constitution [s] on the same day. 'Nigger suffrage' was the rock the committees split upon."55 Such was indeed the case, and it is interesting to observe that complete secrecy was not preserved. Day after day the committee had put aside this question, but at last they "arrived at a certain point where this question had to be met directly in the face."56 When they finally faced it, they could not agree on its solution. "The whole idea of submitting one constitution" was practically given up.57 In despair the committee proceeded on the 25th to consider ways and means of submitting two constitutions on the same day. The hopelessness of this solution was also soon made apparent.58 It is a fair inference that they were upon the point of breaking up in total disagreement when there occurred the personal altercation between Wilson and Gorman in the committee room.59 The effect of this affray, while it was very painful to the participants and called for some bitter newspaper editorials, both Republican and Democratic, was like that of a thunderstorm in clearing the air. It must have suggested to the remaining members of the committee the horrid spectacle of Minnesota given over to a whole series of physical encounters and possibly even to bloodshed if they did not set their house in order and that quickly. It was but a step to border warfare and anarchy. Both parties were trying to void off the charge of ruffianism, so frequently made earlier in the summer. Abroad Minnesota was already being looked down upon because of the conduct of the constitutional conventions. Word was coming in from friends throughout the land that the conservative elements in both parties expected the Democrats and Republicans to agree upon one constitution so as to bring the new state quickly into the Union. And here was the committee on compromise itself, the chosen few who were to come to an agreement, giving themselves over to physical strife. It was unquestionably with a sense of shame and renewed determination that the committee, now relieved of the presence of the two who had engaged in the combat, returned to its arduous labors.62

61

One important question at dispute at this point was whether the separate question of negro suffrage should be submitted to the voters along with the constitution, as had been proposed by the Republicans.68 The amending clauses proposed by both conventions provided for such difficult processes that the radical Republicans had small hope of getting a constitutional amendment at any later date to bring about negro enfranchisement. It was apparently on August 26 that McClure proposed the following proviso in the article

Pioneer and Democrat, Aug. 25, 1857

se Rep. Deb., p. 573.

67 Ibid., pp. 573-74; Dem. Deb., p. 587.

US Rep. Deb., pp. 561-62.

59 Ibid., pp. 560-65; Dem. Deb., pp. 587-90.

Coggswell scoffed at this idea. Rep. Deb., p. 571.

See pp. 92-93.

Pioneer and Democrat, Aug. 27, 1857; Rep. Deb., p. 567.
Ibid., pp. 573-74.

52548A

on the elective franchise: "Provided, nevertheless, that nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prevent the legislature at any time from passing a law extending the right of suffrage; but that no such law should take effect until it was submitted to a vote of the people and be approved by a majority of the votes cast upon that subject."64 This was, in effect, a proposal that there be a separate and especially easy method of amending the article on the elective franchise. It was a substitute for the proposal to submit the negro-suffrage question separately along with the constitution.

1965

"When that proposition was submitted," relates Mr. McClure, "my friend Brown, a member of the committee from the other wing, said that that did seem actually democratic, that there could be no objection to it. It was then proposed by him that we should so amend the article upon amendments to the constitution so as to just get what we wanted; and in doing that, Mr. President, we got a great deal more than we would have asked for, and a great deal more than the Democrats probably now think that we did get.' He described the amending process formerly under discussion, pointed out its difficulty, and placed in contrast with it the simple amending process which had been adopted as a compromise and substitute. It permitted a single legislature by a simple majority to submit any constitutional amendment to the voters, and it made such amendments effective as a part of the constitution if they were voted for by a majority of the electors voting on the question. This compromise provision constituted the easiest amending process which had been devised up to this time by any state in the Union."

"Now, what did our friends in favor of negro suffrage sacrifice by that?" continued Mr. McClure in his exposition.

