Chapter 248: of the laws of 1864, published April 15, 1864, (4)

Now, in the sentence quoted, you characterized me as one of those “* * * whom we sent to represent _our_ interests * * * .” Now let me ask you whether you or your associates have any interest which I am representing other or different in any degree from that of any other citizen of Wisconsin? You surely can have no interest, which I represent, in the success of any foreign nation in this war. You may have _wishes_ or _hopes_ in regard to the outcome of the war in Europe but as an _American_ citizen you certainly have no _interest_ in the result. The interests of our country, your interests, my interests, are identical and are limited to this: That we keep our hands off and let the warring nations fight it out according to the rules of international law and, if we can, protect the lives of our people and maintain their rights and the rights of our country and preserve our national honor. While it is not my _duty_ to _represent_ your _wishes_ (which may stand in direct contravention to the dictates of our own national welfare), it is my duty to represent (and it is my conviction that I am performing that duty and am properly representing) the interests of the country, _your_ interests, _my_ interests, and the interests of all the people of the United States, when I take the attitude I am taking and vote as I have voted.

Now while I have grown up among people of German ancestry and have grown to love and respect my German-American neighbors, among whom I count you and many others of your cloth, I cannot and will not forget that as Senator I represent all of the people of Wisconsin regardless of ancestry or accident of birth and as such Senator I represent not only the people of Wisconsin but the people of the United States as a whole, and I want to say further that as long as I remain in the Senate I shall count the interests of my country first, wholly without regard to its effect upon my political fortunes or upon the fortunes of any foreign country.

While I have no authority to talk for anyone but myself, I believe that President Wilson is actuated by the same motives as I am. Can any man doubt that the President of the United States is doing what he does and acting as he acts with any thought in his mind other than the welfare of his country and of our people? Now you say in your letter, “I admit that we have not the insight into the inner affairs and for that reason leave it to the discretion of our representatives to cast their vote to the best welfare of the State”; and further you say in substance that you have taken a vital interest in this matter and that the consensus of opinion of your associates, the majority of whom are university men, is that an embargo should be placed upon munitions of war. Now you admit that your opinion is based upon imperfect, incomplete, unreliable, and (what at times must be) false information. You also inferentially admit, as you must admit (indeed as everybody knows is the fact) that the President and his Cabinet are in possession of the most perfect, the most complete, most reliable and most trustworthy information obtainable. Moreover, the President is also a university man (if that has anything to do with it) and is he not also a citizen of the United States who loves his country? Is he not a man of intellect, of integrity, of patriotism, of ability, of courage, a man possessing all those attributes that go to make up our idea of a good American citizen? As President, in the handling of domestic affairs, has he not shown himself mindful of the welfare of the masses of the people? In this world’s crisis has he not kept us out of war during the most trying times--under the gravest difficulties--when there was not a Congress in session and when there were no warning resolutions; when newspapers, politicians, partisans, and sympathizers were trying to provoke him into the most drastic action against one or the other side of this controversy? And this at a time when scores of incidents have occurred, each one alone of sufficient importance to have provoked us into war against one side or the other side of the belligerents, had the President been so minded. When you and I and all of us during the summer of 1915 were pursuing our peaceful occupations in Wisconsin, the President was left alone to carry a load that would have staggered and borne down any ordinary man! During all this time, in waking or in sleeping, has he had anything in his mind but the peaceful solution of his monumental task without dishonor to our country?

And now let me ask whether you ought not to admit that it is a little presumptuous on your part to think or claim that you are more patriotic, more desirous of doing, and better able to do justice between the belligerents of Europe--more desirous and better able to safeguard and protect the national honor and the welfare and rights of our people than our president, Woodrow Wilson? In other words, are you not willing to concede that, under all the facts and circumstances surrounding this vital matter, Woodrow Wilson ought to be better qualified in all respects to properly pass upon these questions and to protect our rights than anyone else who neither has the responsibility or the opportunity nor has devoted the thought and time to this matter, that he has?

Now would you and your associates, with all due respect to your learning and information, which at best (as you admit is, and which necessarily can be, based only on imperfect and uncertain premises) have me accept your judgment in this matter in preference to that of the President of the United States? Not only that, but would you have me under _such circumstances_ disregard the judgment of the President and his Cabinet who are lawfully invested with the authority and business of determining these questions which as a matter of law is and as a matter of common sense ought to be final and binding upon the people of the United States and with this also abandon my own judgment and accept yours in lieu thereof? If each citizen of the United States would set _his_ judgment and opinion above that of the President of the United States in our foreign affairs and refuse to abide by his conclusions in time of acute crises such as these, could anything but national chaos be the result? In domestic affairs that do not concern the life of the country we all have a right to insist upon our opinions and, even then, we must bow when overruled by the majority. Then how much more in foreign affairs must we lodge somewhere authority for determining matters affecting our national life itself. And where else shall we lodge them than in the hands of our President and Secretary of State, at least until all diplomatic means shall have been exhausted? Now I do not say that citizens have no right to express their opinions even on foreign affairs; but what I do say is that they ought not to so exercise that right and so conduct themselves as to embarrass and hinder our government in its diplomatic negotiations with foreign countries _at times like these_, and thus imperil, if not absolutely prevent, a peaceful solution of our difficulties, great enough in themselves, but made still greater by the utterances of some papers and persons which give color and basis for the claim and impression abroad that we are a disunited and demoralized people, a people who have lost their faith and confidence in their own government, and who will not give it their loyal and undivided support in all eventualities. We can maintain peace best by presenting a solid front to all nations to the end that they may know and understand that we are one and indivisible no matter what may come!

