would be just as capable as any other, I can refer the gentleman to the opinion of Governor Grimes in regard to that Legislature. I believe he was under the necessity of interposing, in many instances, in reference to their doings here. I would, therefore, refer the gentleman to his Excellency in regard to that Legislature. The gentleman says-not in precisely so many words, but it amounted to the same thing-that this making an appeal to the people, this referring this matter to the people, is all buncombe; and that it is got up here for nothing but buncombe. If he thinks so, then he can take the position of not only continuing in office the Legislature, but all the rest of the officers of this State, for life. We hold that all officers should be frequently elected by the people, and that there should be no interposition between the people and their servants to prevent them from reviewing their conduct when they see proper. I say that that is the principle of our government. And the only question to be decided here is, whether we are willing to let this matter go back to the people, or interpose between them and those they may desire to select to sustain and put in operation what we may do here. [February 16th Des Moines (Mr. Hall) had changed his opinions in regard to this matter. I do not know that the gentleman from Appanoose did say that the supreme judges should be kept in office. But I am confident, though I may be mistaken, that the gentleman from Des Moines offered good and cogent reasons why they should be permitted to remain in office; and the same reasons will apply to members of the legislature. They have been elected for a specific term, and they should not be thrown out until that specific term has been fulfilled. I mean that they cannot honestly and morally be turned out. Perhaps it was with an air of triumph that I asked the gentleman from Des Moines if he had changed his opinions upon that point in five or six days. He urged good reasons the other day on the one side, and he can offer no better on the other side to-day. I only asked for information. I wished to know if he had changed his views. Mr. HARRIS. Is the gentleman in favor of districting the State into judicial districts? Mr. SCOTT. I have told the gentleman already, that I have not investigated that matter. Mr. HARRIS. I understood the gentleman from Des Moines (Mr. Hall) to say positively, the other day, that he was in favor of turning out the supreme judges. The gentleman says he is willing to take the responsibility. He can do so, if he desires, and continue the present Legislature in office. But I wish to tell that gentleman, and other gentle- Mr. PARVIN. I have listened all this time men here, that I should not wish to bear that to hear some good reason for turning these offiresponsibility before my constituents. And Icers out of office. As I wish to keep them in apprehend that when this matter comes to be office, I desire to give my reasons very briefly. discussed before the people of this State, there I think the gentleman from Des Moines (Mr. will be a more weighty responsibility attached Hall) must either consider that the present legto it than gentlemen here seem to be aware of. islature are incompetent to act under this new Gentlemen ask us with an air of triumph, constitution, or that they are dishonest and Would you put the supreme judges out of office? will not do as well as others would. No other I say, yes, I would; and that, too, just as quick- reason, I think, could be drawn from his arguly as I would any other officers. I do not hold ment. If this convention fixes the constitution the supreme judges to be any more sacred, or as the gentleman from Des Moines argues, they farther above the people and the ballot box, than must provide for new men to act under it, and any other officers. If they have discharged their put it into operation. And yet those men who duties and met their responsibilities properly, elected the delegates to this convention, elected and in a manner that the people expected of but a short time before, members of the legislathem, then they have nothing to fear. If ture; and those men, I think, are as well qualithey have not, I ask what responsibility they ex-fied to act justly and understandingly as would pect to get clear of by holding on to their power a while longer? They must some time pass in review before the people, and will not be adjudged more favorably on account of time. Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Appanoose [Mr. Harris] has seen fit to represent that I have interrogated the gentleman from Des Moines [Mr. Hall] with an air of arrogance. be others more recently elected. The people elected them for a definite period of time, under a constitution then and now in force. That constitution may be done away with by the institution of the one we are now framing; but they elected those members under that constitution, as they had been doing for the last ten years. These men, having been elected for Mr. HARRIS. I did not say arrogance. a definite period of time, have the right to reMr. SCOTT. Well; with an air of triumph. main in office during the term for which they Perhaps it might have been with an air of tri- were elected. We are not providing a constituumph that I interrogated the gentleman from tion for a new tribe, or a new race of men, but Des Moines (Mr. Hall), and if I mistake not, the for the same class of people that the present gentleman from Des Moines offered good and legislature were elected to represent. When we cogent reasons why the supreme judges should are asked to turn out all the officers that be kept in office. I suppose they were good and the people have elected, and send them well taken, and well grounded. I have no issue back to the people, I am afraid of the rewith the gentleman from Appanoose [Mr. Har-sponsibility. But I am not afraid to carry out ris], but I wished to know if the