They sacrificed the privilege of submitting to the people, as a separate proposal, at the time of the adoption or rejection of this constitution, the question whether the right of suffrage shall be extended to those in whose veins runs African blood. They know, I know, and everybody knows, that that would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority, and that no vote could have been taken upon it again. When they had once voted, their power would have been exhausted. Then they have simply sacrificed the privilege of giving a minority vote in favor of that proposition; for not one of them will say that it could pass. Every Democrat in the whole country would vote against it, and a large majority of the Republicans would vote against it; hence it could not pass.

Now let us see what our friends upon that side gain by it. Why if they are prudent, ... they will never propose such an amendment until the public mind is educated up to that idea, that they will be pretty sure that they will get a majority. . . . They have gained this point, then, that whenever they think the question can be passed by the people and they have a majority of the legislature which will propose such an amendment, it can be voted upon, and if it obtains a majority of votes, it becomes a part

4 Rep. Deb., p. 574.

Ibid.

66 See ch. VIII, infra.

and parcel of the constitution. Now that can be done at any time hereafter, ... It may be that the people may want to extend the right of suffrage to women, to Indians, or to negroes; and under this provision they can extend it to any class they think proper."

68

It was this compromise, proposed on the 26th by McClure and Brown, which finally cleared the way for agreement upon one constitution. During that day and the next the members of the committee continued with their labors; and on the morning of Friday, the 28th, apparently before the meeting of the conventions at the hour of nine, the committee had another session in which further changes in the draft constitution were made. At four o'clock on the afternoon of the 27th Mr. Sherburne appeared in his seat in the Democratic convention with a report of progress. He said the committee "have been at work as assiduously as they could, for the last twelve hours, in perfecting a constitution to be submitted to the convention . . . only a little mechanical labor is now required to perfect our report." The report, including the sections of the constitution agreed upon, was then read." Early the next morning the Republican convention received the same report.72

It appears from what was subsequently said in the conventions that, following the settlement of the negro suffrage question by a compromise on the amending clause, the second great difficulty arose over the schedule provisions for the districting of the state for the first state elections.73 The Republicans of southern Minnesota were particularly bitter against the discriminations existing in the apportionment of members of the territorial legislature. They intended to change the districts and the apportionment to their own advantage, and they had pledged themselves to their constituents to that end. It was their plan "to carve up this territory in such a manner as to secure two members in congress; and not only that, but to carve it up so that we could secure a majority of the first legislature, and, by so doing, secure two senators in the United States senate-that we might send to the halls of the national legislature men who would represent Republican views and sentiments."74 The Democrats were equally committed to the scheme of making the districts and the apportionment such that their candidates would the more easily win, and so that they would control the legislature, the judiciary, and the delegation to Congress.

When the conference committee reported its findings to the several conventions, it was attacked very bitterly in both wings for having yielded too much to the other convention in these matters. A glance at the facts will

Rep. Deb., pp. 574-75.

Dem. Deb., pp. 602-3; Rep. Deb., p. 567.

Dem. Deb., p. 597; Pioneer and Democrat, Aug. 28, 1857.

70 Dem. Deb., p. 597.

Ibid., p. 599.

72 Rep. Deb., pp. 565 ff.

Dem. Deb., pp. 596, 597, 600-13, passim; Rep. Deb., pp. 561, 570-80, passim.

74 Ibid., pp. 571-73.

be of some value." The single district plan for electing congressmen was then in vogue. The quota for representatives, fixed in 1850, was in excess of ninety-three thousand population. Additional members were, of course, allowed for major fractions. To be entitled to two representatives in 1857, Minnesota should have had over 140,000 population; to be entitled to three, it should have had in excess of 230,000. Conforming to these general principles, and estimating the population of Minnesota conservatively, the Republicans planned for the election of two congressmen at the first state election, subsequent to the adoption of the constitution, and divided the state into two districts for that purpose, one consisting of the three southern tiers of counties, which contained fully half of the population of Minnesota as revealed a short time later by the federal census, and the other consisting of the remaining counties of the state, including Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington. This was an entirely fair arrangement, and would have given the Republicans one congressman from the first district, and the Democrats one from the second district. The Democrats, on the other hand, insisted upon the election of three congressmen, for which there was not the least warrant at the time, considering the population of the territory, and provided that they should be elected at large, which was counter to the acts of Congress and the prevailing practice. The reason for this stand was that they were fairly confident that they had a slight majority in Minnesota as a whole, and hoped to be able to elect the entire delegation.