Now you further say: “As to the notion that under all circumstances the opinions of the President must be upheld, in order to be loyal Americans, that is pure and simple ‘rot.’” Let me say to you that supporting the President under present circumstances is not “rot” unless loyalty to one’s country is also “rot”! Upholding the President under present circumstances does not mean the upholding of an individual in his opinion or judgment. For a Senator or a citizen of the United States to back the President and to accept his conclusions based upon known facts in foreign matters of gravest importance at a time of the nation’s peril like this is not a servile following of an individual and is not “rot.” On the contrary such backing and such acceptance is only supporting and maintaining one’s government. It is evidence of loyalty to one’s country. Such action and such acceptance is not merely supporting President Wilson as a man, it is supporting the United States--our government--our country, which the President for the time being represents and for which he is authorized to act and must act.

I quote further from your letter: “Our slogan is ‘America first, last, and all the time, regardless of party lines, President, or representatives.’” Our President for the time being within certain limitations is America and he acts for America. And in my judgment it is the first duty not only of Senators but of citizens who are for _America_ first, last, and all the time, to be for our _government_ first, last, and all the time that for the time being is our government. _No citizen can be against_ our government and still at the same time justly claim that he is _for America_. One cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time.

Now there is another matter in relation to the Beaver Dam letter of Jan. 27 which was a communication entitled from the “pastors of the German Lutheran Church in Conference at Beaver Dam, Wis., Assembled.” It appears from this letter that you have assumed to put your church on record as opposed to the foreign policy of this government at a time when it was essential that the government should have the united support of its citizens and to make public your disapproval in your pastoral capacity, evidently for the purpose of bringing the President and the representative of your state into political disfavor with your church.

Now what I have to say in this connection is said in all friendliness to the members of the Conference, many of whom I personally know and respect. I acknowledge the right of any man, no matter what his profession or calling may be, to speak his mind freely on political matters and to vote as he pleases at elections and consequently every pastor has a right to express his own personal opinions on any subject that he may desire to speak upon and, furthermore, he has a right to express his own opinion without in any way injecting religion into politics so long as he merely expresses his own personal opinion and does not attempt to talk for his church or for the purpose, as pastor, of influencing the people of his church. I wish, however, to express my opinion that no matter what the merit or excellence of their motives or principles that may underlie such organizations or their actions, it will be an unhappy and unfortunate thing for the country and for the church when churches will be used as political organizations or utilities and when its pastors will become the heads of such organizations.

This country is and has been the refuge and the shield of all men who desire to worship God as they please. This is a country of freedom of religion as well as freedom of thought. We have been endeavoring for more than a century to keep our government and our politics divorced from religion. We have been endeavoring to permit these to run along parallel lines but at the same time to keep them separated and prevent them from impinging one upon the other. The separation of Church and State has been one of the keynotes in our arch and has thus far done much to strengthen and sustain our national structure. But in the last few years there has been a growing tendency to inject religion into politics. I have always steadfastly and consistently discouraged and criticized such tendency wherever I could. I consider it a most dangerous tendency--a tendency which bodes no good either to the nation or to the church. It is bad indeed to inject the _Church into Politics_. It is as bad or worse to inject _Politics into the Church_. If you inject the _Church into Politics_ you will brush aside the traditions of our country since its existence and you will be laying the axe to the very roots of our government. And if you inject _Politics into the Church_ you will also be laying the axe to the very roots of your religion. You cannot have politics in your church without having _factions_ in your _church_ and when you have _factions_ in your _church_ you will _divide_ your _church_, which history shows has ever been the case when governments and churches mixed. Our Revolutionary fathers wisely profited by the experience of other nations and by the teachings of history when they provided that the State and Church should be forever kept separate. All good citizens will deplore anything that endangers our country; and all good people, regardless of religion, will deplore anything that will injure the Church--an institution [which] when properly separated from the government exercises an infinite influence for good in this country. For these reasons I hereby respectfully record my deep regret at the action of the Beaver Dam Conference because I fear that you may be setting an unwise precedent fraught with consequences of a dangerous character both to the Church and to the State in thus, as pastors, using the influence of your church in the manner attempted.

