of the United States, and also an oath to faithfully discharge
the duties of his office.'^ The oaths having been administered
by the Hon. Silas Bent, a judge of the superior court, a resolu-
tion was submitted by John D. Cook, of Ste, Genevieve, which
stated that it was then expedient to form a constitution and
state government for the people of Missouri Territory within
the boundaries set forth in the enabling act of Congress.^ This
very important resolution was unanimously adopted by the
convention. Considering the strong frontier sentiment that
up to May, 1820, had favored a new election and a fairer ap-
portionment of delegates, this vote is remarkable. The Boone's
Lick people had been protesting for months against the small
number of representatives apportioned their and the Salt
River districts, and they had persistently advocated a new
election of delegates and a new convention based on a more
to have been of a semi-secret nature; the public was excluded from the sessions
but some of the delegates kept their constituents informed of the general business
transacted.
^Jackson Herald, June 24, 1820; Scharf, op. cit., I. 564f.
• J., pp. 3f . The voting was by ballot and resulted as follows : for president —
David Barton, 28 votes, Richard S. Thomas, 6, John Rice Jones, 3; for secretary —
William G. Pettus, 21 votes, Archibald Gamble, 12, Thompson Douglass, 3,
Joseph v. Gamier, 2; and for door-keeper — George W. Ferguson, 35 votes, Ed-
ward Horrocks, 2. None of the candidates for secretary or door-keeper was
a delegate.
^ Ibid., p. 4. Cf. Jameson, Const. Convs., pp. 280ff. This was the first
resolution recorded in the Journal and was submitted on June 12th.
*IMd., p. 4.
168 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
just basis of representation.^ It speaks well for the wisdom
and honor of these western and northern men that, although
they could have opposed this measure with much justice on
their side, they choose to yield their cause in behalf of the com-
mon welfare of the people. ^^
Having decided to form a constitution, the convention at
once began its labors. This work was accomplished by com-
mittees, which reported to the convention, and divides itself
into legislative and administrative acts. The former activity
is the more important, but the latter is also significant and in-
teresting. We shall first consider the administrative and rou-
tine labors of the convention.
On the first day of the convention a committee was ap-
pointed to draft rules for the government of that body.^^ On
the following day this committee submitted a short report,
consisting of twenty-one sections and containing about nine
hundred words, which was divided into four parts, "The Duties
Of The President," "Of Decorum In Debate," "Duties Of
The Secretary," and "Duties Of The Door-Keeper." This
report was adopted by the convention without debate or op-
position. ^^ Brevity, courtesy and common sense, are its dis-
tinguishing features. ^^ The President of the convention was
» C/. supra, chapter 11; Mo. Intell., June 24. 1820.
•"The action of the Missouri convention on this point presents a striking
contrast to that of the Louisiana constitutional convention of 1811. The latter
met on November 4, 1811. and after electing a temporary president, being unable
to effect a permanent organization, adjourned to the 18th instant. On re-
assembling and after the election of permanent officers, the great question of
"State or no State?" commanded the attention of all the delegates. Some favored
a State, others opposed it. One thought that the people were not instructed in
the principles of freedom. Some of the newspaper writers in that Territory
declared that the doctrines of liberty and equality were "heresy" and "theoretical
stuff," and tJiat property should be the basis for granting the right of suffrage.
On taking tJie vote on this (juestion, thirty-flve delegates favored a State, seven
opposed it. (Fortier, Address, in Pub. of La. Hist, iioc, VI. 40f.
>' J., p. 4. Thomas, Emmons, Jones, Cook of Madison and Riddlck com-
posed this committee. Two of the.se were lawyers; two, business men; and one.
a landowner, was a brother of a lawyer.
'* Ibid., pp. aft. Fifty copies were ordered printed.
'• A comparison of these ruh^s with tliose governing the United States House
of Representatives at that time shows that (lie former are simply an epitome
of tho.se ess(!nthil features of the latter that are applicable to a convention. In
many sections the language of the two are Identical except that In the place of
the words "Hous(n" ".Speaker" and "Clerk," which appear In the former, the
Labors of the Convention. 169
given the great power of appointing all committees, and at no
time during the session of that body was this rule changed.