gentleman from the wishes of those who sent me here. The Monday] GILLASPY-TRAER-HARRIS-GOWER. present legislature is the very body that ought to carry out this new constitution. It was elected just before the present convention was elected. Let us not take the responsibility of saying here that the people last August did not know whom they wanted for their representatives, and that they know better to-day. We might just as well put in the constitution that representatives shall be elected every six months. [February 16th. Now I wish to say in regard to this question, which has been discussed here, that I understood, when I was elected as a delegate to this convention, that I was to come here, not for the purpose of framing a new constitution for the State of Iowa, or to legislate the present general assembly out of office, or legislate any of the State officers out of office; but we were to meet here to make a few important changes in the constitution, then adjourn, and go home. So far as my constituents are concerned, I do not believe that one of them, whether democrat or republican, expected that any such change as this would be made. And I hold that the proper course for this convention to have persued was to have made these changes, and have gone home before this time. It is said that we are taking power from the people. I say we would be taking power from the people, if we were to say here that what they did last August shall be undone. I am opposed to doing that, because I think the men elected last August are just as competent as any we can get now. I feel that they are just as honest and faithful as new men would be. I be- Gentlemen have been talking to us for three lieve the people want them to remain in office, or four days back about the probabilities of a and I do not want them to have the trouble of tremendous public sentiment being manufacelecting them over again. I do not think we tured out of the length of the time this convenhave any right to devolve that trouble back tion has been in session. And I do not know upon the people, and make them do the work but what there has been some buncombe manover that they did last August. The responsi-ufactured out of that. But at the very time they bility is in putting them in, and not in keeping them in. Mr. GILLASPY. I concur with the gentleman from Mahaska, [Mr. Young,] when he said that the universal opinion was, that when they elected the senators, they would go out of office when this new constitution was adopted. That was the opinion in my county, that in the event a new constitution should be made and adopted, the representatives then elected should only serve until that constitution was adopted. I believe the gentleman from Benton [Mr. Traer,] will not certainly charge me with desiring to come here to the legislature. But I know that the people of my region of the State expect¦ that the present members of the legislature will go out of office, and that we will begin anew with the new constitution. And I know farther, that some of the supreme judges expect the same thing with regard to themselves. And I know the Governor expects it himself. I believe the people are just as competent to elect representatives now as they were last August. And I would be perfectly willing that our members of the senate and of the house of representatives shall be again sent back to the people. And I shall endeavor by every action of mine here to discharge honestly my duty to my constituents. Hence I support the amendment of the gentleman from Mahaska, [Mr. Young.] Mr. TRAER. I wish to say in answer to my friend from Wapello, [Mr. Gillaspy,] that I suppose if I had charged him with the desire to get into the legislature, he might have had some ground of complaint. I certainly did not charge that upon him, or any gentleman here, but only said that it was one reason that would be assigned for making this change in regard to our present legislature. The gentleman says he has never been a candidate for the legislature. And for a very good reason; he has been in more profitable business, ever since I have been in the State. are talking about getting through in a few days more, they are hatching up measures that will keep us here six weeks, if they are persisted in. bringing up questions that will cause as much excitement and discussion as any that can come before us. I am in favor of making a few necessary and prominent changes in the constitution. For instance, I am in favor of one concerning incorporations, and pernaps one in the article upon the judiciary, making the judges elective by the people. These, and perhaps a few other amendments, I undertake to say, were all that was expected of us, and looked for by the people. And as to my taking the responsibility upon me to vote a certain way, I believe that if I vote as I have indicated, I shall go home with less responsibility than will the gentleman from Appanoose, [Mr. Harris,] if he votes for turning every man out of office, getting ready himself, perhaps, to accept office. Mr. HARRIS. Is the gentleman in favor of keeping in office the members of the House as well as of the Senate? Mr. TRAER. I think I expressed myself plainly and distinctly upon that question. Mr. HARRIS, I think I understood the gen. tleman to say, in regard to this matter of apportionment in this constitution, that he was in favor of a new apportionment. Mr. GOWER. I agree with the gentleman from Benton, [Mr. Traer,] that we were sent here to make but few changes in the constitution, and not to meddle with those officers the people have elected. I see by the old constitution, that it is provided that "The members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen every second year, by the qualified electors of their respective districts, on the first Monday in August, whose term of office shall continue two years from the day of the general election." It does not go on and say, "or until this