but little difference in the duties performed; at any rate not such as to require any great difference in the salaries. It is usual in paying the officers of the older States to pay from the highest to the lowest-those elected by the House as well as those appointed by its authority-about the same price. I think we should not vary from that rule.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT had a word to say to gentlemen who were in the habit of preaching economy. This House was spending day after day at an enormous expense in discussing questions which had no reference to its duties. He was an economist himself, and he thought the best economy would be for the Convention to confine itself to its legitimate business. He believed the estimate of salaries was reasonable enough, and he was prepared to vote for it.

Mr. GWIN said he would give his reasons why the motion of the gentleman from San Joaquin (Mr. Wozencraft,) should be adopted. In the first place, he did not think that this question as to General Riley's power, ever should have come up before this Convention. It was no part of the duty of members of this House to discuss it. Every word that had been said on the subject was out of order. It was to form a Constitution that this Convention was assembled-not to determine whether the present civil Governor of California had acted in accordance with instructions, or whether these instructions were in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. If General Riley has a fund out of which he is willing to pay the expenses of this Convention, the fact that he has that money, and is willing to advance it, is sufficient for this Convention. It is not necessary to go beyond that fact. Before the Convention adjourns, it should be stated by resolution that, if any amount he may advance out of that fund should involve him in difficulty, that the faith and honor of the people of California are pledged to protect him. What the delegates of this Convention say as to the legality of the manner in which that fund may have been collected or may be disposed of, can have no ef fect on the subject. He could assure gentlemen that if they were to vote here that General Riley had exceeded his powers or had not exceeded them, it would not make the slightest difference. It would be looked upon as absolutely nothing by those before whom this question will eventually come. The gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts,) was altogether mistaken in saying that the President of the United States had ever committed himself on the subject of these duties. He called upon him (Mr. Botts,) for his authority. It could not be found; it did not exist. For no President of the United States ever would have done, or sanctioned the doing of what General Riley has been forced by necessity to do. Look to the public documents and to this communication from the Governor, (which is one of the most important documents that has appeared for a long time in this country,) and if you will find a single word where the President of the United States has authorized the collection of these duties, you will find a question in the Congress of the United States infinitely more exciting than the removal of the deposites from the Bank of the United States, which convulsed this country some years ago; for the President has sworn strictly to execute the laws under the Constitution. There is not a man who lives, can pretend that any law of the United States has ever authorized the collection of these duties. But it was no sinecure upon those who collected them. He did not wish to be misunderstood on this question. There was no doubt but that the people of California claimed this fund, and had a right to it; and if justice was done them, they should have it.

Mr. Borrs threw himself on the indulgence of the House to reply to some of the remarks which had been made. He contended that this money was in the Treasury of the United States; that without an act of Congress, it could not be paid out; that Congress had never appropriated it to pay the expenses of this civil Government. He had called upon his fellow-members to show him any law for it. When he asked for bread, they gave him stones. Gentlemen asserted that this subject was not properly before the House, He (Mr. Botts,) contended that General Riley himself, by this correspondence, in which he states that his instructions authorize him to make this use of the civil fund, had put the question directly before him, and compelled him to vote upon it. It was said we were not here to

discuss General Riley's action. Such was not the case. If a breach of the Constitution is involved in the payment of this money, it properly comes before the House in receiving it. He did not wish to convey any thing disrespectful by the comparison; but if an individual was to come to him and offer him the use of a hundred dollars which he had stolen, or frauduently obtained, and which fact was known to the receiver, would it be proper to take it? It became this Convention, on the same principle, to consider whether this fund was constitutionally obtained, as in the other case it became him to consider whether the money proffered was honestly gotten. He had taken an oath to abide by the Constitution of the United States, and to defend and adhere to it as a member of this Convention. A direct case of a violation of the Constitution was brought before him in this correspondence. Was he not bound by his solemn oath to protest against this fraud upon the people? He would take this money with the greatest pleasure, and say nothing about it, if gentlemen would only show him that it was not a violation of the Constitution. But what were the facts? The Congress of the United States was directly requested by the President of the United States in July last to take this matter into consideration, and form a government for California. The Congress of the United States solemnly deliberated on this subject, refused to form a government, and solemnly declared that they would make no appropriation for the support of this Territory. The gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) went into a long discussion to show what would have been the fatal consequences if this money had not been collected as it was, by imposing duties on the foreign cargoes that arrived in the ports of California. He (Mr. Botts) would take Gene. ral Riley's own word for that. It was in the hands of a collecting officer of the Government, and therefore in the Treasury of the United States. It was obtained either legally or illegally; but it is in the Treasury of the United States, and cannot be paid out without special act of Congress. He was told by the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) to quiet his conscience about this matter—to submit to it; that the money was not collected by the authority of the President, or by any authority except that of necessity, and hence it was not in the Treasury of the United States. It was done altogether by the law of necessity. Now he (Mr. Botts) had sworn to support the laws of the United States, not the law of necessity. He had heard enough of that law. It is the tyrant's policy. Take that and the responsibility doctrine, put the two together, and the Constitution of the United States is not worth a cent. He trusted, in conclusion, that it would be

氨

the pleasure of gentlemen either to assist him in rejecting the use of this fund, or enlighten him so that he could receive it without violating the oath which he had taken to support the Constitution.

