Fifty Years In The Northwest
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.[J] 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repealed.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,