Kitabı oku: «Fifty Years In The Northwest», sayfa 59

UNITED STATES SENATORS FROM MINNESOTA

James Shields, May 11, 1858, to March 4, 1860; Henry M. Rice, May 11, 1858, to March 4, 1863; Morton S. Wilkinson, March 4, 1860, to March 4, 1867; Alexander Ramsey, March 4, 1863, to March 4, 1875; Daniel S. Norton, March 4, 1867, died July 14, 1870; O. P. Stearns, January – , 1871, to March 4, 1871; William Windom, March 4, 1871, to March 12, 1881; S. J. R. McMillan, Dec. 6, 1875, to March 4, 1886; A. J. Edgerton, March 12, 1881, to Oct. 26, 1881; William Windom, Oct, 26, 1881, to March 4, 1883; Dwight M. Sabin, March 4, 1883, to March 4, 1889; C. K. Davis, March 4, 1887, to – .

REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS

W. W. Phelps, May 11, 1858, to March 4, 1859; J. M. Cavenaugh, May 11, 1858, to March 4, 1858; William Windom, Dec. 5, 1859, to March 4, 1869; Cyrus Aldrich, Dec. 5, 1859, to March 4, 1863; Ignatius Donnelly, Dec. 7, 1863, to March 4, 1869; M. S. Wilkinson, March 4, 1869, to March 4, 1871; E. M. Wilson, March 4, 1869, to March 4, 1871; John T. Averill, March 4, 1871, to March 4, 1875; M. H. Dunnell, March 4, 1871, to March 4, 1883; H. B. Strait, Dec. 1, 1873, to March 4, 1879; William S. King, Dec. 6, 1875, to March 4, 1877; J. H. Stewart, Dec. 3, 1877, to March 4, 1879; Henry Poehler, March 4, 1879, to March 4, 1881; H. B. Strait, March 4, 1881, to March 4, 1885; W. D. Washburn, March 4, 1879, to March 4, 1885; Milo White, March 4, 1883, to March 4, 1887; J. B. Wakefield, March 4, 1883, to March 4, 1887; Knute Nelson, March 4, 1883, to March 4, 1889; J. B. Gilfillan, March 4 1885, to March 4, 1887: Thomas Wilson, March 4, 1887, John Lind, March 4, 1887; John S. McDonald, March 4, 1887; Edmund Rice, March 4, 1887.

FIRST STATE LEGISLATURE, 1857-8

Richard G. Murphy, president; William Holcombe, lieutenant governor.

Senate: First District – Joel K. Reiner. Twenty-fifth District – W. H. C. Folsom. House: First District – J. R. M. Gaskill, George W. Campbell, Robert Simpson. Twenty-fifth District – John G. Randall.

SECOND STATE LEGISLATURE, 1859-60

Senate: First District – Wm. McKusick, Socrates Nelson. Twenty-fifth District – Lucas K. Stannard. House: First District – E. D. Watson, Abraham Van Voorhes, Orange Walker. Twenty-fifth District – Patrick Fox.

THIRD STATE LEGISLATURE, 1861

Senate: Second District – Joel K. Reiner. House: Second District – H. L. Thomas, E. D. Whiting, Emil Munch.

FOURTH LEGISLATURE, 1862

Senate: Second District – Joel K. Reiner. House: Second District – Wm. H. Burt, H. L. Thomas, E. D. Whitney.

FIFTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1863

Senate: Second District – John McKusick. House: Second District – Samuel Furber, J. B. R. Mitchell, Ansel Smith.

SIXTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1864

Senate: Second District – John McKusick. House: Second District – Jere M. Soule, R. R. Henry, Ansel Smith.

SEVENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1865

Senate: Second District – John McKusick. House: Second District – L. A. Huntoon, Ansel Smith, Lars J. Stark.

EIGHTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1866

Senate: Second District – John McKusick. House: Second District – J. B. R. Mitchell, Robert Watson, Smith Ellison.

NINTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1867

Senate: Second District – W. H. C. Folsom. House: Second District – Henry Jackman, Ebenezer Ayres.

TENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1868

Senate: Second District – W. H. C. Folsom. House: Second District – J. W. Furber, William Lowell.

ELEVENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1869

Senate: Second District – James N. Castle. House: Second District – Joseph Haskell, W. H. C. Folsom.

TWELFTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1870

Senate: Second District – James N. Castle. House: Second District – James S. Norris, William Lowell.

THIRTEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1871

Senate: Second District – Dwight M. Sabin. House: Second District – Joseph Haskell, Lucas K. Stannard.

FOURTEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1872

Senate: Twenty-second District – Dwight M. Sabin. Twenty-eighth District – Jonas Lindall. House: Twenty-second District – Ebenezer Ayers, J. R. M. Gaskill, H. R. Murdock. Twenty-eighth District – Adolph Munch.

FIFTEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1873

Senate: Twenty-second District – Dwight M. Sabin. Twenty-eighth District – Jonas Lindall. House: Twenty-second District – E. W. Durant, J. R. M. Gaskill, James Huganin. Twenty-eighth District – Joel G. Ryder.

SIXTEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1874

Senate: Twenty-second District – Wm. McKusick. Twenty-eighth District – L. K. Burrows. House: Twenty-second District – D. B. Loomis, Chas. Eckdahl, J. A. McCloskey. Twenty-eighth District – Frank H. Pratt.

SEVENTEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1875

Senate: Twenty-second District – Wm. McKusick. Twenty-eighth district – W. H. C. Folsom. House: Twenty-second district – J. W. Furber, E. W. Durant, J. E. Mower. Twenty-eighth district – Lars J. Stark.

EIGHTEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1876

Senate: Twenty-second District – Ed. S. Brown. Twenty-eighth District – W. H. C. Folsom. House: Twenty-second District – A. Fredericks, J. S. Middleton, O. W. Erickson. Twenty-eighth District – W. A. Brawley.

NINETEENTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1877

Senate: Twenty-second District – Ed. S. Brown. Twenty-eighth District – W. H. C. Folsom. House: Twenty-second District – A. Fredericks, A. Huntoon, O. W. Erickson.

TWENTIETH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1878

Senate: Twenty-second District – Roscoe F. Hersey. Twenty-eighth District – John Shaleen. House: Twenty-second District – Dwight M. Sabin, Wm. Fowler, Charles Peterson. Twenty-eighth District – F. S. Christensen.

TWENTY-FIRST STATE LEGISLATURE, 1879

Senate: Twenty-second District – James N. Castle. Twenty-eighth District – John Shaleen. House: Twenty-second District – A. M. Dodd, Chas. Peterson, Andrew Peterson. Twenty-eighth District – John Dean.

TWENTY-SECOND STATE LEGISLATURE, 1881

Senate: Twenty-second District – J. N. Castle. Twenty-eighth District – John Shaleen. House: Twenty-second District – Dwight M. Sabin, Andrew Peterson, Wm. Schmidt. Twenty-eighth District – John Dean.

TWENTY-THIRD STATE LEGISLATURE, 1883

Senate: Twenty-fourth District – J. N. Castle. Thirty-eighth District – John Shaleen. House: Twenty-fourth District – Dwight M. Sabin, C. P. Gregory, A. Stegman. Thirty-eighth District – Levi H. McKusick.

TWENTY-FOURTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1885

Senate: Twenty-fourth District – J. N. Castle. Thirty-eighth District – John Shaleen. House: Twenty-fourth District – E. W. Durant, W. H. Pratt, Arthur Stephen. Thirty-eighth District – Levi H. McKusick.

TWENTY-FIFTH STATE LEGISLATURE, 1887

Senate: Twenty-fourth District – E. W. Durant. Thirty-eighth District – Otto Wallmark. House: Twenty-fourth District – F. Dornfield, R. M. Anderson, C. P. Gregory. Thirty-eighth District – Henry Smith.

The first legislature continued in session one hundred and forty-eight days. Its most important measure was the passage of the $5,000,000 loan bill. At the twentieth session a law was passed changing the sessions of the legislature from annual to biennial.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1857

As a delegate to the constitutional convention of 1857, and a member of what was styled the Republican wing, the writer considers it not amiss to insert a chapter concerning that somewhat famous and farcical affair.