As the presiding officer, Barton seems to have given satisfaction
to all the delegates; on the last day of the convention a resolu-
tion was unanimously adopted tendering him the thanks of
the members of that body for the able and faithful discharge
of his duty as president. A similar resolution of thanks was
at the same time passed regarding the work of Pettus for the
faithful and correct manner in which he had served as secretary.^'*
A resolution was then adopted directing that the secretary
make up the Journal of the convention under the direction of
the president. ^^ This resolution brings to our attention what
we regard as one of the most serious criticisms that can be
urged against the convention and its officers. We advance
this criticism not only for the sake of historical accuracy but,
we believe, "The world's memory must be kept alive or we
shall never see an end of its old mistakes." ^^
The minutes recorded of the proceedings of a legislative
body, and especially of a constitutional convention, can never
be too detailed. The very interpretation of a phrase or a
clause in a constitution frequently involves a painstaking study
of those debates that were held over it by its framers. Not
only to the historian, the lawyer, the judge, and to all posterity,
is such a detailed account important, but it is equally valuable
in enabling contemporaries and the people at large to pass
unbiased judgment on the acts of those men whom they have
elected to so important a trust. The proceedings of all de-
words "Convention," "President" and "Secretary," are respectively substituted
in the latter. Cf. Hinds, Rules of the House of Rep. 61st Cong., pp. 303-474,
(Govt. Prtg. Office, Washington, 1910.)
i««7., p. 48. It is reported that Pettus worked all night of the 18th of July,
copying on parchment the enrolled constitution. From the minutes of the
Journal, however, it seems that Pettus had at least two nights and one day to
do this work. (C/. J., p. 46f.) It is probable that other duties prevented him
from accomplishing this until the last minute. Findlay, chairman of the enroll-
ment committee, in reporting to the convention the result of his examination of
Pettus' work, said that never in his long experience as a printer had he seen such
beautiful and accurate copying, that there was not an interlineation or mispelled
word, and that not a "t" was uncrossed or an "i" undotted, throughout the
manuscript. (Scharf, op. cit., I. 563f; Houck, op. cit.. III. 249f. M. 5.)
»«J., p. 48.
i« Reported from speech of President Woodrow Wilson.
170 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
liberative bodies and, wherever politic, of administrative
boards, should be recorded in the clearest and most minute
detail. The cost of printing and clerk hire is too childish an
objection to deserve consideration.
Brevity, condensation and omission of detail, is in itself
one of the most essential characteristics of a strong, enduring
and well-balanced constitution; this quality is, on the other
hand, the most vital of all defects in any journal that purports
to record the complete history of how a constitution was framed.
The Missouri constitution of 1820 is commendable in covering
only eighteen and a half printed octavo pages; the journal of
the Missouri constitutional convention of 1820 is ridiculously
defective in being a pamphlet of forty-eight printed pages, of
which only thirty-four contain information on the constitution.^^
From an analysis of the newspaper reports of this convention
we are well within the bounds of moderation in stating that
the four contests in that body over the questions of salaries for
state officers, of the basis of representation in the state senate,
of the location of the permanent seat of the state government,
and of the state bank, alone, could not have been fully described
in a journal of less than three hundred pages. Fundamental
as is this defect of brevity in the record that was kept of Mis-
souri's first constitutional convention, the Journal would still
be acceptable if it possessed the merits of clearness and ac-
curacy. But a hasty examination shows it is lacking in the
former quality, and a careful study compromises it in the
latter.^8
The JournaVs account of the convention's printing con-
tracts is significantly illustrative of these defects, and, as those
contracts were purely administrative acts, a discussion of
them is appropriate here. The convention's printing was of
" The St. Louis edition of 1820 of the constitution is a small size pamphlet,
three and a half by five and three-fourths inches, and contains forty pam>s, of
which thirty are devoted to the constitution; the Wasliington edition, printed
the same year, is a full size octavo pamphlet and contains twenty-live panes, of
which eiKhteen and a half are devoted to tlie constitution.
••Our criticism of brevity and obscurity is not confined to the Journal of
this convention; it is applicable to tiic; Journal of the Illinois constitutional con-
vention of 1«1K. (Cy. same as reprinted in the Journal of the 111. iStatc Hist.