One thing to me seems certain; if we desire to continue the freedom of religion in our country, it can only be done by keeping it free from politics and if we are going to have freedom of politics it can only be done by keeping it free from religious interference. The one proposition is interdependent upon the other and the rule cannot be violated without lasting injury and damage to both Church and State. I trust that the great Lutheran Church and all of the other great churches of the country will never put themselves into the attitude of attempting to control the politics of the country. I most fervently hope that religious and racial influence and prejudices may never be permitted by any church or body of men to promote or prevent the election of any man to public office or to dictate to or to influence our government in its relations or negotiations with foreign nations.

Let me conclude by saying that in all of these troublous times we should remember that we are at peace--that we have been kept out of this war thus far by a president and an administration which have dedicated their efforts to promote the public welfare--that they are doing the very best they can to continue to keep us out of war if this can be done without loss of national honor or without surrendering or abandoning our national rights or the rights of our citizens. In this effort, the government should be sustained by all good citizens, regardless of race or religion. It is the duty of every citizen to sustain it! This is _the_ country in which all our interests are centered--the only country to which we owe any loyalty or allegiance--the country which safeguards and protects us--the country which we in return are bound to protect and defend always. It is easy, of course, to be a good citizen in fair weather but it is in foul weather that the best citizenship is needed. It is in the storm and stress of national peril that loyalty and devotion to the public welfare is put to the acid test. Let us lay aside all of our differences, all of our sympathies, all of our prejudices, so far as they relate to other countries, and let us think and speak and act solely with regard to the good of our own country.

Very respectfully,
PAUL O. HUSTING.

May 19, 1917.

Mr. ---- ----,
----, Wisconsin.

My dear Sir:

Yours of May 16th was duly received and contents noted. In reply I want to say that your letter bears evidence of conscientious thought and your conclusions are, no doubt, honest. I assume you have written me not only for the purpose of giving your own views but also are inviting mine in return. And inasmuch as you have volunteered a doubt as to whether or not your German ancestry has colored or biased your judgment in the premises, I take the liberty of giving you my judgment on that point as I gather it from the context of this and your previous letter.

I believe your reasonings and your conclusions are from the German, not the American, standpoint. In other words, you are holding a brief for Germany and not for the United States. “How important a part” your “German ancestry plays” in this, it may be difficult for you to apprehend but your bias will readily be apparent to anyone who reads your letter. Now, you are an American-born citizen, I take it. You are an attorney-at-law and a member of the bar of Wisconsin. You owe a duty to your country which sympathy for Germany, no matter how genuine it may be, cannot diminish, much less nullify. Now the premises from which you as an American must reason are these: This country is at war with Germany. Your President, my President, our President, backed by a declaration of your Congress, my Congress, our Congress, has proclaimed that war exists. This was done for reasons which appeared sufficient to the President and the Congress to make this declaration imperative. The loyalty and the fidelity of the President and of Congress to the people of the nation has never been questioned or challenged and I do not understand you to challenge or question them now. You are merely attempting in your letter to set your judgment against theirs. Germany is now an enemy of the United States which means that she is your enemy, my enemy, our enemy. Now, it is plain, as the Vice President remarked in a speech some time ago, that we cannot have a hundred million presidents or secretaries of state, meaning, of course, that we can only have one of each at a time and that when these officers, to whom this power has been delegated, have, with the aid of Congress, committed this government to a war, that question to all intents and purposes of the war is settled for all men who are citizens of the United States. And when the status of our relations with a foreign country is once fixed as that of war, then the time for argument has ceased and there is no longer any room for controversy between citizens upon that question. The question then, for the time being, that is to say, during the pendency of the war, is a closed and not an open one. And for the sake of your peace of mind as well as in justice to yourself as an American citizen who does not desire his loyalty questioned or to have his honorable reputation permanently impaired, you should respect, obey, and support the mandate of your country in the spirit of true and devoted American citizenship.

