Wisconsin herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1846-1849, 1848-01-29
The Convention.
JANUARY fs. 1873.

zing Congress to authorize the sale of the
Milwaukee canal lands at 81 IS per acre,
came up in order and after discussion and
some amendments offered, the resolution
was referred to Committee. Next came
q resolution fixing the day of adjournment,
which was opposed by Mr.. CHASE and adyo-
Gated by MIR. LAKIS. Mr.. JuDD moved to
lay the resolution on the table, which mo-
ton prevailed.
! The article on education and school funds
came up in order and after striking out,
\ by unanimous consent, the word g countless,
before The word g academies', it was pass
I ed
1 Mr.. KILBoURN then offered the follow
] ing amendment:
| ssSEc. In laying off single districts for
election purposes, no county shall be sub
4 divided, when such subdivision is opposed
to the wishes Of the people thereof as made
known through the delegates or representa-
tIyes of such county,"
i Mr.. kILBoURN said that this single dis
trict system, so far as it went to cut up coun-
ties, was unacceptable to a large number of
the people.
Mr.. DUEN hoped the amendment might
/ prevail He was not in his seat when the
article passed. He did not think the prin-
4 ciple of cutting up counties would work well.
He had heard the argument adduced by
/ those who were in favor of districting the
counties, that it would allay sectional feel
ings and differences. He drew an entirely
different conclusion on this point. The
I thnt, .. Irnx nj
| trict counties, they would see sectional diff
/ ferences start up on every side. This sys-
tenn of dividing counties would open door
for gerymandering which ought to be kept
closed.
Mr.. SANDERS hoped the amendment
would prevail. He was in favor of the
single district system, but not of dividing
counties. There was an impracticability
about the matter. He did not come to the
convention instructed to go for any such
project.
Nj. JuDD spoke in oppositionto the amend
ment.
Mr.. CHASE said that he had always found
tnat whenever party travelled out of the
road OF principle, for the sake of acting in
reference to expediency, they always get
into difficulties. The single district system
was the correct one, and he hoped the
amendment would prevail.
MIR. BEALL differed with his colleague in
reference to his own county, as he believed
it was sure to elect democrats whether by
single districts or otherwise.
Mr.. KING hoped the convention would
not in an indirect manner vote away the
great principle which it had adopted; and
he thought this would be the effect of the
principle proposed, if adopted. He could
see no difficulty in districting the state.
MIR. kILBouRN disclaimed all party feel
ing in the matter. He proposed that the
principle of his amendment should only be
adopted in counties where the people were
opposed to the single district system.
Mr. LALIS said he was not surprised at
any thing; he had seen too much arguing on
one side and voting on another for this
He saw no objection 10 the single district
system. He thought it would tend TO har-
monize the counties. 1t says TO particu-
lar section, that it is entitled to elect certain
officers, and it is calculated to settle all Sec
tional controversies There were certain
rights in families, and he held that they
should be properly defined. Acounty might
be considered as a great family, and ifpeace
is the object, by all means adopt the single
district system. IL the principle is not cor
rect, why not consider the state one great
family, and elect by general ticket, and if
one party has majority of one, let 1t rule.
He considered that the principle was in ac-
cordance with pure, unauthorized democ-
racy. Because IA party may ring in few
the most votes, does it follow that it must
be right? He held that minorties have
rights which shond be respected. He be-
lieved the single district SYSTEM was right
aHh Just in itself; and although Grant coun-
" might he the loser by il in political
point of view, he should take the liberty 10
go for it ON account of its justice. without
instructions from his constituents on the
subject He did not believe it was proper
to adopt the principle in some counties and
not in others. There was not a single OBJ
lection in Justice To the principle, aud he be-
lieved they were bound TO do justice to the
state.
On motion of MIR. DoRAN, the convention
adjourned It'll half past two o'clock.
After further debate in the afternoon the
question was taken by ayes and noes, and
the amendment was lost; IL to 81.
The Convention have fixed the term of
the office of Judges at FIVE years.
THURSDAY, Jan. 20, 1913.
PRAYER by Rev. MIR. Penman.
Journal of yesterday read and corrected.
Mr.. RIcaARpsoN. from the commIttec on
Engrossment, reported the article on he
apportioumento of Representatives as correct
" reported.
The convention resolved itselfin commit
tee of the whole, MIR. KING in the chair, for
the further consideration of the article on
the Judiciary.
Mir. BIsaoP offered the following as a
substitute for the 4th section:
SIC. 1. There shall be separate SUI
preme Court, which shall consist of one
Chief Justice. and two Associate Justices,
u Z ]. -.