Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1847-03-10

The room was tolerably we'll filled, but
what portion were democrats opposed to
the Constitution we forbear to express an
opinion, lest our friends abroad might sup
pose we were only joking. The meeting
was called TO order by the venerable and
long.tried old democrat John Aver, on
whose motion l. N. Stodard was called tc
the chair. The chairman having taken
his place on the platform made shor
speech which must have been highly graft
flying to all parties present, inasmucE
as lie defined his position, which had
previously been quito obscure: he also
presented the meeting with some interest.
ing statistics in The shape of public opinion,
which he had been engaged in collecting
on the subject of the Constitution; we did
not understand him to say however, tina,
his statistical tables, had Influenced his de.
termination where TO cast anchor.
The first speaker who took the stand
was II. N. Wells Esq. of Milwaukee. -
Mr.. Wells is gentleman Of acknowledged
talent, and we have no disposition 10 speak
disparag'ngly of him because of d fer
ence of opinion. But to say that his enor,
on this occasion was either argumentative
or forcible, would be more than truth war
rants MIR. Wells spoke more than an
hour and half, and the burden oe his
speech was the conduct Of the members of
the Convention; he INDUCED pretty freely
in innuendo and satire on the practices of
the democratic party, TO the evide1, edit
cation and delight of wings and abolitionists
who appeared TO enjoy the treat with great
gusto. We believe he attacked but two
articles in the constitution, viz: the article
fixing the number Of members of The lerls-
ature, and the bank article. He objected
10 the legislature as being too numerous,
assuming that such body must Of neces
slty move slow in the transaction of bust
ness; which assumption however is most
fatty contradicted by referring TO the
legislative bodies Of several of the New
England States AS to banks, il is wei
known that Mr.. Wells has always been
hard currency man. and always professed-
~ opposed 10 banks. HIS main objection
to the bank article appeared to be, that if
adopted, it would force every man who
swears TO support the constitution to com
mi, perjury! And we doubt not ,ba, many
who heard his argument on this 70 Mt.
must have been persuaded that it takes a
lawyer after all, TO define legal and moral
PERJURY in case ofemergency.
Marshall M. Strong of Racine next took
the stand; he remarked as Introductory
that he "fel, very strangeIy"-very likely
He said he would confin, his remr,ks 10
but one subject only: "Exemptions." p
To add pa,hos to his argument, he com.
menced by defining the laws of Nature
and of Deity 1t was law of Deity, he
said, "that every man should pay his
debts" He however seemed TO think, that
notwithstanding this law of Deity it was
no violation of il TO exempt portion of a
mans goods and effects-hence he sad ,ha,
with his own hand he had drawn the pres
ent act of exemption on Our statute book
which exempts personal property to the
amount of about $3.50. This much
might be withheld by the debtor from the
creditor without violating the law of the
Deity; but the drift of his argument,
if we rightly understood him, was, if more
property should be exempted, it would GER
tainly break Gods law. By what rule o.
theology or of mythology, the gentleman
was enabled 10 CIPHER the Limitation OF
Gods law, relative 10 the debtors property
at $3.50, we cannot understand If Mr..
5. had considered what are mans natural
rights-rights which are in accordance
with the laws of Deity, he would have ar.
| rived at a different conclusion. The
Deity has given man natural right TO ex.
list; to exist, he has right to the elements.
by which only his existence can be pre
served; hence man has a natural night 10
the air he breathes-to the fountains of
|
water that gush up from the bosom Of the
eaIth' and 10 The soil, fom whose products