The plans for state legislative districts and the apportionment of members among them are also of interest. The Republican plans were made for a small legislature, the Democratic plans for a larger body. They are not entirely comparable, therefore. On the basis of the census of 1857, which was then being taken, it is clear that the Republican plan would have given the predominantly Democratic counties one fifth less representation than they were entitled to, the Republican counties one fifth more, and the doubtful counties one seventh less than their deserts. The Democratic plan called for giving the Democratic counties one seventh more representation than they were entitled to, the Republican counties one tenth less, and the doubtful counties one tenth less.

The rival proposals for districting for judicial purposes followed similar lines. The Democratic plan provided for five districts, only one of which would go to the Republicans, and this one was so constituted as to include over one third of the state's population. The other four would be almost certain to go Democratic, and three of them, the first, fourth, and fifth together contained less population than the one Republican district. The second district, in southwestern Minnesota, where the Democratic margin of safety

T The following statement of facts and inferences has been drawn from a variety of sources, but principally from the debates of the two wings of the convention, the census of 1857, and the constitution finally agreed upon by the conference committee and the conventions.

was small, included over a fourth of the population of Minnesota. The Republican plan called for six districts, of nearly equal population, of which the Democrats would be likely to carry three and the Republicans three.

In the compromise committee the Democrats won a substantial victory over their opponents, though they made some slight concessions. In the matter of electing the first congressmen, the Democratic arrangement for the election of three members from the state at large was adopted. It is difficult to understand why the Republicans should have yielded upon this point, but undoubtedly they over-estimated their strength throughout the proposed state. The legislative apportionment adopted was a compromise between the rival claims and reasonably fair; it gave the Democratic counties slightly more than they could justly claim, the Republican counties exactly what they were entitled to, and the doubtful counties slightly less than their deserts. In making the judicial districts the Republicans gained the form and the Democrats the substance. Six judicial districts were established, as the Republicans had planned, but their boundaries were so drawn that only two, and these the largest, would fall to the Republicans. The other four were almost certain to go Democratic. The disproportions in size were such that the two Republican districts contained over half the population of the state, and therefore more than the four Democratic districts combined. Undoubtedly the Republicans were ignorant of the actual population of their own counties, while the Democrats were suspicious of all Republican claims.

As to other matters agreed upon by the compromise committee to go into the constitution, we cannot do better than quote the "comforting assurances" which Sherburne made to the Democratic convention when he brought in the committee report. His generalizations were a little too sweeping, and in another chapter they can be checked up, but in the main he was correct.76 He said,

I will state that every proposition has been adopted substantially, from beginning to end, from our constitution. I do not know of a single change to which any gentleman can reasonably object.

A few minutes later he made a somewhat more detailed statement.

I wish to say to the convention that the committee have endeavored to keep themselves informed as to the action of both wings of the constitutional convention. While they have endeavored to agree among themselves as to what was proper and right, they have, at the same time, kept themselves informed of what was being done, and have endeavored to conform to the wishes of the two conventions, as far as they could. Now, sir, ... I do not stand here to give any direction as to the action of the convention; but I do say that there is no such change in the constitution which has passed this convention, as need, in the slightest degree, disturb the equanimity of our friends. There is no change of importance. It is true we have changed phraseology; we have changed sentences; we have sometimes stricken out one word and put in another, for the purpose of compromise; but I undertake to say that no vital principle-no one which a 76 See ch. VI, infra.