Now, I assume you love this country and that you love it because it is a free country and that you are here practicing your profession because of your desire to live in and to practice law in a country where fullest and freest opportunity is afforded you to work out your own destiny in your own way. In short, I assume that you favor a republican form of government and that you are devoted to America and its free institutions. I am sure that you would not have anyone believe otherwise of you because that would impute to you disloyalty and moreover it would impute to you a lack of intelligent enterprise by your remaining in a country that according to your ideas is improperly governed instead of removing yourself to the jurisdiction of another country which more nearly squares with your ideas of good government. So, I repeat that I assume that you are here because you like to be here under a government that suits you and which you love better than any other government on earth. Now, it is evident in your letter that you love and sympathize with Germany but the question arises in my mind whether your love is for the German people or for the German government. You can easily put yourself to the test. If you love the German people then you must desire them to have as good a government as you enjoy here and it ought to make you happy that your country, if it prevails in this war, will make the German people as free and as happy as you are. If, on the other hand, you are mostly concerned in the success of the German government, that is to say, if you are mostly concerned in having the present Hohenzollern dynasty remain in power, then it would seem to be quite clear that your love is not for the German people but for the Hohenzollern dynasty and the German autocracy. In other words, your love would then be of the form and not of the substance. You cannot love this country and its institutions and at the same time love the German autocracy. These are incompatible and repugnant one to the other. They cannot both exist in the same heart at the same time. Your love for the German people, as is your love of mankind generally, is entirely compatible with your love of this country but it must be clear to you, as it must be perfectly clear to every American, that you cannot love your country and the German people and mankind generally and at the same time love the fearful German autocracy which is trying to impose or impress its system, its frightfulness, and its wish and will upon the world and which in its mad lust for power silences the promptings of conscience, scoffs at the weakness of love for human-kind, deafens its ears to the dictates of humanity, and which in pursuit of its fell purpose sets at naught all law human and divine. Now let me ask you to search your heart and see whether your love for the German fatherland is a love compatible with your duties as an American citizen--whether it is compatible with your love of liberty and humanity--whether it is compatible with the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that all men are entitled to the right of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”! If such love is compatible with all these then your love for the German fatherland is a virtue and not a vice. But, if searching deeply into your heart you find that your love of the fatherland means that you love the relentless, ruthless, and despotic Hohenzollern dynasty and its system, pluck it out as you would a cancer, for it is a thing of evil and you cannot love it and be a good and true American.

You write “The President’s statement to the effect that the War is not directed against the German people never appealed to me.” For the reasons I have just given it should appeal to you as an American and as a lover of liberty and it should appeal to the German people themselves and their sympathizers in this country. It should appeal to lovers of liberty the world over--this statement that we are warring on a Power and not a People. We are warring on the Power because it has set its hand and might against the world and setting aside all laws of God and man it has outlawed itself and has no right to live. But in destroying this Power there is no intent, or disposition, or wish to destroy the People. The President’s statement means, as I interpret it, that the one thing that stands between peace and war with Germany is the Hohenzollern dynasty. Once let that obstacle be removed either by the German people themselves or by the arbitrament of arms and our troubles and differences with Germany are over. Now can an American citizen of German extraction who puts the welfare and happiness of the people of Germany ahead of that of the Kaiser or, in other words, ahead of the Hohenzollern dynasty and the autocratic system which that dynasty embodies and typifies, enlist himself, his sympathies, his resources, his life, in a higher and holier cause than to join in emancipating the German people from the thrall of the Hohenzollern dynasty and to save the German people whom he professes to love from a doom which an outraged world has pronounced and sealed against the ruthless and frightful Hohenzollern system? Now and here is the opportunity for all who love the German people to give proof of it. Let them all get back of the President and of their government and to the extent of their influence, ability, might, and power help to bring to their brothers in blood across the sea that priceless boon of liberty and independence which they or their ancestors sailed the perilous seas to find here in America. Let them make sacrifice and help and fight to give to their friends and kinsmen across the ocean that which was given to most of them here without cost or sacrifice on their part.

It is quite apparent to almost everyone that there can be no peace--no permanent peace--in the world so long as one power seeks to impose its autocratic straight jacket upon the world. Since the birth of the American Republic, the world has been marching away from autocracy and toward universal democracy, gathering irresistible momentum with the advance of time. All rulers, all statesmen, all men recognize this fact.

Even in countries autocratically ruled greater liberties and rights have been accorded the common people and it is only a question of time when the doctrine of the divinity of kings will become a tradition and the world will become one vast democracy. I repeat that the world is turning with irresistible momentum to a world democracy and the rulers of the world recognize that the logic of events is bound to substitute governments “of, by and for the people” in place of “of, by and for” kaisers, czars, and kings. There is practically one autocracy in the world which still has the power and efficiency to make that power felt in its attempt, its will and purpose upon the world; but one power on earth that today constitutes a menace and obstruction to the onward tread of democracy and that power is Germany! It is the Hohenzollern dynasty which is illogically, in indifference and contempt of the world’s sentiment, ignoring the teachings of history, unheeding the warnings of history with that fatuousness which always blinds the eyes of those who look only for their self-aggrandizement, that is trying to turn the world backward. It is the Hohenzollern dynasty that has thrown itself in the path of the onward march of liberty and progress, trying not only to stem the irresistible physical and spiritual forces of the world but actually trying to rout and drive them back into the dark ages of despotism. It must be obvious to every thinking man that this attempt will fail. No man or set of men in this day or age will be permitted to rule the world. Every ruler, every dynasty which unyieldingly places itself in the pathway of liberty and progress will be overthrown; every people, no matter how powerful or great, which blindly and absolutely places itself behind, follows, and clings to such ruler and dynasty, will inevitably sooner or later be crushed and utterly destroyed with it. And so the German autocracy which today menaces the world and obstructs its progress will be overthrown and the German people if they continue blindly and absolutely to cling to their dynasty will inevitably share the same fate. Whether Germany prevails in this war or not, there will be and can be no lasting peace until the inevitable end is reached. So that in the end, be it sooner or later, democracy will be established and autocracy will perish. The destruction of the autocratic Hohenzollern dynasty would be a blessing to the world. The destruction of the German people would be a calamity to the world. I do not believe that the German people are going to commit national suicide. I do not believe that they are long going to continue to sacrifice the substance for the form. I do not believe that they will deem it wise to suffer a national death in order to uphold the life of a government that is based on error, not on truth, which the world tried and found wanting, and which is responsible for the catastrophe which has befallen themselves and the world at large. It is unthinkable--it is unbelievable--that the German people are unaffected by the onward movement of democracy and that they alone will continue to hug the despotism and the system that is unsuited to the requirements and unworthy of a modern civilization. Wherefore, it would seem clear to me that all citizens of German extraction would be quick to realize and appreciate the force of the President’s declaration that we are not warring against the German people but against the German autocracy and would enthusiastically support their own government in a purpose which means freedom to the German people, and in thus giving their whole hearted support to their own government they would be discharging their duty, they would be true to their allegiance as American citizens, and at the same time they would be furthering the best interests of the German people and aiding them in the only way in which they properly can.

