In the report which accompanied this bill the Committee stated that they had become "satisfied that the present Territory of Wisconsin is altogether too large and unwieldy for the perfect and prompt administration of justice or for the convenient administration of the civil government thereof." They were more specific in saying that "the judges of the Territory, as it now is, and also the Governor, district attorney, and marshal, are entirely unable to perform their respective duties in all parts of the Territory." They also pointed out that of the fifty thousand inhabitants in the Territory more than half resided west of the Mississippi river, that the population was rapidly increasing, that the natural line of division was the Mississippi river, that the Capital would soon be removed to eastern Wisconsin, and that "so much of the Territory of Wisconsin as is east of the Mississippi river must necessarily form one State."
It was not, however, until early in the month of June that "An act to divide the Territory of Wisconsin and to establish the Territorial Government of Iowa" pa.s.sed both the Senate and the House of Representatives. On June 12, 1838, it received the approval of President Van Buren. As the Const.i.tution of the Territory of Iowa it took effect on the sixty-second anniversary of the Independence of the American Nation. In the chronology of our Const.i.tutions it stands as the second code or text of fundamental law.
But the Territory of Iowa was not established without opposition in Congress. The discussion in the House of Representatives on the fifth and sixth days of June, and immediately preceding the pa.s.sage of the act dividing the Territory of Wisconsin, brought out something of the broader significance of the proposition to create a new Territory in the country west of the Mississippi and north of the State of Missouri. From the records it appears that the sympathies of the Representatives were not all with the men on the frontier.
Mr. Mason of Ohio, who moved to strike out the enacting clause, said that he desired to obtain information relative to the a.s.sertion "that the people had settled there in a manner contrary to law."
"Mr. Waddy Thompson opposed the bill and the creation of a Territorial Government in the Northwest." He went at great length into "a consideration of the balance of power between the Northern and Western, and Southern States, as far as related to the questions of slavery, and the annexation of Texas." He declared that "he would never consent to the coming in of these Territories or States into the Union, when the fanatical spirit of the North was pouring into the House memorials against the annexation of Texas, simply because it was cursed with the peculiar inst.i.tution of the South." To preserve the balance of power between the two sections of the Union, was the substance of Mr.
Thompson"s plea. If by the creation of the Territory of Iowa the North is promised a new State, the demand of the South for the annexation of Texas should, in accordance with the principle of the balance of power, be recognized. Thus it was proposed to meet the problem of admitting States at the time of the formation of new Territories.
In the course of the debate it was suggested by Mr. Mercer "that Iowa be organized as a Territory when Wisconsin was admitted as a State."
It remained for Mr. Shepard of North Carolina to make emphatic objections all along the line. He opened his speech by intimating that the bill had been introduced to the end that "a fresh rich field might be opened to those who speculate in public lands, and a batch of new offices created for such as seek Executive favor." He had no sympathy with the squatters. "Who are these that . . . . pray for the establishment of a new Territory? Individuals who have left their own homes and seized on the public land . . . . These men pounced on the choicest spots, cut down the timber, built houses, and cultivated the soil as if it were their own property . . . . Without the authority of law and in defiance of the Government, they have taken possession of what belongs to the whole nation, and appropriated to a private use that which was intended for the public welfare. These are they who require a governor and council, judges, and marshals, when every act of their lives is contrary to justice, and every pet.i.tion which they make is an evidence of their guilt and violence. We, who are insulted, whose authority is trampled under foot, are asked for new favors and privileges; the guardians of the law are approached by its open contemners, and begged to erect these modest gentlemen into a dignified Government . . . . I cannot sanction their conduct; if they would not move peaceably, they should go at the point of the bayonet; if they forget what is due to their country and their distant fellow-citizens, they ought to be punished. The majesty of the laws should be vindicated."
The Representative from North Carolina was jealous of the growth and development of the West, and he objected to the liberal land policy of the United States since it encouraged the young men to leave their southern homes. He declared that "if the Territory of Iowa be now established, it will soon become a State; and if we now cross the Mississippi, under the beautiful patronage of this Government, the cupidity and enterprise of our people will carry the system still further, and ere long the Rocky Mountains will be scaled, and the valley of the Columbia be embraced in our domain. This then is the time to pause . . . .
"If happiness depended entirely on the number of hogs raised, or the quant.i.ty of corn gathered, then the citizens should be dispersed, so as to occupy the most fertile spots in our whole territory . . . .