Soc. VI. No. 3.)
Labors of the Convention, 171
two kinds, miscellaneous job work and the printing of the
constitution and journal. All bids were to be made to a
committee, composed of Greene, Rector and Boone; final
decision on same was retained by the convention. ^^ This
committee first considered bids for the job work, and having
requested and received one from Henry and Company of St.
Louis recommended the acceptance of that firm's offer. The
convention accordingly gave the contract to Henry and Com-
pany .^^ This far the Journal is clear and perhaps accurate,
although there were probably some discussion and an aye and
and nay vote taken on this matter, both of which the Journal
fails to record. A criticism does, however, plainly rest against
the printing committee in not having also asked for a bid from
the rival printing firm in St. Louis, or if it did this, in not having
presented two bids — for certainly the old, established firm of
Joseph Charless' could and would have competed with that of
Henry and Benton's.^^
On the day following the letting of the job work, the con-
vention, after much discussion, resolved by a very close division
vote to have printed twelve hundred copies of the constitution
and of the journal. This resolution was bitterly contested and
thoroughly aroused the convention, but the Journal is sin-
gularly silent on this phase of the afifair.^^ Two days later, on
Saturday, June 17, according to the Journal, the printing
committee submitted to the convention propositions of Henry
and Company for printing twelve hundred copies of the con-
stitution and of the journal, and also submitted a resolution
accepting these propositions. The Journal then briefly states
»» J., p. 5.
»« Ibid., pp. 7f.
" Henry and Co. printed the St. Louis Enquirer and was controlled by Isaac
N. Henry and Thomas H. Benton. Joseph Charless, editor and owner of the
Missouri Gazette, was hated by many of the delegates and especially by Green
and other active politicians of Missouri.
" See Journal, p. 9, for its account of the proceedings on June loth. Our
account is taken from a letter of the St. Louis correspondent of the Alissouri
Intelligencer. {Mo. Intell., June 24, 1820.) Green, Cook of Ste. Genevieve, and
Findlay favored the resolution; Thomas wanted only 300 copies printed; and
Heath opposed the resolution. The writer says that some excitement, irregular
discussion, and long speeches followed the introduction of the resolution. Two
important votes were taken and each showed 20 ayes and 18 nays.
172 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
that, after a motion to table this resolution had been negatived,
the resolution itself was adopted.^^ Green, chairman of the
printing committee, in a letter "To The Voters Of Howard
County" dated two months later, said that his committee had
also submitted the propositions to Charless for printing, and
that the convention had almost unanimously accepted those
of Henry and Company.^'* Either the Journal is inaccurate
or Green is mistaken; we are inclined to think that both trimmed.
On the following Monday, June 19, according to the Journal,
Charless submitted proposals for printing the constitution and
the journal, but on motion of Findlay these were ordered to be
laid on the table.^^ Charless' bids were just one-fifth those of
Henry and Company; this interesting bit of information is not,
however, given in the Journal; we obtained it from the files of
the Missouri Gazette, August 2 and 9, and of the Missouri In-
telligencer, July 1 and August 19.^^ To maintain that the
^^ Journal, p. 10. Ramsay made the motion to table the resolution.
^*Mo. IntelL, August 19. 1820.
"J., p. 11.
" The bid of Henry and Company for printing twelve hundred copies of the
constitution was S 100.00; that of Charless, $20.00. The cost of printing twelve
hundred copies of the journal was to be done at the same rate, in proportion to
the extent of the work. The St. Louis correspondent of the Mo. IntelL, July 1.
1820, states that Charless' bid was presented June 19, and that it was placed
low, at 1/5 a fair price, in order to raise "a false clamour among the people."
