The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-09-18
New Notion. proved old--No. 1.


New Notions proved Old--No. 4.
In our comments upon tho new Constitution
Of Michigan published in the two preceding mum
bers of this paper, we took occasion to allude IN
terms Of disapprobatlon to the continuance OF
TIVE Houses of the Legislature. This is not the
first time that we have given publicity to this
s.new notion as it is characterized in the Tele-
graph Of this city, and it is sneeringy alluded
to in the columns of that paper.
We have long since ceased to expect that any
illusions to us or to our opinions emanating from
that sickly fount of premature imbecility, would
possess any of those qualities of fairness which
even the most reckless scribler regards as ne
cessary ingredient in his vilest illusions Our
remarks have been treated by the Telegraph
with all it can afford to give-a sheer.
We have put forth the opinions or "notion'
that two Houses Of Legislation are unnecessary
for the formation Of laws among people who IN
their individuality, are politically equal. We
have not arrived at this conclusion without re-
fleeing upon the ways and means by which laws
are at present enacted-on the nature of the Leg
islation power, and on the end and object OF gov
eminent itself lift can be proved that two
branches are necessary for the Legislative De-
partment of government, we shall reason by ana
logy from this point and demand the establish.
ment of two Executives, and two judicaries,
with co-e extensive powers and Jurisdictions. ANY
course of reasoning which demonstrates the ne
cessity Of two Houses, or two seperate and dis
tinct bodies of men for the enactment of a law
intended to bind people who are individually
equal, will likewise prove the necessity OF two
governors to act as check upon each other, and
two seperate sets of Judges to hold their courts
in different rooms of the same court House, upon
the same case This would be but carrying out
the present system to its legitimate consequences.
But we may be told that experience has taught
us the wisdom of the present organization. We
reply to this by saying that experience has taught
nothing against what we propose. 'On the con-
trary, we are all aware that whenever il becomes
necessary for state to amend or alter its con-
stitution recourse is had to the Republican plan
of single assembly called convention And
will we be told that the work is not as we'll done
as it would be by two houses'
When the Fathers ofthe Republic met toge-
ther to deliberate upon the destnes of the people
during the Revolutionary war, did they delibe-
rate in two houses? When it was demonstrated
that the articles of confederation were inefficient
to protect the weak members Of the confederacy
from the power of the strong, did they deliberate
in two distinct assemblies to form the present con-
stitution And what law of the union, we may
;--I,& a. law
what law is regarded more sacred than the con-
stitution. Yet it was not made by two Houses
Now if the fundamental law of state can be
well form by single Legislative branch what
argument is there in favor of two branches We
will be told they are checks upon each other, so
would team Of horses behind wagon pulling
another way, be check upon the progress OF the
vehicle. If two Houses be necessary a check
in ordinary Legislation why not have at least
two in the formation Of constitution? During
the formation of the fundamental law is the pro-
per time for checks and balances and not when
the mere details of government are to be put in
motion. Experience then is on our side. 1t
teaches us that all the law which we hold as
most sacred was enacted by a single assembly re-
presenting the will of the people.
We could very well rest our proof of the in
utility oftwo Houses of Legislation upon the facts
already set forth and the conclusions which ex-
perience teaches us have been the result of these
facts, but we willing to meet our opponents at
every point of their position were to their very
sneer which brings US in close enough proxim-
ty. Will they pretend to tell us that Messrs.
Lewis and Shields of the Senate would become
different men from what they are now if they
were placed in the House, or that Messrs. Gill
dea and Crawford of the House would be made
wiser or more prudent by being placed in the
Senate. Is it the House or the man that makes
the law? Checks and balances forsooth-
When we have an aristocracy to be represented
by one House and commonalty by another you
may talk of checks and balances, but when there
is but interest to be represented, where there
exists neither cast, class or color on whom to
make distinction, we contend that there exists
no necessity whatever for two branches in Leg.
islation.
The example of Great Britain furnishes no
criterion, neither does the example furnishes by
the Congress the United States. While Arts
tocracy exists in Great Britain its gigantic and
arbitrary privileges are preserved intact by the
House of Lords from the encroachment of the
commons Here is a conflict of privileges which
not only need two Houses to preserve each ones
rights but makes the two Houses necessary con-
comitants Of Aristocratic government limited by
the moral force of popular power.
The nature ofthe Federal compact requires two
Houses in Congress. The Senate to preserve
the equality Of the States, the House of repre-
sentatives to protect the equality of the people
in their individuality. This is absolutely neces-
sary while the government acknowledges the
confederate states Is equals, and while political
equality is the right Of every citizen.
But neither ofthese necessities exists in a state
government, unless it may be in some of the
states where property makes the citizen, and
where all others are distranchised, but evenn this
case the necessity would not exist, inasmuch as
The disfranchised person is incapable ofsending
] person to represent his interest Hense in no
case are two Houses necessary to constitute the