Con stitution is changed," but that their "term of office shall continue two years from the day of the general election." There was nothing in the acti calling us together here, that I know of, that authorizes us to meddle with that matter at all. Nor do I know that there is anything in our of fice that would justify us in doing so. And when I was at home, no longer ago than last Saturday, the matter was spoken of there, and there was an expression of a wish that this thing should not be done; and I myself hope it will not be done. Mr. YOUNG. It does seem to me, from the position taken by some gentlemen here, that we are not to have a legislature to act expressly with reference to this Constitution, if we get up one that the people will adopt. Gentlemen argue here that we have no right to interfere with the present legislature at all, because they were elected by the people. That may be very good doctrine. But carry it out, and see where it will lead us. We will have no right to change the time of the meeting of the legislature. If we are to retain the present members of the legislature in office, we must let them go on in their regular course in office. My opinion, when I came here, was, that we would make a constitution, submit it to the people, and after its adoption we must, as a matter of course, have some legislation before any important changes in the Constitution could be carried into effect. According to the argument of some gentlemen here, we cannot carry this Constitution into effect before two years from this winter, unless the Governor shall call an extra session of the legislature. I do not think that is what the people expect, but that we will have a session of the legislature provided for here sooner than that. If we do not have a session until two years from this winter, we must then have a legislature. I do think it would be folly to retain the present legislature. I do not believe the legislature are as corrupt and dishonest as some gentlemen have endeavored to represent them here. If I believed so, I would go for having no legislature at all. But I believe that the legislature, as a general thing, are composed of honest men, and that our last legislature was as honest as any. Still, I do not think they are as prepared to act upon the amendments which this Convention may make to our Constitution, as men elected directly with reference to the questions brought before the people upon the adoption of this Constitution. I have no doubt in my own mind that two kinds of banking will be permitted by the constitution. That appears to be the general impression. here. And the members of the legislature should come up here with au expression from the people as to what kind of banking system they desire. I think the nearer we get to the people the better. I do not think there is any inconsistency in throwing out the present legislature. There is no similarity between the State officers and the supreme judges and the members of the legislature. The members of [February 16th the legislature are intended to make laws, and the State officers to carry them out. Mr. EDWARDS. I am opposed to ousting the present members of the General Assembly for this reason: If we adopt a provision in the constitution to oust the present legislature, then we must provide here to district the State for senatorial and representative purposes. I am opposed to incorporating any such matters into the constitution, for the reason, that if we send a constitution to the people, and they ratify it, it is to be presumed that it will remain for many years the fundamental law of the State. Now our State is continually changing in respect to population, wealth, and the developethe State for senatorial and representative purment of its resources. If we were to district poses, in this constitution, it would have to stand as long as the constitution stands. Now, districts that are at present sparsely settled will probably, in the course of a few years, become filled with a dense population, and there should be a new districting of the State. The gentleman from Des Moines (Mr. Hall) has said a great deal in regard to the dear peo ple," in regard to giving the power to the people to elect a new set of men to the legislature. Now, the "dear people" elected, only last sumislate them out of office, the same people will mer, these men to the legislature; and if we legsame or the elect the same men, num ber of men, and send them back It was but the last August that the people exeragain. cised this power, and the gentleman would have them do it again next year. taken by the gentleman, when I thought of the I must say that I was amused at the position lecture that he read to us at the commencement of our sessions here, when he said that the peoin the constitution. Now we find him pressing ple expected us to make but one or two changes as many innovations upon the constitution as any other member upon this floor. And when we come to compare notes, we will find that he has said a great deal about our having to stay here so long. Now, what is "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," and if the gentleman is right in his cry about sending the legislature back to the people, the gentleman has certainly occupied a different position heretofore in opposing innovations upon the constitution. Mr. HALL. I do not know whether I am to impute the remarks of members in this committee to defective memories, or to indifference to what they may say. No man was ever so completely mistaken as the gentleman from Clayton, [Mr. Scott.] He could not have listened at all to what I said the other day, or his recollection must go my contraries. The gentleman from Benton, [Mr. Traer,] seems to think that my action here is governed by some expected laurels that I may win by being a member of the next legislature. He is as much mistaken as the gentleman from Clayton. I do not like this kind of flings at