should be a harmonious whole, and there should be no discordant particles, if you would have a happy unity. That the negro race is out of his social sphere, and becomes a discordant element when among the Caucasian race, no one can doubt. You have but to take a retrospective view, and you need not extend your vision beyond our own land to be satisfied of this fact. Look at our once happy republic, now a contentious, antagonistical, discordant people. The Northern people see, and feel, and know, that the black population is an evil in the land, and although they have admitted them to many of the rights of citizenship, the admixture has acted in the political economy as a foreign, poisonous substance, producing the same effect as in physical economyderangement, disease, and, if not removed, death. Let us be warned-let us avoid an evil of such magnitude.

I will trespass on the patience of the House no further, Mr. President, than to express the wish that this clause may become an article in the Constitution.

Mr. GWIN said that this was clearly a legislative feature of the Constitution, and should come up in the legislative department.

Mr. McCARVER had no objection to letting it come up in another part of the Constitution, but as other provisions of a similar character had been placed in the bill of rights, he thought that was the proper position for it. He would, however, withdraw it, with the understanding that it should come up for consideration in the legislative department.

Mr. ORD had another amendment to offer, providing that no power of suspending the laws shall be exercised, unless by the Legislature or its authority. It was the same in substance as the amendment which he had offered the other day.

Mr. BorTs objected to the proposition. He was opposed, in the first instance, to giving either the Executive or the Legislature the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but he preferred, of the two evils, that this power should not be placed in the hands of a single individual. He hoped he was not forbidden to doubt even the propriety of some of the provisions in the Constitution of the Uni ted States. What would be the interpretation of this clause, if adopted in this Constitution? That the laws of this State, which are, in part, the Constitution, may be suspended by the Legislature; that the Constitution itself may be suspended. Of course, it cannot be the laws passed by the Legislature that are referred to, because the Legislature has a right to suspend or repeal its own laws. It is unnecessary to say that the Legislature has power to suspend its own laws. The right to make laws gives it the right to suspend or repeal them. What other laws of the land are there, which nobody but the Legislature can suspend. There is but one other set of laws-those contained in your Constitution. It is, therefore, inevitable that the Legislature may suspend the laws of this Constitution.

Mr. PRICE asked if the gentleman (Mr. Ord) would withdraw the amendment, and let it come in as a section at the final passage of the Constitution. Mr. ORD thereupon withdrew his amendment.

Mr. ORD submitted the following as an additional section, which was rejected: Sec. 19. All persons shall, before conviction, be bailable, by sufficient sureties, except for capital offences, where the proof is evident or the presumption great.

Mr. ORD offered the following, which was rejected:

That no free Government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

The last section of the report being now under consideration, as follows:

20. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.

Mr. GWIN moved to amend by striking out and inserting the following, from the bill of rights of Arkansas:

This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; and to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, or any transgression of any of the higher powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of Government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the other provisions herein contained, shall be void.

Mr. Borts proposed to amend the amendment. As his present proposition was the only definite one which he had offered in this bill of rights, he hoped it would be treated with some degree of indulgence. It was not to be found in the bill of rights of New York, or Iowa, or Arkansas; there was that objection to it, but he believed the spirit of it was broached in them all.

As constitutions are the instruments by which the powers of the people are delegated to their representatives, they ought to be construed strictly, and all powers, not expressly granted, should be taken to be reserved.

He (Mr. Botts) considered the original section picked up by the Committee extremely imperfect. He imagined the Committee had found it somewhere in the Constitution of New York or Iowa.

Mr. HALLECK stated that it was the closing article of the bill of rights of Iowa. Mr. Borrs suggested that it was probably the people of Iowa who got it in that way. He submitted to the House, whether this devotion to the particular States from which gentlemen happened to come, was proper here. No man reverenced the feeling more than himself-attachment to the place of his nativity. But may not this feeling be carried too far? Should not gentlemen on this floor remember that they are no longer cititizens of New York, or Missouri, Iowa, or Michigan, but citizens of California. This Convention should not reject the experience of others that had gone before it. It should draw wisdom from the spirit and meaning of all their constitutions, but not servilely copy them. He did not see why this Convention was not as capable of being original as any other that had ever met. He hoped gentlemen would not make a constitution like an old woman's spencer-composed of shreds and patches. If the amendment which he proposed did not meet the views of the House, let them alter the phraseòlogy, but let there be at least one original section in the Constiution.

