The Jacksonian Conservatism of Rufus P. Ranney. David M. Gold

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ voters could see who supported “centralization” and who favored “the equalization of the benefits of the judicial system.” Ranney kept his promise, at least to the extent of demanding that the supreme court sit in four different places, but the convention soundly defeated his proposal (2:368, 365, 376, 685–86).⁹

      After Ranney lost his first bid to create a traveling supreme court, another delegate offered an amendment to require the district courts to meet every year in every county. In the course of another bitter debate, Ranney accused the Whigs of concocting a judicial system so objectionable that even the Whig papers opposed it. The Whigs knew that the constitution produced by the convention would be “likely to cut up monopoly and exclusive privilege.” If they could get the Whig papers to stir up popular animosity toward the proposed judicial system, they could send the whole constitution down to defeat. When the time came to vote, Ranney finally triumphed (2:368, 376, 383–86). The victory, however, was short-lived; the convention adopted a Whig modification allowing the General Assembly to authorize at least three annual sessions in at least three places in any district where annual sessions in each county would be “inexpedient.” Ranney of course voted against the amendment, but it passed by two votes and ultimately found its way into the constitution (2:388).

      Despite his objections to the judicial article of the new constitution, Ranney announced during the convention’s second session that he would vote for the constitution because he expected it would allow for easy amendment. Ranney chaired the committee on future amendments, was “the father of the [committee’s] report,” and was the only member of the committee to take part in the debate over the amending process (2:432, 427–36, 446).

      The committee report retained, with slight modification, the provision of the 1802 constitution that authorized the electors to call a constitutional convention upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the members of each legislative chamber. Moreover, it required that the question of calling a convention be placed on the ballot every twenty years. The report’s great innovation, though, was to allow either house of the General Assembly to initiate constitutional amendments. Under Section 1 of the report a proposed amendment would have to receive a three-fifths majority in each house and be published in a newspaper of every county having a paper once a week for six months before the next general election. The amendment would then appear on the ballot and become law if a majority of electors voting at the election approved it (2:339).

      The report proved contentious. One delegate thought that Section 1 would turn the General Assembly into a “perpetual constitutional convention.” The possibility of a convention being called every twenty years agitated conservatives even more than the prospect of legislative meddling with the constitution. Ranney, however, pointed out that the provision had “its origin in the theory that there should be some power in the people themselves, to originate amendments to the Constitution.” Future generations would inherit the constitution then being drawn up. “Is it not justice then to declare that when we deliver it into their hands, they shall have the privilege to say, whether or not, they will be bound by it?” (2:428–30).

      As usual when Ranney took part in debate, the discussion turned sharp and personal. Ranney accused Simeon Nash of being congenitally opposed to every form of progress. Nash, he declared, “would have made a first rate member of Parliament for the times of James the First. For, being admonished that he should not meddle with matters of State, he would be a very obedient man.” As it happened Ranney could have curbed his acerbic inclinations without harm to his cause; the committee of the whole made only one small change to Ranney’s report, and the convention adopted all three sections with little opposition (2:430–31, 446).

      After approving the report the convention referred it to the committee on revision, enrollment, and arrangement. That committee, also chaired by Ranney, was responsible for cleaning up the language of the reports of standing committees as adopted by the convention and locating the provisions logically within the final document. Although the committee’s work was largely housekeeping in nature, its proposals could have serious consequences, and disputes over its reports occasionally broke out. A short but acrimonious argument erupted on the convention’s last day when committee member Samson Mason moved to strike a section from the report on nonbanking corporations. For once, the bitterest exchange involved other delegates, but Ranney managed to irritate Henry Stanbery, a distinguished Whig attorney, by characterizing Stanbery’s contentions as “all a fudge” (2:435, 314, 748, 849).

      The convention concluded its business on March 10, 1851, with a resolution adopting the proposed constitution by a vote of 79–14. A fellow Radical delegate later recalled that Ranney, more than anyone else, had “distinguished himself in debate” and brought “the majority of the convention to form the present admirable constitution of Ohio.”¹⁰ Ranney had the last word in the last argument, precipitated by the gloating tone of his response to Whig delegate John L. Green’s concern that the constitution might be defeated at the polls. Noting that Ranney had spoken “with an air of triumph that must have excited the attention of all,” Green explained that his main reason for opposing the constitution was the section prohibiting counties from lending their credit to private enterprise for the construction of internal improvements. Characteristically, Ranney took Green’s explanation as an “attack” and insisted on responding. But he assumed a conciliatory tone toward Green and concluded with praise for the convention’s handiwork. He regretted some omissions and would have modified some provisions, but on the whole he believed “before God and man that it is one of the best, if not the best of the Constitutions of American States,” and he vowed to work earnestly for its ratification by the voters (2:870, 815, 869).

      Ranney’s biggest disappointment with the constitution was the article on the judiciary (2:815). He had labored long and hard to keep the courts close to the people, but lawyer-delegates of both parties successfully resisted his plan. Ranney also failed on other fronts. For example, he could not persuade the convention that the people ought to have a direct say—that is, the right of referendum—on all legislation (2:215–16, 227–28). But he had his successes, too. It was on Ranney’s motion that the convention added to the eminent domain clause the requirement that compensation for private property taken by the government be assessed by a jury and that it not be reduced by the value of any benefits of the taking to the owner (1:290), and Ranney succeeded in eliminating restrictive qualifications for the office of governor (1:299, 302, 306; 2:290–91). More generally, the popular election of judges and the major executive branch officials, restrictions on public debt and governmental assistance to private enterprise, and prohibition of special acts of incorporation satisfied Ranney’s Radical Democratic principles. The constitution represented a triumph of mid-nineteenth-century popular, small-government, laissez-faire constitutionalism.

      FOUR

      Supreme Court Judge

      ON MARCH 11, 1851, one day after the constitutional convention closed, the Ohio Senate and House of Representatives received notice from Governor Reuben Wood that Edward Avery had resigned his seat on the state supreme court.¹ The constitution just adopted by the convention, with its provisions for the popular election of judges, would not take effect unless and until it received approval from the electorate. Therefore, the task of choosing Avery’s successor fell to the General Assembly.

      The lawmakers had many posts to fill besides the seat on the supreme court: lower court judgeships, generals of militia, state auditor, acting commissioner of the canal fund, state librarian, register and receiver of the state land office, and, most significantly, United States senator.² On March 13 the senators trooped down to the representatives’ hall in the old statehouse and a joint meeting of the members set to work. It was difficult business. The legislature was evenly divided between Whigs and Democrats, with Free Soilers holding the balance of power. The previous session of the General Assembly had been paralyzed by the failure of the two major parties to agree on the seating of members from Hamilton County and by bargaining for the support of the Free Soil contingent. The acrimony carried СКАЧАТЬ