On motion, the House adjourned.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1849.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Willey.

Journal of Saturday read and approved.

On motion, the report of the Finance Committee was taken up; the following resolution, submitted by Mr. WOZENCRAFT, being first in order:

Resolved, That the subjects placed before the Committee be so divided that the report be received, and the communication from the Governor be indefinitely postponed.

On motion of Mr. WOZENCRAFT, it was ordered that the vote be taken sepa. rately on the two clauses of the resolution.

The question being taken on the first clause of the resolution, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT moved that so much of the report as was included by the clause of his resolution just agreed to, be adopted, with the exception of the per diem allowance to the interpreter, and that that be increased to $28.

Mr. HASTINGS snbmitted the following amendment, as a substitute for Mr. Wozencraft's motion:

The per diem pay of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Translator, Interpreter, Clerks, and Members, (excepting the President,) be twenty-five dollars; that of the President and Reporter be fifty dollars; that of the Sergeant at-arms be twenty dollars; that of the Doorkeeper, sixteen dollars; and that of the Page, four dollars.

And the question being on Mr. Hastings amendment, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. SHANNON Submitted the following amendment, as a substitute for Mr. Wozencraft's proposition:

The per diem allowance, &c., of the officers and members of this Convention shall be as follows: one Secretary, $20; one Interpreter, $20; two Assistant Secretaries, $18 each; one Engrossing Clerk, $18; two Copying Clerks, $16 each; one Sergeant-at-Arms, $16; one Doorkeeper, $12; one Page, $4; one Reporter, $40; one Chaplain, $16; one Interpreting Clerk, $16; forty-three Members, $16 each; travelling allowance of members, at the rate of $16 for every twenty miles travel.

And the question being on the amendment, it was decided in the negative.

The question recurring on the motion to increase the Interpreter's per diem to $28, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. NORTON moved further to amend by providing that the per diem allowance of Mr. Howe, in consideration of his performing the duties of Engrossing Clerk, shall be the same as the Assistant Secretaries.

And the question being on the amendment, it was decided in the affirmative. On motion of Mr. JONES, the per diem of the Reporter was excepted from the report of the Committee, for future consideration.

The question then recurring on the report of the Committee as amendedMr. SHERWOOD asked the yeas and nays; which being ordered, they resulted as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Aram, Botts, Brown, Crosby, Dent, De la Guerra, Dominguez, Hill, Hobson, Hastings, Jones, Larkin, Lippett, Moore, McCarver, Ord, Price, Pico, Rodriguez, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Stearns, Tefft, Vallejo, Wozencraft, President-27.

NAYS-Messrs. Dimmick, Ellis, Given, Gilbert, Halleck, Hollingsworth, Lippincott, McDougall, Norton, Sherwood, Shannon, Walker-12.

So the report, as amended, was adopted, and the per diem allowance of the officers of the Convention fixed at the following rates:

Secretary, $28; Assistant Secretaries, $23; Engrossing Clerk, $23; Sergeant-at-Arms, $22; Copying Clerk, $18; Interpreter, $28; Interpreter's Clerk, $21; Chaplain, $16; Doorkeeper, $12; Page, $4.

The question then being on the second clause of Mr. Wozencraft's resolution, he modified the same, so as to provide that the consideration of the correspondence, and not the correspondence itself, be "indefinitely postponed."

The question being taken on the second clause of Mr. Wozencraft's resolution, as modified, it was decided in the negative.

Mr. ELLIS moved the following, which was decided in the negative :

Resolved, That the consideration of so much of the reports of the majority and minority of the Committee on Finance, as relates to the ways and means of paying the expenses of this Convention, be laid upon the table.

On motion of Mr. DENT, it was

Resolved, That so much of the report of the Committee, relating to the communications of General Riley, as relates to the ways and means of obtaining the fund for paying expenses, be referred back to the Committee, and the said Committee be instructed to make the necessary arrangements with General Riley for paying the expenses of this Convention; and also be instructed to report on the proposition of the Reporter, J. Ross Browne, for furnishing printed copies of his reports.

Mr. Borтs, at his own request, was excused from further service on the Finance Committee, and Mr. Walker was appointed by the President to fill the

vacancy.

On motion of Mr. JONES, the House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Botts in the Chair, on the report of the Committee on the Constitution.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

The 31st Section of the report of the Committee being under consideration, as follows:

31. Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws. All general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this section, may be altered from time to time, or repealed.

Mr. JONES moved to strike out the 31st section, and if in order, the four following, and to insert in lieu thereof, the section 2d of the 9th Article of the Constitution of Iowa, with an amendment, which he would submit in writing.

Mr. GWIN said that, inasmuch as he had made a minority report on this subject, he hoped the gentleman (Mr. Jones,) would withdraw his motion, so as to permit him to offer the following amendment. He moved to strike out from the 31st to the 36th sections, inclusive, of the majority report, and insert as follows:

SEC. 1. No corporate body shall be created, renewed, or extended, with the privilege of making, issuing, or putting in circulation any bill, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note, or other paper, or the paper of any bank, to circulate as money. The Legislature of this State shall prohibit by law, any person or persons, association, company, or corporation, from exercising the privileges of banking, or creating paper to circulate as money.