He also states that the printing contract had been let on June 17. and that Charless,
knowing this, sought to embaress the convention without running any risk of
being himself embarressed. Charless replied to this correspondent in two edito-
rials which appeared in the Mo. Gazette, Aug. 2 and 9. 1820. He stated that the
printing committee had never requested bids from him; that he had not known
of the appointment of this committee until after it had presented the proposals
of Henry and Co. ; that wlien his proposals were handed to the committee by
Boone, who had received them from some member. Green was displeased and wished
to know who had informed old Charless; that at that time the contract had not
yet been made and was still under discussion; that notwithstanding the fact tha«
his bid was only one-llfth that of Henry and Co., the contract was awarded the
latter, on the recommendation of the committee; and that he had liis hid again
presented to the convention by a member, but it was tabled. Charless also
explained how he (^ould afford to print twelve hundred copies of the constitution
for $20.00 and still niak(r a profit; all the newspapers would print the constitution,
hence no new labor of composition would be required to print it for tlie convention;
the only extra expense in printing twelve liundred copies would be the following —
paper, $G.2.'>, press work, $4.00. folding, stitching, covering, and coloring, one
day for a boy. $1..'>0, and colored paper for covering. $1.2.'') all ()r which would
amount to $i:i.()0, thus loaving a profit of $7.00 on his .SJO.OO bid. Ciiarle.ss
further accu.sed (Irccn and the convention of giving Henry and Co. at least $1,.')00
for all the printing, which he, Charless, would gladly have done for $;U)0.00. Ho
Labors of the Convention. 173
matter is unimportant and did not warrant recording, is to lay
the Journal open to the severe criticism of having covered one
and one-half pages of its scanty forty-eight pages with extraneous
minutes on the printing by Henry and Company. We cannot,
however, see how the S20.00 bid of Charless was in any respect
less important than the .$100.00 bid of Henry and Company .^^
concluded his arraignment with these biting words: "It is part of the question
of high salaries — no one shall do any thing for the public except he will take three
times as much as he ought — No one shall serve the public unless he plucks the goose
as much as possible."
Green in his race for representative from Howard county in 1820, was at-
tacked by his enemies for this little piece of politics of his at St. Louis, and he
must have feared the effect of the charges. For on August 19th, there appears
In the Mo. Intell. a letter of his addressed "To The Voters Of Howard County,"
which attempts to reply to the statements of Charless and others. A hasty
examination of this letter clears both Green and the Convention of all criticisms
regarding the convention's printing and further places Charless in the hole for
misstatements and for playing low politics: a careful analysis of this epistle, a
comparison with it of the Journal, of the editorials of Charless, and of the writings
of the St. Louis correspondent of the Mo. Intell., and an appreciation of the fact
that it was an attempt to answer certain direct and specific charges, convict
Green, some members of the convention, and the Journal of wilful and conscious
irregularities in this matter. The voters of Howard county also possibly shared
this latter conclusion as Green was very decisively defeated at the August election.
" The convention later decided that the constitution be translated into the
French language, and that 300 copies thereof be distributed for the use of the
French inhabitants, Pratte, Chouteau, and Riddick were appointed to super-
vise this work. (Journal, p. 46.)
It was first decided to dispose of the 1,200 printed copies of the constitution
that were in English as follows: 380 copies were to be deposited in the archives
of the state, subject to the future disposition of the legislature; and 20 copies
were to be given to each delegate, for the use of his constituents. (Mo. Intell.,
Jime 24, 1820.) This was changed by a resolution, introduced by Bates, which
provided that the President of the United States, the respective heads of the
departments of the Federal Government, the chief executive of each state and
territory, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the
Senate of Congress, each receive one copy of the constitution, that 100 copies of
the constitution and the journal be deposited in the oflSce of the Secretary of
State of Missouri, and that the remaining copies of both be distributed among
the delegates. (Journal, p. 47.)
We have seen only one copy of the original edition of the constitution printed
in St. Louis, and one copy that was printed in Washington (1820). These are
both in the State Hist. Soc. of Mo. We have never seen an original of the Journal
and in our work used a photo-facsimile reprint made in 1905 by the Statute Law
Book Company, Washington. D. C.
The final superintendence of the printing of the constitution was placed in
the hands of Findlay. (Journal, p. 47f.) On the last page of the St. Louis
edition of the constitution is found the certification of J. S. Findlay, under date
of St. Louis, Aug. 3, 1820, declaring that the constitution and "Ordinance" as
printed agreed with the original roll. On the last page of the Washington edition
is found a similar certification by David Barton, under date of St. Louis, September
27, 1820.