The Congress of 1856-57 passed an enabling act for the formation of a state government in Minnesota, providing that a constitutional convention of delegates, chosen by the people, should assemble at midday, July 13, 1857, at the hall of the house of representatives at the state capitol, and adopt a constitution, subject to the ratification of the people.

The territorial governor, Samuel Medary, ordered an election to be held on the first Monday in June, 1857, for delegates, the number to consist of one hundred and eight. The State was nearly equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats; still the question of politics did not enter largely into the contest, except as a question of party supremacy. The people were a unit on the question of organizing a state government under the enabling act, and in many cases there was but a single ticket in the field. It was a matter, therefore, of some surprise that there should be a separation among the delegates into opposing factions, resulting practically in the formation of two conventions, each claiming to represent the people, and each proposing a constitution. The delegates, although but 108 were called, were numbered on the rolls of the two wings as 59 Republican and 53 Democratic, a discrepancy arising from some irregularity of enrollment, by which certain memberships were counted twice. The Republican members, claiming a bare majority, took possession of the hall of the house at midnight, twelve hours before the legal time for opening the convention, the object being to obtain control of the offices and committees of the convention, a manifest advantage in the matter of deciding upon contested seats.

In obedience to the call of the leaders of the party, issued the day before, the writer with other Republicans repaired to the house at the appointed hour, produced his credentials as a delegate, and was conducted into the illuminated hall by Hon. John W. North. The delegates were dispersed variously about the hall, some chatting together, others reading newspapers, smoking, or snoring, as here and there one had fallen asleep in his seat. Occasionally a delegate nervously examined his revolver as if he anticipated some necessity for its use.

The Democratic delegates were elsewhere probably plotting in secret conclave to capture the hall, and perhaps it might be well enough to be prepared for the worst. Thus the remainder of the night passed and the forenoon of July 13th. As soon as the clock struck twelve, the Democratic delegates rushed tumultuously in, as if with the purpose of capturing the speaker's stand. That, however, was already occupied by the Republican delegates, and the storming party was obliged to content itself with the lower steps of the stand. Both parties at the moment the clock ceased striking were yelling "order" vociferously, and nominating their officers, pro tem. Both parties effected a temporary organization, although in the uproar and confusion it was difficult to know what was done.

The Democratic wing adjourned at once to the senate chamber, and there effected a permanent organization. The Republicans being left in the undisturbed possession of the hall, perfected their organization, and the two factions set themselves diligently to work to frame a constitution, each claiming to be the legally constituted convention, and expecting recognition as such by the people of the State and by Congress. The debates in each were acrimonious. A few of the more moderate delegates in each recognized the absurdity and illegality of their position, and questioned the propriety of remaining and participating in proceedings which they could not sanction.

The conventions continued their sessions inharmoniously enough. Each framed a constitution, at the completion of which a joint committee was appointed to revise and harmonize the two constitutions, but the members of the committees were as belligerent as the conventions they represented. Members grew angry, abusing each other with words and even blows, blood being drawn in an argument with bludgeons between Hon. Willis A. Gorman, Democratic, and Hon. Thomas Wilson, Republican. An agreement seemed impossible, when some one whose name has not found its way into history, made the happy suggestion that alternate articles of each constitution be adopted. When this was done, and the joint production of the two conventions was in presentable shape, another and almost fatal difficulty arose, as to which wing should be accorded the honor of signing officially this remarkable document. One body or the other must acknowledge the paternity of the hybrid. Ingenuity amounting to genius (it is a pity that the possessor should be unknown) found a new expedient, namely, to write out two constitutions in full, exact duplicates except as to signatures, the one to be signed by Democratic officers and members, and the other by Republicans These two constitutions were filed in the archives of the State and one of them, which one will probably never be known, was adopted by the people Oct. 13, 1857.

The question arises in the writer's mind as to the legality of the constitution of Minnesota. Have we a constitution? If so, which one? The question of legality, however, has never been raised before the proper tribunals, and it is perhaps well to leave it thus unquestioned.

FIRST MINNESOTA STATE LEGISLATURE, HELD 1857-8

Under a provision of the constitution adopted Oct. 13, 1857, the legislature was elected and convened December 2d of that year, although the State had not then been admitted to the Union, and Gen. Sam Medary was still recognized as governor, though not at the time in the Territory, and acting through his private secretary. The whole state, judicial and legislative ticket had been elected in October, but none of the state officers could qualify prior to the formal admission of the State. The legality of their proceedings was called in question. The Republicans entered a protest against legislation until after the admission of the State, but the Democratic party was in the majority, and territorial Democratic officers governed the legislature, and the protest was unheeded. Notwithstanding the doubtful validity of acts passed by this body, some bold and extravagant measures were proposed and passed, among them the famous $5,000,000 loan bill, authorizing the issue of bonds to that amount, ostensibly to aid in the construction of railroads in Minnesota, and to be used as a basis for banking. This bill was passed near the close of the session, which lasted ninety days, and was an amendment to the constitution to be voted on April 15, 1858.⁹ The result proved even worse than had been predicted by the most ardent opposers of the bill, and although adopted by an overwhelming majority, speedily fulfilled the predictions of its opponents. The State was flooded with worthless bank issues, based upon these worthless bonds. Financial distress and panic ensued. A reaction followed, and in November, 1860, the amendment to the constitution was expunged. Of these bonds, $2,275,000 had already been issued, when the section granting their issue was repealed. These the State subsequently redeemed.

This bill, though afterward adopted as an amendment to the constitution by an overwhelming majority, was opposed most vigorously in both houses of the legislature, and characterized at the time as mischievous and infamous. Though not present at the time of its passage, on account of sickness, the author fully committed himself as an opponent of the bill, and placed himself on record in an address to his constituents dated March 19th, at the senate chamber, which address was circulated extensively at the time. The views and predictions therein expressed as to the disastrous character of the bill have been amply justified and verified by subsequent events.

Hon. Chas. F. Lowe, when a member of the Republican wing of the constitutional convention, had designed and prepared a seal to be used by the incoming state government. It was adopted by that wing of the convention, and Mr. Lowe hoped to have it formally adopted by the first state legislature. At the request of Mr. Lowe, it was presented by the writer, then a member of the senate, and was adopted by the senate and house with many encomiums upon its beauty and appropriateness. The design was indeed a beautiful one, and the workmanship of the seal, by Buechner, of St. Paul, was admirable. The design of the seal was as follows:

A waterfall (supposed to be that of Minnehaha) within a shield; this part of the device was intended to symbolize the idea of water for the amount and varied forms of which Minnesota is distinguished above any other part of our country. In addition was represented the figure of an Indian pointing toward the setting sun, as his course of destiny runs, with his tomahawk, bow and arrows; at his feet opposite the Indian was the figure of a white man, with a sheaf of wheat and the implements of agriculture at his feet, representing to the Indian that he must partake of the habits of civilized life or depart toward the setting sun. In one corner of the field appeared a distant view of Lake Superior, with a ship in sail. In another was a view of a river, indicating the Minnesota river, running from the westward, with a steamboat ascending its stream. In rear of the shield and waterfall were three trees, which are typical of the three timbered regions, the oak on the left typifying the south and southwest portion of the State, the pine in the centre typifying the great pine regions of Lake Superior, Upper Mississippi and St. Croix, and the maple on the right typifying the north and northwestern portion of the State. For a motto to accompany the words state of Minnesota, A. D. 1858, which were placed upon the upper rim of the seal, the words placed upon the lower rim of the seal were, "Liberty and Union, Now and Forever One and Inseparable." The act of the legislature went to the governor, who returned it to the senate approved and signed, July 14, 1858.

Some length of time elapsed before the appearance of the great seal as appended to official documents, and when it did appear it was very different from the one adopted, and the credit of the design was given to Rev. E. D. Neill by the newspapers commenting upon it. However beautiful and appropriate the design of the present great seal of the state of Minnesota, there seems to be no evidence that it was ever legally adopted, and the question may well be raised as to its validity. It lies, however, in the eternal fitness of things that a state without a legal constitution should also be without a seal.

At the joint convention of Dec. 19, 1857, Hon. Henry M. Rice and Gen. James Shields, of Mexican War fame, were elected senators. The Republicans supported David Cooper and Henry D. Huff. During this session the presiding officer of the senate was Richard G. Murphy, a somewhat eccentric character. His decisions were often diverting. When perplexing questions arose he would say gravely, "The chair can not decide more than two questions at oncet." After passing many really important measures, the legislature adjourned March 25, to meet June 2, 1858.

ADJOURNED SESSION

The legislature met, pursuant to adjournment, June 2d, the State having been admitted in the interim. Lieut. Gov. Holcombe presided over the senate and proved an acceptable and able presiding officer. The five million amendment having been approved by the people, this legislature passed a banking law, establishing banks in various parts of the State with the five million bonds as a basis.

It can do no good at this late day to raise a question as to the validity of the acts of the first state legislature, but it is due to ourselves and others who with us at the time protested against the validity of acts passed at this session, to give a few extracts from senate and house journals tending to show that a feeling of distrust was quite general. The ground of this opinion was the fact that the legislature elected as a state legislature held its first session prior to the admission of the State, and under the administration of the territorial governor, Medary, through his secretary, acting in his place. The question was openly discussed, not only in the legislature but in the public press of the State.

As early as Dec. 8, 1887, the following protest was presented in the senate:

Senate Chamber, St. Paul

We, the undersigned senators of the state of Minnesota, do hereby enter and record this, our solemn PROTEST, against the recognition by this body, in any manner, directly or indirectly, of Samuel Medary, Esquire, governor of the territory of Minnesota, as the governor of the state of Minnesota, or as being invested with any of the rights, authority, privileges, powers or functions of governor of said state of Minnesota.

And we do solemnly protest against the recognition by this body, in any manner, of the claims of the said Samuel Medary, to exercise any of the rights, authority, privileges, powers or functions of the governor of the state of Minnesota – such claim being wholly unauthorized and unwarranted by the constitution of the state of Minnesota; and in violation of the expressed will of the people of the state of Minnesota, and an attempted usurpation of office, at war with the fundamental principles of free government, and dangerous to the liberties of the people.

D. G. Norton,

Lewis McKune,

Geo. Watson,

Edwin M. Somers,

Boyd Phelps,

J. K. Reiner,

H. L. Thomas,

James Ridpath,

Michael Cook,

Charles H. Lindsley,

E. N. Bates,

E. Hodges,

A. G. Hudson,

Jonathan Chase,

W. H. C. Folsom,

S. S. Beman,

Delano T. Smith.

On December 8th Mr. Norton offered the following resolution to the senate:

"Whereas, By the provisions of the constitution the executive officers of the State can not qualify until after the admission of the State by Congress, and

"Whereas, There is no governor of the state of Minnesota to whom acts may be submitted, as required by the constitution; therefore,

"Resolved, That this legislature can pass no acts which could become a law until after the admission of the State by Congress, and the qualification of the governor elected by the people."

The resolution was adopted and referred to the following committee: Van Etten, Streeter, Jones, Norton, and Folsom.

The majority of the select committee reported December 21st, claiming that by the enabling act the people of the Territory were empowered to form a state government, which they did, electing their delegates on the second Monday in July, 1857, to form a state constitution, and take necessary steps for establishment of a state government; that these delegates met at the time and place appointed, and on the twenty-ninth of August adopted a constitution which was submitted to the people and adopted by a majority of over 28,000 votes. That on the thirteenth of October, in conformity with an article (section 16, article 16) of the constitution then adopted, the people had elected representatives to Congress, governor and lieutenant governor, judges and members of both houses of the legislature, the latter to meet on the first Wednesday in December at St. Paul.

The majority admitted that the governor elected under the act could not qualify until after the admission of the State, but claimed that the members of the legislature did not rest under the same disability, but were competent to legislate because they derived their power from the constitution itself, and had been directed to meet for that purpose on the first Monday in December, and that because they were thus required to meet they were authorized to act. The people were omnipotent in the premises. They had declared that the governor should not qualify until after the admission of the State, and that the members of the legislature should meet. It was absurd to suppose this body should be called together and have no power to act. They held, moreover, that the territorial governor was empowered to act until his successor could legally qualify; that the framers of the constitution of Minnesota and the people had declared that he should be continued in office until superseded by a state officer, and that the very time had been specified when he should be thus superseded, namely, on the admission of the State into the Union, and therefore that Samuel Medary was, de facto and de jure, governor of Minnesota; that Minnesota was then a state out of the Union, and that the acts of the first legislature would be legalized when the State was admitted.

The minority report, signed by D. S. Norton and W. H. C. Folsom, claimed that the constitution contemplated an admission into the Union as a prerequisite to the exercise of state sovereignty, in article 5, section 7, where it is enacted that "the term of each of the executive officers named in this article shall commence upon taking the oath of office, after the State shall be admitted by Congress into the Union, etc."

Section 9, same article, provides that "Laws shall be passed at the first session of the legislature after the State is admitted into the Union to carry out the provisions of this article.

"Section 1, article 16, schedule, provides that all process which may be issued under the authority of the territory of Minnesota previous to its admission into the Union of the United States, shall be as valid as if issued in the name of the State."

Section 8, same article, provides that if the constitution shall be adopted by a vote of the people, the governor of the Territory shall forward a certified copy of the same to the president of the United States, "to be by him laid before the Congress of the United States."

The minority claimed that under the first of the above cited sections there can be no qualified governor (elected under, and according to the provisions of the constitution) to whom "bills" must be submitted before they can become laws, until after "admission" – nor indeed can there be any executive officers, contemplated to perform the duties of their several offices, until that time.

In reference to the provisions of section 18, article 16, schedule, as inconsistent with that view, it was claimed that the territorial government should continue, and that its officers should exercise the sovereign powers delegated to them by the Union, until, upon an admission by Congress, and a surrender of sovereignty to the State, its authority should commence.

It was claimed that this section (6) of article 16, requiring the legislature to convene on the first Wednesday of December, 1857, was an oversight or error. After considerable debate the majority report was adopted by a party vote. A similar protest, signed by all the Republican members of the house, was presented to that body. In addition to these protests there was in both branches of the legislature continuous and various protests by the minority against the exercise of legislative functions.

In the house, on Jan. 25, 1858, Mr. Sheetz offered a resolution with reference to the causes of the delay in the admission of Minnesota, asking that a committee of three be appointed with instructions to investigate the circumstances of this delay and report to this house upon these points:

First– As to whose duty it was to forward to the president for submission to Congress a copy of the constitution.

Second– Why an incorrect or incomplete copy of said constitution was forwarded to the president.

Third– What official correspondence, if any, has passed between the governor and the acting governor in regard to this matter.

On motion the resolution was adopted.

Mr. Sheetz, from the committee appointed to communicate with the acting governor relative to the admission of the state of Minnesota, submitted the following report:

To the Honorable House of Representatives:

Your committee appointed to inquire into the causes of the probable delay in the admission of Minnesota into the Union, ask leave to make the following report:

Your committee find that according to section 8 of the schedule to the constitution, it is made the duty of the governor of the Territory, upon the adoption of the constitution by the people, to forward a certified copy of the constitution to the president of the United States, to be by him submitted to Congress.

Your committee have conferred with his excellency, Acting Gov. Chase, and have ascertained from him that at or about the time of the adjournment of the constitutional conventions, there were deposited with him, as acting governor in the absence of Gov. Medary, two copies of the constitution as adopted by the two branches of the constitutional convention, one copy signed by fifty-one members of the Democratic branch of the convention, and the other signed by fifty-three members of the Republican branch of the convention, that the two copies were preserved by him in the same safe, side by side where they now are.

Your committee are further informed that a short time prior to the departure of our senators and representatives elect for Washington, the governor caused to be made a transcript of the constitution as requested by the schedule and that instrument, which transcript was forwarded to the president of the United States.

No record is known to your committee to exist of the time and manner of making such transcript, and your committee, in the absence of the governor and his private secretary, can not ascertain whether said transcript contained the names of the members of the two branches of the constitutional convention or not.

Your committee are also informed by Acting Gov. Chase that there has been no official correspondence between the governor and himself upon this subject since the departure of the former for Washington.

All of which is respectfully submitted and signed.

H. W. Sheetz,

G. L. Otis,

J. J. Cruttenden,

Committee.