I have received a number of letters of the same purport as yours and I am going to publish my letter to you so that it may serve as an answer likewise to others who are minded as you are. I know that there are in our midst a number of serious, well-meaning men who hold the ideas and sentiments which you have expressed--sentiments which, it is perfectly clear, are incompatible with the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship in a crisis like this as well as incompatible with the intelligence and the character of the men entertaining them. In the various public speeches I have made and communications I have published during this crisis, I have sought to speak only in the furtherance of what I understand and conceive to be the truth of the matter and the welfare of our country. I have been animated solely by a purpose to dispel error and to promote the interests of our country and not by the slightest ill-feeling or malice toward any man. I have sought to express myself frankly and without reserve but, at the same time, I hope fairly, courteously, and without malice or feeling. Having lived amongst Americans of German extraction all my life and counting amongst them many of my best and dearest friends, I believe that I know their processes of thought, their sentiments, their prejudices, and their intelligence. I know that they would not prefer to remain in error if once convinced that they are in error. They do not want to be deceived. They do not want to be flattered into silence or apparent conviction. They like to hear straight, plain, blunt talk. Loving law and order and respecting authority, as I know they do, I have always believed that the great mass of our citizens of German extraction would never permit themselves to be placed in an attitude of hostility to the orderly and just administration of the law or permit their loyalty or fidelity to be suspected or challenged. I know that when once convinced they are quick to abandon a position once they see that it is untenable.

And so I have written this letter in the hope that I might be instrumental in showing you that your position is untenable and in the hope that you will abandon it for one which will reflect credit on your patriotism, your judgment, and your citizenship and which at the same time will afford you the best opportunity for advancing the interests and welfare of your kinsmen across the sea.

Very truly yours,
PAUL O. HUSTING.

HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS

THE BEGINNINGS OF MILWAUKEE

Mr. B. F. Williams, of the firm of Williams and Stern, lawyers, of Milwaukee, visited the Historical Library in January in search of material concerning the building of the first courthouse in Milwaukee, to be used in an injunction suit to prevent the removal of the Milwaukee County Courthouse from its present site. A member of the Library staff assisted him in his work, and found among the Society’s manuscripts and pamphlets much material concerning the first days of American occupation in Milwaukee. The village of Milwaukee (east side) was organized in September, 1835, with Solomon Juneau as president; the village of Kilbourntown (Milwaukee west side) was organized about the same time with Byron Kilbourn as president. In January, 1838, the two villages were united by an act of the Wisconsin territorial legislature.

Morgan L. Martin, of Green Bay, was the real founder of Milwaukee. In 1833 he noted the advantages of the site for a harbor, and secured from Lewis Cass, secretary of war, an order for its survey. Meantime Martin made a proposition to Juneau, the only settler on the site, to take an undivided half of his claim, Juneau promising not to sell any of his share without Martin’s consent. Martin in this transaction evinced both wisdom and generosity--generosity in giving Juneau a chance to share the profits of the enterprise (for many men would have bought his claim outright for a small sum); wisdom in binding Juneau not to dispose of his share without advice. The result proved the value of Martin’s foresight. In 1834 the preëmption act made Juneau’s claim substantial. About this time Martin bought the preëmption right of Peter Juneau, which lay south of Solomon’s claim. The Michigan legislature, of which Martin was a member, erected Milwaukee County in 1834, and in 1835 organized the same, with the county seat at the village of Milwaukee.

In the meanwhile during 1834 many Americans visited the site of the future city and saw its possibilities for growth. Among these was Byron Kilbourn who secured a claim to the west side of Milwaukee River. Martin and Juneau, early in 1835, proposed to Kilbourn to unite their interests. Kilbourn ignored this offer, and proceeded to develop his town alone. Meanwhile both town sites were surveyed and their plats put on record. Martin and Juneau began to develop their property, by opening and grading streets. One block in the heart of the town was set aside for the courthouse, and nearly $12,000 (a large sum for that time) was spent in erecting a suitable building. The ground around the new public building was given to the village in perpetuity, for the use of the county courts.