174 Missouri Struggle for Statehood.
The JournaVs record of the printing contracts is singular,
but its account of the resolution that provided for the pay of
the members and officers of the convention, is unique. The
latter subject, although not considered until late in the session,
secured the attention of the delegates on seven days.^^ The
Journal contains a copy of the original resolution, presented
by Ramsay, on this matter; gives the names of the members of
the committee appointed to report on this resolution ; and states
that the committee submitted this resolution as an ordinance,
thus necessitating honoring it with the signatures of the president
and secretary of the convention. The Journal further informs
us that the ordinance after two readings was committed to the
committee of the whole, was then reported with amendments to
the convention, was agreed to and ordered to be engrossed for
a third reading, was again agreed to by a division vote, — the
individual ayes and nays being given — , was reported on favor-
ably by the committee on enrollments, and was finally signed
by Barton and Pettus. We would logically expect that since
so much pains was taken to relate the complete story of this
simple administrative act, the Journal would inform us what
its core was, i. e., what pay the president, the secretary, the
doorkeeper, and the delegates received per diem for their services
and what mileage was allowed them. Or, if the Journal did
not, then surely this ordinance, which was raised by the con-
vention to the dignity and authority of a fundamental law,
would have found a place at the end of the pamphlet that
contains the constitution, the ordinance of acceptance of the
conditions imposed by Congress, and the certification of Findlay
that these two documents had been correctly printed. But
neither pamphlet contains the slightest hint of the compensa-
tion received by the officers and members of this convention.
We do not, therefore, conclude that the compensation ordinance
necessarily allowed exorbitant per diem salaries and mileage;
we do, however, criticise the Journal, i. e., Pettus and his director.
Barton, for recording this ordinance so minutely and finally
letting the people of Missouri hold the bag.
^* Journal, pp. 30f.. 3.'i, 38, 42ff.. Alt.
Labors of the Convention. 175
This ordinance also provided for other expenses of the con-
vention.-^ It is impossible to ascertain what all these other
expenditures were, but it is certain that they included printing
bills, contingent expenses of the secretary, and furniture and
rent accounts. We estimate that this ordinance carried an
appropriation of about $8,800.00.^^ This amount represents
practically the total cost to the people of Missouri of their
first constitutional convention.^^ As no criticism of this ex-
pense is met with in the newspapers of that day, we may con-
clude that the inhabitants of the new State were willing to pay
so low a bill. Compared with the cost of even the first session
of the first General Assembly of Missouri, it was a very small
expenditure. In fact Missourians paid about three times as
much for their first volume of session laws as they did for their
first constitution.^-
«» Ibid., p. 48.
»» The compensation allowed the delegates was probably no higher than
that given to the members of the first state General Assembly of Missouri at
its first session, since both the convention and that legislature had unlimited
legal power over this subject. (C/. Mo. Const., 1820, Schedule, sec. 6. The
members of the Missoiu-i constitutional convention of 1845 and 1875 received
the same compensation as was allowed members of the legislature. See Laws
of Mo., 12th G. A., 1st sess., pp. 26f., act of Feb. 27, 1843; act of March 25, 1874,
sec. 4, in Const, of Mo. 1865, compiled by McGrath, 1875, pp. 4Sff., bound in
"Missouri Constitutions 1845-1909.") The latter body allowed each of its two
presiding officers and of its two clerks five dollars a day, and each member of
both houses four dollars a day and mileage at the rate of three dollars for every
twenty-five miles in coming to and retiu-ning from the session. It consisted of
fourteen senators and forty-three representatives, a total of fifty-seven members,
was in working session about two and a fourth times as long as the convention,
and appropriated twenty-five thousand dollars for salaries and mileage of its
members and twelve hundred dollars for printing. If the convention allowed
its members a similar per diem salary and the same rate of mileage, then these
two items in the convention's budget amounted to approximately SS.OOO.OO.
The printing bill of the convention was, we believe, about S500.00. (C/., the
Journal, pp. 8, 10 and the letter of Green in the Mo. Intel!., August 19, 1820.
We cannot accept Charless' statement that the total printing bill would be about
81,500.00; according to contract, it could not have been over S500.00.) The ex-