the motives of gentlemen. Their positions should be met with at least something like argument. I looked at this matter, as I thought, in a philosophic point of view, in that point of view in which it would be looked upon, had not gentlemen some secret, hidden, concealed motives in this matter. If they acted as they talked, then they would act as I propose to do. We are forming a constitution; a fundamental law of the land; what I would term the higher law of government for the people. We find that the people have become dissatisfied with their present constitution, and have sent us here for the purpose of revising and amending it. There is no rule in that constitution to control our ac tion here. We expect to frame an instrument that will be equal, that when adopted by the people, will be the creation and establishment of a new code, if I may so term it, which will institute a new form of government, in many particulars. Gentlemen concede that radical changes must be made by us here, and thost changes must affect the people. And because I have said so, and because it is true, gentlemen taunt me with having been a mere buncombe talker in reference to "the dear people." Now if there is weight in my opinion, if there is reality and substance that we cannot fail to act upon, then I claim that it is not a mere ad captandum argument, thrown out for the purpose of catching the public mind. [February 16th them. If not, then I do not wish to prevent them from electing others. Is it mere demagoguism, mere buncombe for me to stand up here and say that the people of Des Moines county, or any other county in this State, when this constitution shall have been submitted to them, and they shall have adopted it, should have the privilege of selecting their agents to meet at their capitol to carry out the their organic law? Is that demagoguism, ad new principles we may have introduced into captandum argument, buncombe? If so, then I have lived a long time to very little purpose, so far as knowing what an appeal to the people means. This is one of the vital principles belonging to our government. Gentlemen say to the people that they-the people-are satisfied with their representatives; they assume that they are wholly and entirely satisfied with the representatives they have already chosen. Perhaps gentlemen can say that they will be satisfied with them for four, six, or even eight years to come, for they will probably get no worse during that time, and will be as good as they are now. You propose to make this Legislature the representative of the people by virtue of this Constitution; you keep them in power by virtue of our action here, not as the true representatives of the people, but as the appointees of this Convention. That is the poThose officers whom gentlemen want to exe-sition gentlemen take here. They will keep cute the new powers and duties created under alive those officials who would otherwise cease this constitution, will owe their authority to the to exist, because they assume that the people instrument under which we are acting; they do want them to do so. They ask us to legislate not get their authority from the power under authority into this Constitution that shall pat which they will be acting; they were not elect- vitality into these officers who would otherwise ed under the instrument which we propose to cease to exist; and when, if we did not do so, submit to the people. In reference to that the the people would have an opportunity of sendgentleman from Benton says that it was the gen- ing up here other representatives under this eral understanding in his district that the mem- very Constitution we are now framing. bers elected in August last were to act under the constitution we might frame here. Now his constituency may have the sagacity and foresight to understand beforehand what this convention would do, and act with reference to what might be done here. My constituents were not so wise as that, and could not tell what the result of our deliberations here would be. They did not know what new duties would be imposed upon the legislature, and they did not take for granted that their representatives were so wise, that they could be trusted to do what they pleased. The proposition I submit is this: that as we are forming, as it were, a new government, a new organic law, changing our old form of government in vital points in which the people are interested, we should open the door to the people to send persons to the legislature that would represent their views and opinions upon these points. Gentlemen say that the present legislature are good enough, and wise enough, and will do what is right. I have no desire to take issue with gentlemen upon that point; it is not for me to decide that; I wish to be excused from deciding that question. If the people are satisfied that such is the case, then they can return Gentlemen may think this is carrying their argument too far, but to my mind it is not. I think there must be something not yet spoken of, which leads gentlemen to be so strongly posi tive with regard to the great satisfaction it would give the people to have their present Legislature continued in office under the new Constitution. Mr. TRAER. I do not wish to make another speech upon this question. But I wish to relieve, if I can, the mind of the gentleman from Des Moines, [Mr. Hall] in reference to this matter. I think the gentleman has drawn inferences that are not warranted at all. He says, that by not legislating the present General Assembly out of office, we will make them nothing more nor less than our appointees. Now, I have a great deal of confidence in the experience, ability, integrity, and all that, of the gentleman from Des Moines; but I cannot come to any such conclusion as he has drawn. I ask the gentleman from Des Moines if the people did not elect these men to serve for such a length of time? Did not the Constitution under which