A large number of letters from Juneau to Martin are in the possession of the State Historical Society, and are interesting as revealing the growth of the village, and the personality of its proprietors. Although Martin and Juneau had transactions involving many thousands of dollars, there never was any disagreement between them. Neither did they have a written contract, each one relying upon the honor of the other. And when hard times fell upon the little settlement in 1837 and later, each partner bore his share of misfortune cheerfully and without a word of accusation or disagreement. Even after the union of Milwaukee village and Kilbourntown in 1838, a considerable rivalry was maintained between the two parts of the town, which in some measure has persisted to the present day.

LOUISE P. KELLOGG.

THE SENATORIAL ELECTION OF 1869

In 1869 Wisconsin elected a new senator to represent her in Congress. It was conceded on every hand that James R. Doolittle, whose term expired March 4, 1869, had misrepresented the state’s sentiment in his support of President Johnson during the impeachment trial, and that he had no chance of reëlection. This situation brought out a number of candidates, most of whom were “new” men. Among the tried and true candidates the most prominent were Cadwallader C. Washburn, then congressman for the southwestern section of the state, and Horace Rublee, vigorous editor of the chief Republican newspaper at Madison. Ex-Governor Salomon was also in the field, but his candidacy was not taken very seriously. The new men who were most prominently talked of were Otis H. Waldo and Matt H. Carpenter, both of them Milwaukee lawyers. Waldo was the elder of the two, a man of ability and power, and a Republican from the foundation of the party. Carpenter was of Democratic antecedents, a recent adherent of the reigning party. His strength lay in his brilliant oratory, keen wit, and deep knowledge of men. Erratic in his methods, but meteoric in his cleverness, he persuaded and enthralled his hearers when opportunity was afforded him for speech. Carpenter had made a national reputation by his arguments in the Supreme Court on the Reconstruction issue. The president-elect, General Grant, and his advisers were favorable to Carpenter’s candidacy, which gave the Milwaukee lawyer a strong endorsement with Wisconsin Republicans.

The senatorial campaign opened in June, and largely governed the elections for the ensuing Wisconsin legislature. By December the situation had become acute, and all parties were lined up for the contest. The preferences of every legislator-elect were canvassed and recanvassed; and each candidate presented his claims and qualifications to the prominent members of the coming legislature in personal letters. The State Historical Society has recently received a gift of a few letters relating to this campaign addressed to the Honorable Andrew Jackson Turner, of Portage, then an influential figure in Wisconsin politics. Three of these letters, written in the early winter of 1868-69, are from Carpenter, who bespeaks Turner’s support at the coming legislative session. Turner, however, had given his pledge to Horace Rublee, and had been by him chosen manager of his campaign. December 9, 1868, Carpenter wrote to Turner from Washington: “I recd your favor just as I was leaving home, postponing me in your affections to Mr. Rublee. But I think this will make no difference. I am sure the conflict will be between Mr. Washburn and myself & that he will be elected, if I am not. You say that you shall support me next to Rublee, and I desire to thank you for this.”

The most interesting letter of the lot is that of Rublee himself, written November 23, 1868. In it he canvasses the entire legislative personnel, telling of the predilections of each member and concluding: “In my judgement Carpenter cannot be elected, & I certainly think he ought not to be elected.”

As all the world knows, Rublee was wrong. During the legislative session, Carpenter’s manager arranged a public meeting in which all the candidates were to set forth their views on the questions of the day. This meeting was contemptuously dubbed by Rublee “A Spelling-down”; none the less, neither he nor any other of the candidates dared refuse the invitation to speak. Carpenter’s great powers as an orator stood him in good stead, and at the Republican caucus held soon after the speech-making contest, he was triumphantly nominated, and elected, in due course, by the Republican majority in the state legislature.

The intimate picture these old letters afford of the log-rolling days before the direct election of the senators by the people, gives them historical value for students of political methods, and lays bare the reasons that induced the modern revolt against “machine-made” representatives in the upper house of Congress.

LOUISE P. KELLOGG.

“KOSHKONONG” AND “MAN EATER”

Lake Koshkonong is one of the most beautiful sheets of water in Wisconsin. In primitive times the region adjacent to it must have constituted a perfect paradise for the red man. Even yet, notwithstanding its settlement by whites for nearly three generations, this is one of the favorite resorts of Wisconsin sportsmen. The Indian name “Koshkonong” has usually been explained as meaning “the lake we live on.”[132] The letter which follows, recently presented to the State Historical Society by H. L. Skavlem, of Janesville, offers both a new rendering of the Indian name and a new interpretation of it. No less interesting to those who care for Wisconsin’s primitive history is the new rendition offered of the name of Man Eater, the Rock River chief who dwelt on the shore of Lake Koshkonong a century ago. Mrs. Kinzie, the author of _Wau Bun_, saw Man Eater or “Mee-chee-tai” on at least two occasions. Over against the sad picture which Peter Vieau paints should be set her description of him as “a most noble Indian in appearance and character.”

