Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER III.

GOVERNOR OF IOWA.

1854-1858.

IN February, 1854, Mr. Grimes was nominated by a Convention of the Whig party for Governor of the State. It was the largest State Convention of that party ever held in Iowa, and the last. The following month, March 28th, a Free-Soil Convention, held at Crawfordsville, of which Isaac Field, of Denmark, was president, recommended the Free Democracy to cast their votes for him; and a candidate who had previously been nominated by that party withdrew. The country was violently agitated by a proposition in Congress to declare inoperative and void the prohibition of slavery in those vast regions which have since been constituted into the States of Kansas and Nebraska. Mr. Grimes perceived that the proposition involved a crisis in the nation's history, and at once threw himself against it with determined resolution and energy. Entering upon the campaign with vigor, he rallied to his support the great body of the Whigs, the original abolitionists and Free-Soilers, as they were variously called, who had polled more than a thousand votes in the presidential elections of 1848 and 1852, and not a few Democrats, who were opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise. Visiting nearly every portion of the State, he addressed the people in speeches that won him high reputation for ability and candor. He drove from county to county in his own conveyance, and was often weary with exposure and fatigue. and fatigue. Meeting a friend near the close of his travels, he spoke of being worn

and tired, and remarked, pointing to his attenuated and jaded horses:

"What shadows we are,

And what shadows we pursue!"

The issues of the period were clearly set forth in the following paper:

TO THE PEOPLE OF IOWA.

The Whig State Convention assembled at Iowa City, on the 22d day of February last, did me the honor to present my name before the people of the State as a candidate for the office of Governor. I accept the nomination.

As I am compelled to be absent from the State during a portion of the summer, and shall, in consequence of such absence, be deprived of the pleasure of addressing the people in many places where I have desired to address them, I take this method of stating my views in relation to such subjects as are likely to enter into the canvass, and about which the public mind is now agitated. The limits of this paper will necessarily compel me to be brief.

1. For the constitution of our State I do not entertain the highest reverence. I believe that the best interests of the State require its speedy amendment. In favor of such amendment numerous substantial reasons might be assigned, but one or two will be sufficient to be stated here.

The experience of the past eight years has demonstrated that the power to elect judges is more wisely and satisfactorily exercised by the people than by the Legislative Assembly. The people have shown that they will not be dragooned into voting for incompetent and faithless partisan judges. Everybody admits that the character of the inferior tribunals of the State is superior to that of the Supreme bench. If, therefore, it is important to elevate the character of the Supreme Court, as I believe it is, the Judges of that Court should be elected by the people, as are now the Judges of the District Courts. If learning, firmness, and impartiality, are superior, as qualifications for judges, to party fealty and partisan services, the selection of those important officers should be left with the people, instead of being made the subject for corrupt legislative bargainings.

That part of the constitution which prohibits banks and bank

ing institutions should be changed so as to allow them to be established in the State under proper restrictions. On this subject I am sorry to differ, as far as I believe I do, from my respected competitor, Mr. Bates. He was a member of the Constitutional Convention, and was chairman of the Committee on Incorporations, by whom the prohibitory article was framed and reported. He at that time thought that it was the highest reach of human wisdom on that subject. I never thought so. But it is a question about which our respective political parties differ as widely as their candidates. The Whig State Convention, on the 22d of February, unanimously adopted a resolution in favor of amending the constitution so as to allow the introduction of banks. The Democratic Convention, on the 8th of January last, refused to adopt such a resolution. On this question, therefore, the two parties are at issue in this State-the Whigs believing that banking should be permitted, and a domestic currency furnished to the people of the State, and the Democrats negativing these propositions.

When the constitution was adopted eight years ago, its advocates predicted that, long before this time, Iowa would be blessed with an exclusive metallic currency. They will hardly pretend So far from it, the entire

that their prediction has been verified. business of the State during these eight years has been conducted upon the issues of foreign banks, and the profits derived therefrom have gone into the pockets of foreign stockholders, instead of enriching our own citizens. In place of having a domestic currency, the value of which might be known to every one, the country has been furnished with the worst conceivable currency from every State in the Union, and of the value of which nothing could be known. It has been estimated that from a quarter to half a million dollars has been annually realized by foreign banks upon this kind of circulation furnished to Iowa, all of which might be saved to the State, but for the constitutional prohibition.

