of compact.”

So much of the Governor's message as relates to the expediency of forming a State government was referred to a joint select committee composed of Messrs. MARTIN and CROCKER of the Council, and Messrs. ELLIS, PRICE and GRANT of the House.

While the subject was under consideration another question arose, intimately connected with the question of the wisdom of changing the form of government from Territorial to State, a question which excited great interest among the people of the Territory, which was reflected by their representatives, and which was in a great measure similar to the questions out of which the political party known as "Know Nothings," or as it styled itself" American" had its origin.

The fifth section of the organic act of the Territory contained a proviso

"That the right of suffrage shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States."

About the time of the meeting of the Legislative Assembly and for some time after, the justice and propriety of extending to the residents of the Territory, who under this proviso were denied the right of suffrage, authority to vote upon the preliminary question of forming a State government, and of participating in the election of delegates to form a State constitution, called out much feeling in Milwaukee which to a considerable degree extended to other parts of the State. The expressions at Milwaukee were almost unanimous in favor of the measure, and the same feeling was exhibited to a less extent in other parts of the State. On the other hand there were many demonstrations of opposition to the measure, one of the most marked of which was a public meeting of citizens of Jefferson, Koshkonong and Oakland, held at Fort Atkinson on the 15th of January, 1844, which resolved that they

"Solemnly protested against the passage of any law that would extend the elective franchise to foreigners."

In Grant county the opposition to the passage of the law was quite extensive and very decided.

On the 4th of January, as the journal reads

"The Speaker laid before the House the petition of SOLOMON JUNEAU and JOHN WHITE, Esquires, and twelve hundred and eighteen others, relative to State Government and the right of foreign born citizens to vote."

A struggle immediately ensued between the friends of the measure and its opponents on the question of the reference of the petition, the former desiring its reference to the committee on Territorial affairs and the latter opposing it. The result soon exhibited the strength of the opposing forces, and the proposed reference was carried by a vote of 15 to 7, with four absent.

A strong lobby was present advocating the measure, the acknowledged leaders of which were ISAAC P. WALKER, FRANCIS HUEBSCHMANN and JOHN WHITE. There was no organized outside opposition to the bill.

The committee on Territorial affairs was composed of Messrs. DARLING, ELMORE, CROSSMAN, PARSONS and HUN

KINS.

The committee on Territorial affairs by Dr. DARLING, its chairman, on the 9th of January, reported

"A bill in relation to the qualification of voters for State Government, and for the election of delegates to form a State constitution."

The following is the text of the bill:

"SECTION 1. That whenever the question of forming a State Government in Wisconsin Territory shall be submitted to the people thereof, all the free white male inhabitants above the age of twenty-one years who shall have resided in said Territory three months shall be deemed qualified and shall be permitted to vote upon said question.

"SECTION 2. That at any election hereafter to be held in this Territory for the purpose of choosing delegates to form a constitution and State Government for the people of said Territory, all the free white male inhabitants thereof above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have resided in said Territory three months next preceding such election, shall be deemed qualified and shall be permitted to vote for such delegates."

All the members of the committee concurred in the report except Mr. ELMORE, who was understood to be opposed to the bill, and voted against it on its final passage, although he made no minority report.

Several amendments were offered to the bill and a motion to indefinitely postpone, all of which were defeated by large majorities, one of which amendments, in view of subsequent events, is worthy of being preserved. It was offered by Mr. BARTLETT, and was to strike out the word white wherever it occurs. The only votes in favor of it were those of Messrs. BARTLETT, ELMORE, HOPKINS, OLIN, and THOMPSON, and there were twenty-one against it. The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and on the next day - January 16th - it

passed in a full House by a vote of 22 to 4-the negative votes being given by Messrs. ELMORE, HICKS, THOMPSON, and TRIPP.

In the Council several amendments were offered, all of which were defeated; one of which was, that the residence of the voter preceding the election should be six months instead of three. The amendment to strike out the word "white" was made by Mr. WHITON, and obtained five votes to six against it.

Mr. WHITON also offered the following amendment :

"Provided, That the subjects of any foreign state with which the United States may be at war, shall not be entitled to vote on said question."

This was voted down by five to six.

Another amendment offered by Mr. WHITON was:

"Provided, That the said inhabitants who shall be allowed to vote, shall be able to speak the English language."

This was lost, one to ten, Mr. WHITON alone voting for it. An amendment offered by Dr. BARBER to strike out the second section was lost, without a division.

The bill was then ordered to a third reading, and on the next day - January 18-was passed by a vote of 8 to 3 in the same words in which it was originally reported in the House. Those who voted in the affirmative were Messrs. FRANK, LA'CHAPPELLE, MARTIN, NEWLAND, ROUNTREE, MARSHALL M. STRONG, MOSES M. STRONG and WHITE. Those who voted in the negative were Messrs. BARBER, DEWEY and WHITON. Messrs. BAKER and CROCKER were excused from attendance.