But whatever may be the effect of this land policy on the general welfare, it has been deeply injurious to the Southern portion of the Confederacy . . . . If all of the people born in North Carolina had remained in its limits, our swamps and low grounds would have rivalled the valley of the Nile in production, and our pine barrens would have been flourishing with the vine, the olive, and the mulberry.
We have, therefore, reason to complain of the policy of this Government . . . . Others may act as pleases them, but I will never sustain a policy so detrimental to the people with whom I am connected . . . . If these remarks be unavailing, the patriot should fear for the permanence of the Republic."
The spirited debate, which took place in the House of Representatives, on the question of the establishment of the Territorial government of Iowa disclosed the fact that the creation of a new Territory at this time west of the Mississippi and north of Missouri was of more than local interest; it was, indeed, an event in the larger history of America. Some few men were beginning to realize that the rapid settlement of the Iowa country was not an isolated provincial episode but the surface manifestation of a current that was of National depth.
Far-sighted statesmen whose eyes were neither blinded by the lights of the moment nor yet always riveted upon that which for the time was most brilliant, saw that a plain, common-looking pioneer farmer from across the Mississippi had come upon the stage of National Politics and had already begun to play a role in the great drama of American Democracy.
But even the prophets did not so much as dream that, within the memory of men then living, the awkward amateur would take the part of a leading actor in the play.
VII
THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF THE TERRITORY
The Territorial epoch in our history began in 1836, when the Territory of Wisconsin was established; it came to a close in 1846, when the State of Iowa was organized and admitted into the Union. Two Const.i.tutions belong to this decade--the Organic Act of the Territory of Wisconsin, and the Organic Act of the Territory of Iowa. These Const.i.tutions are very much alike both in form and content. Indeed, the latter was copied from or modeled upon the former. An outline of either would fairly indicate the content of the fundamental law for the whole Territorial epoch. But to avoid unnecessary repet.i.tion on the one hand and confusion on the other, the t.i.tle of the present chapter will be taken to mean the Organic Act of 1838.
The Const.i.tution of the Territory of Iowa is clearly an outgrowth of American political development. In its provisions is summed up the final product of that most interesting series of evolutionistic transformations in Territorial government that took place throughout the North and West.
The first in the long line of American Territorial Const.i.tutions, and the starting point of subsequent development, was the ordinance of the Congress of the Confederation now familiarly known as "The Ordinance of 1787." Nor was this famous ordinance itself a code of _new_ political principles. Consciously or unconsciously its framers drew largely from the principles, forms, and practices of American government prior to the Revolution. The a.n.a.logy between the Colonial and Territorial governments of America is too striking to be dismissed as accidental.
The relation of the United States to the Territories has always been of a Colonial character. In the history of Territorial government the Ordinance of 1787 stands as the Magna Charta of the West. But the Great Ordinance like the Great Charter was in many respects crude, incomplete, and un-American. Place it by the side of the Const.i.tution of the Territory of Iowa, and it is plain to see that in the course of fifty years marked changes had taken place--especially in the direction of democratization.
The Const.i.tution of the Territory is a written instrument of twenty sections or articles, containing in all about four thousand words. It has no preamble, but is simply introduced by the enacting clause. As a pure product of Congressional legislation it was promulgated upon the legislative authority of Congress with the approval of the President of the United States. In its origin, therefore, it resembles the Royal Charters of Europe more than the written Const.i.tutions of America. The Const.i.tution of the Territory was literally handed down to the people who were governed under its provisions _without their own consent_ directly given.
The first section purports to create a new Territory, by fixing the boundaries thereof and declaring that from and "after the third day of July next, all power and authority of the Government of Wisconsin, in and over the Territory hereby const.i.tuted shall cease." On reading this section one is almost startled by the matter-of-fact way in which a body of legislators _seem_ to have made a Const.i.tution and established a new political society.
In providing for the executive department in the very next section the logical order of the Const.i.tution of the United States was reversed by placing the executive "power and authority" before that of the legislative. This, however, was altogether natural, since the Governor had been the central figure in Territorial government ever since the days of the great St. Clair. He was no figure-head, but the real Government, influencing legislation as well as directing the administration. Robert Lucas, the first of the Territorial Governors of Iowa, seems to have fully apprehended this fact, for from the very outset he made himself the real power in public affairs. The influence of the Governor was dominant in Territorial government chiefly because, like his prototype in the Colonies, he represented the majesty and the supreme authority of the National government.