Portage, Sept. 2, 1900.

Mr. Buckley, Attorney,
Beloit, Wis.

Dear Sir:

Having forgotten your initials I am compelled to address you as above.

Some months ago you wrote me concerning “Man Eater’s” village and why he was called “Man Eater.” I had no knowledge of the origin of his name, but the location of his village was easily ascertainable. Your inquiry aroused a desire to know more of the famous old Indian and I have made many inquiries myself, but without results, until the thought occurred to me to address a note to the venerable Peter J. Vieau, of Muskego, which I did through Mr. D. M. Fowler, of Milwaukee. I copy from Mr. V.’s reply, through an amanuensis:

“I never knew a lake of that name ‘Kosh-ko-nong’ but I know
‘Kosh-kau-no-nong,’ meaning termination of a lake or river,
a dam or any obstruction making an ending, a stop, an
absolute end.

“Well, then, I never knew a chief of that _name_, but I knew
one of the name of ‘Mee-chee-tai.’ He was not a full-blooded
chief, but was considered as one among the Indian tribe. He
was half Winnebago and Pottowatomie. He was a powerful man
and a terror among the tribe. He was looked upon as a
sorcerer, and lived at that time as I recollect in the
neighborhood of Kosh-kau-no-nong. He used to do his trading
with Jacques Vieau, my father, when my father opened his
trading post in Milwaukee as early as 1795. It must be the
same man Mr. Turner refers to ‘Mee-chee-tai’; it means
‘Heart-Eater.’ Now then the above statement can be
substantiated by my sister, Mrs. May Vieau Lavigne, visiting
with me at present. She knew him well, too.

“‘Mee-chee-tai’ was killed by his son in a drunken frolic
about the time of the speculation in Milwaukee in ’35 or
’36. He killed his wife and his son ‘Shaw-gun-osh’ tried to
save his mother, and killed the old man his father, and that
ended his fearful career. He was considered a good Indian
when sober. Father used to think much of him. He was honest
in his dealings. He was a great juggler, performed great
tricks, &c.
Yours P. J. V.”

Did you ever see any reference to this Indian in any place other than “Wau-Bun”?

Very respectfully,
A. J. TURNER.

THE ALIEN SUFFRAGE PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION OF WISCONSIN[133]

According to the organic law of Wisconsin Territory, enacted by Congress in erecting the territory in 1836, only citizens of the United States were eligible to the franchise (section V, proviso). About the year 1840, immigrants from Germany, the British Isles, and Norway became an appreciable factor in the population of the territory; but the naturalization law requiring a five years’ residence disfranchised this large group of settlers. The situation grew tense by 1843, especially since the question of statehood was being discussed, and seemed likely to come to a head in 1844. Moreover, the matter was complicated by the Native-American agitation throughout the country. Many openly advocated a twenty-one year provision for naturalization, and Wisconsin’s foreigners grew restive under this possibility.

It seemed quite certain that the Wisconsin legislature of 1844 would pass a law providing for a referendum on the subject of statehood. In December, 1843, a large public meeting of German citizens was called at Milwaukee who drew up a petition for the right to participate in this referendum. This was signed by 1,200 persons, and was probably the largest petition ever presented to the territorial legislature. It became impossible to ignore the demand of the foreign settlers. The Whig and Democratic parties were struggling for the control of the territorial offices. Wisconsin was normally Democratic by an overwhelming majority, but the Tyler administration had appointed a Whig governor, and patronage went with the administration. The Whigs were accused of alliance with nativism; it therefore became them to prove the falsity of the charge. The Democrats felt certain of the foreign vote. The legislature, therefore, on January 22, 1844, passed “An Act in relation to the qualification of voters for state government and for the election of delegates to form a state constitution,” which provided that “all free white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, who have resided in said territory three months shall be deemed qualified, and shall be permitted to vote on said question” and for delegates to a convention to frame a constitution.

The referendum vote which was taken in September, 1844, proved adverse to the question of a state government. There is no means of ascertaining how many foreigners voted upon the question, but the entire vote was very light, and the alien voters seem not to have influenced the decision, which was anticipated by all parties in the territory.

About the same time the territorial legislature passed the act above referred to, General Henry Dodge, Wisconsin’s territorial delegate in Congress, presented to that body a petition signed by 300 citizens in the western part of the territory praying for a repeal of the proviso in the fifth section of the organic law of Wisconsin, and for the passage of a law granting suffrage to every free white male inhabitant of the age of twenty-one years within the territory, foreigners included. This is the petition referred to by G. F. Franklin in his _Legislative History of Naturalization_. The names of the signers of the petition are not available. We conjecture that they were those of the Cornish miners of that region, rather than of the American settlers, because in after debates, the southwest section of the state opposed the law allowing aliens to vote.