The joint select committee appointed on the 8th of December, to which the subject of State government had been referred, had not yet made any report, when on the 15th of January, Mr. LA'CHAPPELLE introduced a bill to submit the question to the people.

The bill provided for an election to be held on the first Monday of April, for or against State government, and if a majority should vote in favor of it, the Governor was to issue a proclamation as soon as might be, for delegates corresponding with the number of members of the Legislature from the several districts, to a convention for the formation of a State Constitution. If the bill had become a law, and a majority had voted in favor of a State government, the constitution would probably have been formed and submitted to the people by midsummer.

The bill was referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs. MOSES M. STRONG, LA'CHAPPELLE and FRANK, which on the next day was reported back by a majority of the committee, with the following substitute:

"That at the general election to be held in this Territory on the fourth Monday of September next, all persons who shall be authorized by any law of the Territory, which has been or which may be hereafter passed, to vote on the question of forming a State government, shall be authorized to vote on that question at said election, by depositing with the judges of election a ballot, upon which shall be written or printed For State Government' or 'Against State Government'; and all such votes shall be canvassed, certified and returned, in the same manner as is required by law for the canvassing, certifying and returning of votes for Delegate to Congress, and the Secretary of the Territory is hereby required to certify to the Legislative Assembly, at its next session, the result of such vote."

Mr. LA CHAPPELLE dissented from this report and submitted a minority report, and insisted in vigorous language upon an earlier submission of the question.

The next day (January 16th) the joint select committee submitted a report which took up and combatted the reasons of the Governor in his message in favor of a change in our form of government, and adopted the report of a committee of the House of Representatives submitted on the 11th of January, 1842, and desired that it might be received as a part of their report.

The result arrived at in the report was, that in the opinion of a majority of the committee

"It is inexpedient to take any measures for the formation of a State Government at present."

A resolution had been introduced in the House requesting the delegate to procure, if possible, the passage by Congress of an "enabling act." This was laid on the table at the time of its introduction, and subsequently was indefinitely postponed by a vote of 16 to 7.

The bill introduced by Mr. LA CHAPPELLE, in contrast with the substitute for it recommended by the select committee, met with so little favor in the Council that the substitute was adopted without a division.

The only remaining question was the passage of the substitute, or the adoption of the views of the majority of the joint select committee that it was "inexpedient to take any measures."

The bill came up in the Council for a test vote on the 19th January. Mr. CROCKER moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: "WHEREAS, at the general election in the years 1841, 1842 and 1843, the

voters of this Territory by decided majorities voted against the expediency of forming a State government;

"AND WHEREAS, since the last election there have been no petitions presented to the Legislature desiring any action on this subject; therefore,

"Resolved by the Council and House of Representatives of the Territory of Wisconsin. that it is inexpedient at this time to adopt any measures or take any action in relation to the formation of a State Government."

This amendment was lost, Messrs. CROCKER, DEWEY, MARTIN, NEWLAND and WHITE voting for it and the other eight against it.

As an evidence of the feeling of opposition to the bill to allow foreigners to vote, which passed the Council on the previous day, the following amendment offered by Mr. WHITON is referred to:

"Provided, That when a person shall offer his vote on said question who can not speak or understand the English language, it shall be the duty of the supervisors or judges of election (as the case may be) to procure some competent interpreter to interpret the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, the ordinance enacted by the Congress of the United States for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio, and also an act of the Congress of the United States establishing the Territorial government of Wisconsin, who shall interpret said Declaration and acts to said person who may offer to vote."

Mr. WHITE demanded the previous question, which was sustained by a majority, and, under the rules of the Council at that time, cut off the amendment and brought it to a direct vote on the engrossment of the bill for a third reading, which was carried by the following vote: Ayes-Messrs. BAKER, BARBER, FRANK, ROUNTREE, MARSHALL M. STRONG, MOSES M. STRONG, and WHITON; noes-Messrs. CROCKER, DEWEY, LA'CHAPPELLE, MARTIN, NEWLAND, and WHITE. On the next day it passed the Council and was sent to the House. On the same day of the passage of the bill by the Council Mr. ELLIS introduced in the House a resolution

"That the time has not yet arrived in Wisconsin when the happiness of the people or the prosperity of the country will be advanced by the adoption of a State government.'"

The resolution was preceded by an able, argumentative preamble; but it was ordered, without a division, that the preamble and resolution be laid on the table.

When the bill came up for action in the House, an amendment, that if a majority of the votes should be against State government, the same question should be annually submitted, was voted down -6 to 18.

An amendment was offered by Dr. DARLING to the effect that if a majority of votes were for State government, that