2. Corporations shall not be created in this State by special laws, except for political or municipal purposes; but the Legislature shall provide, by general laws, for the organization of all other corporations, except corporations with banking privileges, the creation of which is prohibited. The stockholders of every corporation or joint stock association, shall be personally and jointly responsible for all its debts and liabilities of every kind. The State shall not, directly or indirecly, become a stockholder in any corporation. All general laws and special acts passed pursuant to this section, may be altered from time to time, or repealed; and all corporations shall have the right to sue, and shall be subject to be sued, in all courts, in like cases as natural persons.

Mr. SHERWOOD inquired if it was in order to move to strike out five or six sections, when only one was under consideration.

The CHAIR presumed that the whole report was before the Committee, and that it was in order to propose a substitute for several sections, having direct reference to the same subject.

The point of order giving rise to discussion,

Mr. GWIN said he would simply move to strike out the 31st section, and insert the amendment which he had just read. If adopted, the other sections of the report would necessarily be stricken out.

Mr. JONES remarked that the first section proposed by the Committee provided that no corporation should be created by special act, unless the Legislature saw fit to create it. He understood that to be the full scope and meaning of the section. The clause to which he had reference, was in the following words: "Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws." In any case whatever, where, in the opinion of the Legislature, the object cannot be attained under general law, corporations therefore can be granted. Take this clause on its own bottom, and it would allow, and in fact, soon suggest the incorporation of banks. He wished, for that reason, to introduce the discussion of the whole subject at once. He did not think this article could stand upon its bottom. Every member in the House would at once see the absurdity of prohib. iting the Legislature from passing acts of this kind, unless it thought proper to do So. He was willing to submit the article to a vote upon that construction; it carried its absurdity upon its face; but if the debate was to be opened, it was neces sary to know how far this clause was to be affected by subsequent sections.

Mr. NORTON. I imagine the gentleman is mistaken in the view which he takes of this section. He does not give it a fair interpretation. It does not say, nor does its meaning bear the import that corporations shall not be created by special act, except the Legislature see fit to create them. The section is plainly expressed, and states what it means. Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes, and in cases where, in the judgment of the Legislature, the object of the corporations cannot be attained under general laws. If, under this section, the Legislature grant a charter for a corporation by special act, where the object of the corporation can be attained under general laws, that act of the Legislature is unconstitutional. The question of constitutionality will be for the courts to decide. In regard to this whole subject of corporations, it was expected by the Committee that it would give rise to a good deal of discussion; and knowing the opinions of the House respect. ing institutions of this kind, especially banking corporations, we endeavored to report such provisions as would cover the whole ground. With this view, the Committee selected from the different Constitutions such provisions as they deemed necessary to prohibit the Legislature from granting charters to banking corporations, or giving any corporations whatever the right to issue paper money, or any equivalent for a paper currency. Under these sections, nothing can cir culate as money, except gold and silver. It was the opinion of the majority of the Committee, as it is of the majority of the House, that corporations for banking purposes should be prohibited. The substitute proposed for the different sections reported by the Committee, prohibits the creation of any corporation whatever, by special law, and also prohibits banking, and the issuing, and putting into circulation, any bills, checks, promissory notes, or paper to circulate as money. The report of the Committee also prohibits banking corporations and the circulation of bank paper as a medium of currency; but the Legislature has power to grant charters for corporations when the object of such corporations cannot be attained under general law. The only difference between the two in effect is with regard to the liability of corporations. I am not tenacious myself about this article. Let it be worded as gentlemen think best. I go as far as any one in making corpora. tors liable for the debts of the corporations; but inasmuch as the report of the Committee does not vary essentially from the substitute moved in its place, I hope the House will not reject the report, and adopt a substitute which does not materially differ from it.

Mr. LIPPETT. I agree entirely with the view taken by my friend from San Joaquin, (Mr. Jones,) that the clause of this section, which intends to limit the Legislature, is perfectly nugatory, or will be so in effect. I am opposed to giving the Legislature the power, in any case, to pass special acts for corporations. For this reason alone, I should vote for the amendment. But even if I were in favor of granting such power to the Legislature in cases where the object of the corporation could not be attained under general laws, I would object to the section as it now reads, on the grounds stated by the gentleman from San Joaquin-that the language of the clause makes the limitation perfectly nugatory. The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Norton,) states that special acts passed by the Legislature where the object could be attained under general laws, would be unconstitutional. and that the courts would decide the question of constitutionality. I think not. If such a question were raised in any court of law, it could not be entertained. From the very reading of the clause, the question of constitutionality is left to the decis. ion of the Legislature itself. The Constitution, by leaving it to the discretion of the Legislature, settles the question; and it cannot be brought into court. If that clause was stricken out of the 31st section, so that it would read "Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal purposes," then it might be competent for a court of law to sit and hear arguments on the question; but as it stands, the right to decide is taken out of the hands of the court. The very fact of the passage of the law, makes it conclusive