"The executive power and authority in and over the said Territory of Iowa," runs the Organic Act, "shall be vested in a Governor, who shall hold his office for three years, unless sooner removed by the President of the United States." The Governor was appointed by the President, but must reside in the Territory and "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He was commander-in-chief of the militia and commissioned all officers appointed under the laws of the Territory. It was his to grant pardons for offenses against the laws of the Territory and provisional reprieves for offenses against the laws of the United States. Besides all this, he was Superintendent of Indian affairs for the National government.
In the government of the Territory of Iowa the Governor was something more than chief of the militia and author of commissions and pardons.
Like the King of England, he was a const.i.tuent branch of the law-making body. Not only did the Organic Act declare "that the legislative power shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative a.s.sembly," but it gave to the Governor the power of an absolute veto over all acts of the a.s.sembly. Indeed, it was this extraordinary power to partic.i.p.ate in legislation along with the power to appoint all inferior judicial officers, justices of the peace, sheriffs, militia officers, and county surveyors that gave our first Governor a real power and prestige not since enjoyed by any executive--State or Territorial.
A Secretary of the Territory was provided for in the third section. This officer stood next to the Governor in importance; and in case of the death, removal, resignation, or necessary absence from the Territory of the latter he was authorized and required to execute and perform the gubernatorial powers and duties. The Secretary was appointed by the President for a term of four years, but was subject to removal at any time. His chief duty was to record and preserve the laws, acts, and proceedings of both the Legislative a.s.sembly and the Governor, and yearly transmit copies thereof to the President of the United States and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The legislative power was, by the fourth section of the Const.i.tution, "vested in the Governor and a Legislative a.s.sembly." The a.s.sembly was a representative body organized on the bicameral plan into a "Council" and a "House of Representatives." The Council consisted of thirteen members, elected biennially; while the House of Representatives had just double that number, elected annually. The members of both houses were chosen directly by the qualified voters of the Territory. They were elected by districts, and apportioned on the basis of population. The a.s.sembly was to meet annually; "but no session in any year shall exceed the term of seventy-five days."
A lavish delegation of power was granted to the Legislative a.s.sembly by the sixth section of the Const.i.tution which provided "that the Legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation." Just what is meant by "rightful subjects of legislation" is nowhere stated. But from the pages of the Territorial statutes it is manifest that the important subjects of legislation were in general the establishment of local government, the creation of business and public corporations, the maintenance of the inst.i.tution of private property, the fulfilment of contracts, and the guarantee of personal security. The sphere of legislation granted to the Territory was larger than that reserved to the Commonwealth of Iowa.
It would, however, be a grave mistake to view the powers of the Legislative a.s.sembly as unlimited, since the Const.i.tution of the Territory contains (_a_) certain specific prohibitions, (_b_) a general limitation, and (_c_) a Bill of Rights. The specific prohibitions are: "no law shall be pa.s.sed, interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents."
These specific prohibitions are followed in the same section by the general limitation which reads: "All the laws of the Governor and Legislative a.s.sembly shall be submitted to, and if disapproved by, the Congress of the United States, the same shall be null and of no effect."
The Territorial Bill of Rights as set forth in the Const.i.tution is exceedingly brief--perhaps the shortest Bill of Rights on record. It consists of a single sentence and reads as follows: "The inhabitants of the said Territory shall be ent.i.tled to all the rights, privileges and immunities heretofore granted and secured to the Territory of Wisconsin and to its inhabitants." On its face this guarantee of the fundamental rights of man and of the citizen seems vague and unsatisfactory. But it is, nevertheless, large in implication. If we turn to the Const.i.tution of the Territory of Wisconsin to see what rights, privileges, and immunities were therein guaranteed, we find "that the inhabitants of the said Territory shall be ent.i.tled to, and enjoy, all and singular the rights, privileges, and advantages, granted and secured to the people of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by the articles of the compact contained in the ordinance for the Government of the said Territory, pa.s.sed on the thirteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven; and shall be subject to all the conditions and restrictions and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of the said Territory." In other words, the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 are by implication made a part of the Const.i.tution of the Territory of Iowa. Thus the people of Iowa inherited through the Territorial Const.i.tutions of 1836 and 1838 the political principles of the great Ordinance of 1787 as a Bill of Rights.