If every other State in the Union would abolish banks, and the value of the supply and products of the whole country were reduced to a specie standard, there would be but few advocates for the creation of banks here. But so long as they are allowed and encouraged elsewhere, their circulation cannot be driven from the State, except by a currency of our own, without greatly depreciating the value of our agricultural, mechanical, and mineral

products, and producing a general derangement and paralysis in the business of the community. Other States have tried the

experiment. I need not refer to the recent experience of the neighboring States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Why shall not Iowa profit by their experience? Why shall she not secure to her citizens the same facilities for transacting business as are enjoyed by the citizens of other States? Are not our people as competent to manage the affairs of banking institutions discreetly and safely as those of any other State? Is there not the same necessity for banks here as elsewhere?

The argument urged by some that banks are not in accordance with the principles of the Democratic party, is unworthy of consideration. How can it be democratic to charter banks in New Hampshire, Virginia, South Carolina, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, and be undemocratic to do the same thing in Iowa? There is not a State east of the Mississippi River in which there are not banks incorporated by Democratic Legislatures, and yet, in the view of some wise men, it is a gross violation of democratic principles to create them west of that river.

I do not propose to discuss the mode of banking that should be adopted in this State, nor have I space to point out the benefits that would result to the community by the establishment of banks. in furnishing facilities for business-in diminishing the rate of interest, etc. The people are capable of determining the system that should be adopted satisfactorily to themselves, through their delegates to a constitutional convention, or by their representatives in the General Assembly. All I contend for is that they shall have the privilege of doing so.

A submission to the people of the question of amending the constitution of the State can be attended with no expense, and there is not a valid argument to be urged against it. If the principle of a government by a majority is correct-if the people are really capable of self-government, why should they not be permitted to decide for themselves a question of so vital importance? Why should Legislative quibbling and Executive vetoes be interposed to prevent an expression of the popular will on this subject? A majority of the members of the last General Assembly were professedly in favor of a change in the constitution. They had been elected by constituencies who required them to commit them

selves in favor of the proposition before their election. But many of them were at heart opposed to any change, and, after interposing frivolous objections, amendments, and delays, finally refused to pass a bill submitting the question to the people, over the Executive veto. Thus, by the exercise of two vetoes, and the timidity and faithlessness of some representatives, the principle of self-government was virtually denied, and the people refused the privilege of determining for themselves whether or not their constitution should be amended.

Let the voters of Iowa understand that, if they desire a change in their constitution, they must elect public servants who are in favor of that change from principle and honest conviction. Let them remember that the best criterion of a man's future conduct are his past opinions and conduct. Let them elect men who will not be driven from their positions by the frowns of party leaders, nor be seduced from them by Executive fawning or the bestowment of Federal offices. Then, and not till then, will the desired and muchneeded change be effected.

2. It is no doubt expected that I shall state my views of the temperance question.

I have been repeatedly inquired of, by letters and otherwise, whether I would (if elected) veto a prohibitory liquor law.

It is a cardinal principle of the Whig party that all questions of expediency belong legitimately to the people, and should be settled by the legislative department of the government. The veto should be exercised only for the gravest constitutional reasons. Should, therefore, an act be passed either prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, or licensing their sale, I would (if elected) approve the law, unless, in my judgment, palpably unconstitutional. It would be a violation of my own principles, as well as of the party to which I belong, to endeavor to thwart in any degree the wishes of the people of the State as expressed through their representatives. The friends of both the prohibitory and the license systems must bear in mind that the Executive of the State has nothing whatever to do with the preparation of the laws. To the members to be elected to the General Assembly, therefore, they must look for the consummation of their wishes in this behalf.

3. It has ever been the Whig doctrine that to the General Government belong the power and duty of increasing and protecting

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »