stitution, and the many attempts which had been made to secure amendments, the question of calling a convention aroused very little interest or enthusiasm. Its defeat seemed to be a foregone conclusion. Expressions of sentiment are almost entirely wanting until the middle of the summer. About the first of August, the Richmond Palladium admitted that ''but little has been said by the press or people in this section of the State in reference to the vote for calling a convention to revise the Constitution. ''99 Two weeks earlier, the Evansville Journal, one of the representative Republican papers of the southern part of the State said that there was "an ominous silence among the press and politicians of the State" in regard to the convention, and they concluded that they were "wary in committing themselves." Even as late as September 10, only four weeks before the election, The Centerville True Republican, a staunch Opposition paper, observed that this question had "attracted but little attention" and it was generally conceded that the call for a convention would be overwhelmingly defeated. On July 21, the New Albany Tribune said the question of calling a convention was "almost forgotten" and the subject had scarcely been mentioned for a month. On August 19, they said the question was being discussed more.

Contrary to the wishes of the Republicans the convention question became more or less of a party issue. The Republicans, as we have seen, religiously refrained from mentioning the subject in their county resolutions, while the Democrats had in many cases passed strong resolutions. The Opposition charged the Democratic press with making a party issue of the question.3 The St. Joseph Valley Register said the Republican county conventions had refused to adopt resolutions on this question because they did not want the people to divide politically on it. The first proposition to amend the Constitution during the preceding session of the General Assembly was by a Democrat; the second by an American; and the third and successful one by an "old Whig." The Republicans generally supported the measure and the Americans without exception. There is "rarely seen a measure so intimately associated with party records and prospects, so entirely loosed from party advocacy or resistance" as

3. N. A. Tribune April 9th, July 21st, August 19th, Journal April 15th, August 2nd; New Castle Courier quoted in N. A. Tribune August 8th.

4. Quoted in N. A. Tribune September 6th.

this one. As the debate dragged on, the Democrats saw "something of party advantage in opposing it." After its adoption, they seem to have "compacted their resistance" and resolved to "fight it as a party question exclusively." The attitude of the press and the county conventions was "adopted solely from party considerations." For just as the first proposition was by a Democrat, so "the first untrained expressions" of the Democrats showed the popular feeling. "It took party discipline to check even Democratic approval of the measure," and adopting the attitude of "making it a party question, and complicating the interests of education and the wants of Indiana with partisan purposes and feelings.' This was the diagnosis of the case by the Indianapolis Journal on August 2nd. The observation of the Bedford Press that the Democrats generally were opposing the convention and that its advocates were not promoting it assiduously was probably very near the truth.5

Both the Democratic and Republican press were diligent and unsparing in their analysis of the reasons for calling or refusing to call a convention. The Republicans said the reasons the Democrats so strenuously opposed the proposition were that they feared they would have a bare majority in the convention and that "some objectionable features of the present Constitution, which were inserted for party purposes, would be in danger of expurgation." The New Castle Courier thought that although the Democrats were nominally opposing the Convention because of the expense, the secret of their opposition is the fear that the Republicans will control it.""7

The Democratic press professed to believe that the proponents of the convention were actuated by sinister and meretricious motives, and were endeavoring to call a convention "to accomplish objects of their own, and to advance their own individual interests."' "There is a cat covered up in this convention meal tub said the New Albany Ledger on July 21, "and we would advise the people to keep a good look-out for the animal." Those interested in getting up the convention "are gentlemen connected with moneyed corporations-a class of institutions which are debarred by the present Constitution from receiving any special favor from the legislature." The author of the bill was the "President and a large stockholder in a banking insti

66

tution in this city." Hamilton Smith of Perry county, who had offered to take the stump in favor of the proposition, "is President of a wealthy and extensive corporation at Cannelton. ''s On September 15, the same paper said: Those interested in the call of a convention are the corporation interests who want the wholesome restrictions of the Constitution removed in order that they may "secure special favors from corrupt or susceptible legislators." The politicians, the Miami County Sentinel said on March 16, were opposed to the Constitution because it had abridged the field of their operations, which might be enlarged by a new Constitution. It is "a scheme of politicians and speculators to advance their own interests at the expense of the public," said the Pulaski County Democrat.10 The political manipulators who want judgeships bartered as the necessities of needy politicians may demand," were also tireless in their advocacy.11 The Opposition leaders were likewise using this as a means to "advance the interests of party.''12 Moreover, the Constitution had so often proved a stumbling block in the way of that class who "make politics a trade" and had destroyed their trade by cutting off local business.13 Changes would also probably be incorporated in a new constitution to create new offices and afford more extensive plunder.14 The project was also to be used by "numerous aspiring and self-sufficing politicians—to immortalize themselves in Constitution making.''15 The New Albany Ledger summed up all these villainies in a sentence by pronouncing the proposal to call a convention "an effort-on the part of the restless and small potato politicians to tinker with the organic laws of the State, and provide offices which they hope to fill. ''16 The argument of "evil designing persons" using the convention as a "cats-paw to accomplish purposes of their own" was dismissed by the propagandists as mere political gasconade.17

Aside from these alleged Machiavellian tactics of unscrupulous and calculating politicians, there were the zealous and misguided

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

N. A. Ledger, July 29th.

Quoted in Sentinel, March 14th.

Quoted in Sentinel, September 23d.

N. A. Ledger, September 15th.

Sentinel, August 20th.

Miami Co. Sentinel. Quoted in Sentinel, March 14th.

Boone Co. Pioneer. Quoted in Sentinel, March 16th.

Fort Wayne Sentinel. Quoted in Sentinel, March 23d. See, also, Miami Co. Sentinel. Quoted in Sentinel, March 14th.

66

fanatics who hoped to incorporate their chauvenistic and halfbaked political theories into the fundamental instrument of government. There was a "restless spirit abroad for change" and scheming politicians and visionary theorists in the science of government''18 were "endeavoring to humbug the people into calling a convention'19 simply "to gratify a set of visionary theorists who are under the serious, but mistaken, impression, that wisdom will die with the. ''20 It was the "pet measure of the opposition"-Black Republicans, Know Nothings and Maine Lawites, abolitionists and the grumblers generally; it was a "scheme of trading politicians and impractical reformers to get rid of a Constitution which prohibits class legislation and stands in the way of-ismites generally.' It was "mischievous and uncalled for.''22 The Constitution had always stood as a "reliable breakwater to the flood of fanaticism" and had frustrated the sincere but misguided designs of the "extremists and one-ideaists' who "are generally bigoted, illiberal and intolerant. ''23

On September 15, the New Albany Ledger gave a classified list of all persons who were interested in the call of a convention. The list included the following classes: The corporation interests who do not believe in wholesome restrictions and individual responsibility; the Know Nothings who want an amendment like that of Massachusetts; the Maine Law men who want an express provision to authorize the passage of a prohibitory law; the Abolitionists who do not believe in preventing negroes from coming into the State; those who want to take from the people the right of electing their judges and give the power into the hands of the Governor and legislature to be bartered off as the necessities of need or seedy politicians may seem to demand; those who want to see the restrictions against local legislation removed, in order that certain institutions, companies and individuals may be able to secure special favors from corrupt or susceptible legislators; and the grumblers generally.

Two days later, on September 17, the New Albany Tribune replied by submitting a similar list embodying their own ideas. Those who were in favor of a convention included: The friends of free schools; those who desire purity in elections; those who

desire justice and equality in taxation; those who oppose drunkenness and crime; those who are not in favor of taxing the people of one county for the educational purposes of other counties, under the plea of uniformity; those who oppose the system of plunder which exists under our present Constitution; those in favor of good money and opposed to wild cat banks; those in favor of justice in the granting of licenses and permits; those who favor economy in the administration of our government; those who favor honest and just legislation; those in favor of permitting the people to tax themselves, if they see fit, in order to school the poor children around them; those who wish to perpetuate free institutions. Among those opposed were: Public plunderers and demagogues; aliens who desire to interfere with our institutions, make and control public opinion, and hold office without first being naturalized; all who are in favor of cheating at elections and stuffing the ballot box; all who are opposed to common schools; all who desire the poor man to pay the same amount of taxes the rich man pays; all who are in favor of rotten corporations, wild cat and owl creek banks; and those who favor drunkenness and crime.

Practically all people in the State in 1859 were unanimous in their conviction that the Constitution was in need of amendment, at least in some particulars. On January 29, the day after the passage of the measure calling a constitutional convention was assured, the Sentinel said: "It is generally conceded that the present Constitution is impracticable in many respects and that the public welfare would be promoted if in those particulars it could be changed to overcome evident deficiencies There

is but little difference of sentiment as to the necessity of amending the present Constitution." But they greatly deprecated any change "unless to remedy admitted positive evils, for nothing is more detrimental to public and private interests than fluctuating, uncertain laws and policy." A fortnight later the policy of this paper was somewhat less heroic. There is a mania abroad for constitution tinkering," they said on February 17, and since various provisions were objectionable to various people a convention was to be called to make another "which this class now think can be made perfect." Eight years were required "to find out the advantages and imperfections of the present one, and now it is proposed to get up another to experiment on for another term of years." The Evansville Enquirer admitted that "there are some defects in the present Constitution, and no person will presume to deny it." The New Albany Ledger was wary in its admis