Great was the legacy. Mark the cla.s.sical expression of that instrument in enumerating the immemorial rights, privileges, and principles of Anglo-Saxon polity. "No person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments . . . . The inhabitants of the said Territory shall always be ent.i.tled to the benefits of the writ of _habeas corpus_, and of the trial by jury; of a proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident, or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate; and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land, and should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person"s property, or to demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared, that no law ought ever to be made, or have force in the said territory, that shall, in any manner whatever, interfere with, or affect private contracts or engagements, _bona fide_, and without fraud previously formed."
These words are more than formal expressions of great principles; they are enn.o.bling. But to read farther, that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, and that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, is to inspire reverence. Such, indeed, are the "liberties we prize" and the "rights we will maintain."
The judicial power of the Territory was vested by the Const.i.tution in "a Supreme Court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace." The Supreme Court consisted of a Chief Justice and two a.s.sociate justices. They were appointed by the President for a period of four years, and were required to hold a term of court annually at the seat of government. The Const.i.tution further directed (_a_) that the Territory be divided into three judicial districts, (_b_) that a district court or courts be held in each of the three districts by one of the judges of the Supreme Court, and (_c_) that the said judges reside in the districts respectively a.s.signed to them.
The courts of the Territory of Iowa were "legislative courts," that is, courts created by Congressional legislation. The extent of their jurisdiction was much greater than that of State courts, since by the Organic Act they were empowered to exercise the customary jurisdiction of both State and Federal courts.
In addition to those already mentioned, the Const.i.tution provided for two other prominent Territorial officers, namely, a Marshal and an Attorney. Both were appointed by the President of the United States for a term of four years.
At the National Capital the Territory was represented by a Delegate who was elected by the people for a term of two years. The Delegate was ent.i.tled to a seat in the House of Representatives where he could partic.i.p.ate in debate but was not allowed a vote.
One of the most significant sections of the Const.i.tution is the fifth.
It provides "that every free white male citizen of the United States, above the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been an inhabitant of said Territory at the time of its organization, shall be ent.i.tled to vote at the first election, and shall be eligible to any office within the said Territory." Thereafter the suffrage qualifications were to be determined by the Legislative a.s.sembly; "_Provided_, That the right of suffrage shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States."
Although the Organic Act of 1838 was almost a literal copy of the Organic Act of 1836, the following differences are worthy of observation: First, the term of the members of the Council was changed from four years in 1836 to two years in 1838. Secondly, the term of Representatives was changed from two years in 1836 to one year in 1838.
Thirdly, the term of the judges of the Supreme Court was changed from "good behavior" in 1836 to four years in 1838. Fourthly, by the Organic Act of 1838 the judges of the Supreme Court were required to reside in their respective districts. Fifthly, the salary of the judges of the Supreme Court was reduced from eighteen hundred dollars in 1836 to fifteen hundred dollars in 1838.
Reflection upon the history and provisions of the Const.i.tution of the Territory leads to a few general conclusions. First, this Const.i.tution was written i. e. codified. In the second place, it was an act of Congress. Again, its provisions represent political evolution in Territorial government up to the year 1838. Furthermore, government in the Territory, though subordinate, had a wider sphere of activity under the Organic Act than has ever since been enjoyed by government under a State Const.i.tution. This is true, since the Legislative a.s.sembly and the Territorial courts exercised to a considerable extent the customary functions of both National and State governments. Still further, the President of the United States was in theory the head of Territorial administration, since he had the power to appoint and remove the chief administrative officers in the Territory. Finally, there existed in the machinery of Territorial government a nice balance between administration on the one hand and legislation on the other, that is, between the part which was responsible directly to the President of the United States and the part which was responsible directly to the people of the Territory.
VIII
THE CONSt.i.tUTION OF THE TERRITORY AMENDED
No provision for its amendment is contained in the Organic Act of 1838; but by inference and implication it is clear that the power to change, alter, or amend the Const.i.tution of the Territory resided in Congress.
The process of amendment, therefore, was that of ordinary legislation.
Congress was not long in exercising this extraordinary power. On March 3, 1839, within eight months of the organization of the Territory, the President approved two acts amending the Const.i.tution. These were: (1) "An act to alter and amend the organic law of the Territories of Wisconsin and Iowa;" and (2) "An Act to authorize the election or appointment of certain officers in the Territory of Iowa, and for other purposes."