The law of 1844 was at once attacked, and was made the basis of an attempt to defeat several prominent members of the legislature who had voted for it. This was especially true in the northeast section where the reëlection of Dr. Mason C. Darling, a prominent Democrat, was opposed because of his advocacy of the alien voting law. It was claimed that the law was unconstitutional, violating both the Constitution of the United States and the organic law of the territory. Dr. Darling came out with several long addresses on the subject, basing the right of aliens to vote on the twelfth article of the Ordinance of 1787, and on the inherent right of a sovereign state to form its constitution as it thought best.

Dr. Darling was reëlected, but the legislature of 1845 had hardly begun its session when a determined effort was made to repeal the law of the previous session. In the course of the debates Dr. Darling offered a clause on the declaration of intention as an amendment, and another member amended the three months to six months. Both of these changes were accepted by the friends of the bill as compromise measures to mitigate the opposition. Dr. Darling said in his argument that he considered the intention declaration as of no consequence, except as an evidence of actual settlement. This compromise saved the bill, and the amended act, approved February 8, 1845, reads: “No person shall hereafter vote upon the subject of state government, or for delegates to form a state constitution, who shall not have resided six months within the Territory, and as an additional qualification shall be a citizen of the United States, or shall have declared his intention to become such; as the law requires.”

Thus the matter rested until the legislature of 1846 arranged again to submit the question of a state government to the people. An attempt was made by the Whig party to amend the law of 1845 and allow only citizens to vote. The suffrage provision was complicated by differences concerning negro, half-breed, and Indian suffrage. On the test vote the law of 1845 was maintained by the strong majority of 19 to 7, nearly all the Democrats voting in its favor.

The constitutional convention met in October, 1846, and the question of alien suffrage was much debated. Upon the ground that the acts of 1844 and 1845 were both unconstitutional, petitions poured in, especially from the Southwest, to limit the franchise to citizens of the United States. The foreigners also availed themselves of the right of petition, and the able German delegates in the convention created a favorable impression for alien suffrage. As finally adopted, the article granted suffrage to one-year residents, and “all white persons not citizens of the United States, who shall have declared their intention to become such, in conformity with the laws of Congress for the naturalization of aliens, and shall have taken before any officer of this state * * * an oath to support the constitution of the United States and of this state.”

The constitution of 1846 was rejected by the people. In the discussion, then, of the provision for alien voters it played but a small part. The friends of the constitution set forth its liberality to foreigners and the fact that it acknowledged the equal rights nature bestowed upon foreign and native-born citizens alike. Opponents of the constitution set forth on the one hand the over-liberality to the alien element, and on the other hand the requirement of an additional oath as an illiberal burden to foreign residents.

In the constitutional convention of 1847-48 the subject of the foreign franchise occupied a large share of the time of the delegates. The delegates from the western counties came with a deliberate determination to limit the franchise to citizens of the United States. The admission of foreigners to suffrage placed the West in a permanent minority, as the lake-board and middle sections of the territory had the bulk of the immigrant population.

The original proposition as brought in by the committee restored the residence requirement to six months, retained the intention of citizenship clause, and omitted the special oath. The examples of New York, Ohio, and Illinois were cited. One member urged that the one-year requirement was necessary in New York to ascertain the permanent character of the residence, while all who came to Wisconsin came for permanent homes and six months was long enough to prove residence. The effect of the shorter period would be to encourage foreigners to file their intentions sooner. It was admitted that the six-months provision was carried in committee by a very narrow majority.

The attack on the article on alien suffrage was begun by an amendment to limit suffrage to citizens. It was alleged that the article as reported by the committee was unconstitutional and would cause Congress to reject the constitution. In reply the similar provisions in the constitutions of Ohio and Illinois were cited. The new constitution of Illinois was cited by both parties to the controversy; one claiming the change had occurred because of dissatisfaction with the more liberal provision; the other that Illinois’ new constitution had not yet been acted upon. Charges were freely made of demagoguery--that the Democrats were toadying to the foreign vote. In reply, the Democrats appealed to the liberality and progressiveness of their party policies, and declared that the aliens, being taxed, were entitled to vote. The citizen amendment was defeated by a vote of 53 to 16; and the suffrage article as originally reported by the committee was incorporated into the constitution. With the amendments required by the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the provision was part of the organic law of Wisconsin until 1912.

LOUISE P. KELLOGG.

[132] So given by Mrs. John Kinzie in _Wau Bun, The Early
Day in the Northwest_, (Caxton Club ed. Chicago, 1901) 252.
Isaac T. Smith in _Wisconsin Historical Collections_, VI,
424, explains that the Winnebago name “Koshkonong” meant
“the place where we shave.” He adds, however, that the
Potawatomi name for the lake meant “the lake we live on.”
This interpretation is also given by Rev. Alfred Brunson in
_Wis. Hist. Colls._, I, 118.