we are acting, provide that these men should hold their office for a certain term? Now the position I have taken is to leave them to fill Monday] HALL-TRAER-HARRIS-JOHNSTON. [February 16th out that term. We do not propose to say that measure, they will obey those instructions, be it they should hold office for four or six years. for a certain kind of banking law, or anything The people did not send us here to legislate out else. of office the men they have put in office. We were sent here to make certain amendments, and after we have made those amendments to the Constitution we were sent here to make, I am in favor of going home. Mr. HALL. Will these men hold their places under the old Constitution, or the new one? Mr. TRAER. Under the new one, if it is adopted; under the old one, if the new one is rejected. Mr. HALL. Will they have been elected under the old or the new Constitution? Mr. TRAER. Suppose we do not change the old Constitution at all in this respect, but leave it as it is now, will there be any change? Mr. HALL. Certainly not. Mr. TRAER. Then they will hold their power under the same principle under which they were elected, whether you call it the new or the old Constitution. The next position the gentleman takes, is, that my constituency must be very sagacious, and all that. I say to the gentleman, that last year, when the question was presented whether we should have a Constitutional Convention or not, this question was canvassed. The question was put to the candidate for Senator "In case you are elected to the Senate, and the new Constitution permits a general banking system, are you in favor of that system?" That question was asked all the candidates; and I suppose they were elected to carry out those principles. Therefore, I am not in favor of turning them out of office. The people do not expect us to so, but to carry out other purposes, which they did have in view when they sent us here, and then go home. So far as the gentleman's classical quotations are concerned, I do not know as I should be able to answer them, if I should try. I do not know as they have any place in this constitution, or anything to do with it, or that they will have anything to do with it, even if we amend it. Mr. HARRIS. I would ask the gentleman this question; if the present legislature is continued in office, will not questions come up before them for them to legislate upon, that were not expected to come up before them when they were elected? Mr. TRAER. I am willing to grant that. But those representatives are going home right among the people; and I would ask, will not they be as well informed of the wishes of the people, as any men that could be elected.? Mr. HARRIS. They may be informed; but there may be a possibility that the opinions of the representatives, and the opinions of the majority of the people, may not be the same with regard to what they may have to do under this constitution. Mr. TRAER. So far as I am concerned, and so I believe it is with the republican party, we are in favor of following instructions. And when they are instructed to go for a certain Mr. JOHNSTON. I wish to make a few remarks upon this question. The question before the committee is not really the one that has been discussed. All the discussion is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Mahaska, [Mr. Young,] which was adopted some time since. I will, however, in this place, say one word in regard to my position as a member of the committee that made the report now under consideration. At the time this subject was being considered by the committee, I felt perfectly indifferent about it; and I do yet. I have very little feeling upon the subject, either one way or the other. I acceded to the wishes of the majority to have this section put in here. But seeing a desire upon the part of some gentlemen here to have it stricken out, I had no objection to that being done. There are some reasons to be given for both sides of the question. That which influenced the committee, to a great extent, was the fact that it was important, after the adoption of this constitution, to have some persons of experience, and who knew something, not only about the rules of legislation, but of the affairs of the State. It was considered that they were the proper persons to come in and assist in carrying out the provisions of this constitution. That argument had great weight with members of the committee, and with myself. On the other hand there was another argument equally strong, probably a little stronger, in favor of having new persons elected. The argument was simply this; that questions would be presented by this very committee to the people of the State, which did not arise at the time these last senators were chosen. Take, for instance, this question of a banking law. We do not propose to go into the details of a banking law in this constitution. We propose to merely incorporate here the general outlines of a system, perhaps not even that; perhaps only authorize the legislature to pass a banking law creating banks in this State. It may be very important to the people of this State to know for whom to vote to represent them in ihe next legislature. There is another important question, in addition to this question of banking; and that is the question of county indebtedness. If the article on incorporations goes into the constitution, and is submitted to the people of this State, as it passed the committee of the whole, leaving that subject entirely open to the people, it may be very important for the people to know the views of senators in regard to that question, whether they are in favor of prohibiting or recognizing their right to vote loans to these corporations for purposes of internal improvement. I merely refer to these matters to show that it is important, after all that has been said, to have a new set of men brought forward to assist in carrying out this new constitution. So |