Mr. SEMPLE said: There is one important principle involved in the amendment, which requires some expression of opinion. It should be borne in mind, that there is a marked difference between the Federal Constitution, and that of a State. The Constitution of the United States, is a delegation of power from a confederation of sovereign and independent States. By the consent of the whole, each State is limited to a certain extent; and such powers as are not expressly prescribed in the Constitution, are reserved to the people. As it is impossible for the people, individually, to regulate taxes, organise towns and villages, and make and amend laws, they form a Legislature to conduct these operations for them. That Legislature is amenable to them, for the faithful discharge of its duties, either annually or biennially. No other state sovereignty can interfere with these rights. If the Legislature abuse its powers by passing injurious or objectionable laws, the people form a new Legislature to repeal or amend them. But for the general welfare of all, each State has delegated to the confederacy a portion of its sovereignty. If this were not so, any one of them would have power to levy war. They reserve, however, all rights pertaining to the regulation of their local affairs, as States. The General Government has no power to interfere with them in their individual capacity. Congress is therefore prohibited, by the Constitution, from infringing upon these reserved powers. Its duties are to regulate navigation and commerce with foreign nations, to supervise the affairs of the Republic, to declare war, and impose taxes for the support of the Government. All power which is not expressly forbidden by the Federal Constitution, is left to the people and their represen. tatives in their State capacity. He (Mr. Semple) was opposed to all encroachments of the General Government on the rights of the States. And when gentlemen talk about restricting the Legislature from the exercise of any rights reserved to the people by the Constitution of the United States, it is assuming a power not delegated to this Convention. Are we to say how many sheriffs, and how many coroners are to be in the State? If so, why have a Legislature at all? It is impossible to direct your State Legislature what it shall do. You can only say what it shall not do— you can only embody certain fundamental principles of government in your Con

stitution for the protection of minorities and the well-being of the mass-majorities can protect themselves. All measures not expressly prohibited in the Constitution, are fair subjects of legislative action. He was opposed to the amendment on these grounds.

Mr. Borts wished to know if the gentleman from Sonoma (Mr. Semple) meant to deny the right of the people to maintain their own power? If such a doctrine was maintained on this floor, it should be recorded on the journal. But he (Mr. Botts) thought he knew that gentleman too well in private life, to suppose that upon calm consideration, he would oppose, by his vote, the principle embodied in the last amendment. The gentleman maintains that all power is in the hands of the people, and if they have not parted with it, it is there still. No, sir; all power is in the hands of the people, whether they have delegated it to others or not. The government is subservient to the Constitution, and the ministers of that government are the servants of the people. They have no power except what they derive from the people. All the power committed to their hands is delegated to them through the Constitution. If it does not come through the Constitution, it does not come all. The Constitution is the message of the people to their servants, and what they do not grant in that way, they do not grant at all.

Mr. McCARVER thought it would be very easy to make a constitution here that would take away one man's property and give it to another. The bill of rights declares what powers the people have, and the Constitution of the State consists of restrictions, not of delegated powers. The difference between the Federal Constitution and that of a State, is, that the people of the States in whom all power is inherent, have delegated a certain portion of their State sovereignty to the Ge neral Government. The Constitution of the United States, therefore, consists of expressed delegated powers. The Constitution of a State is a constituiion of restrictions. By accepting it, the people agree not to exercise the powers therein expressly prohibited. It is a constitution of restrictions that we should form here. It is not questioned that the people have a right to pass such laws as they please; but the powers not enumerated here, remain in the hands of the people and their agents. He (Mr. McCarver) could see no necessity for the amendment. The bill of rights, already adopted, declares that all power is inherent in the people, and this covers the whole subject.

Mr. GWIN said if he understood the gentleman from Sonoma, (Mr. Semple,) the doctrine broached by him, that the people in their legislative capacity have a right to violate the Constitution, was such as he could not sanction. He would like to see any man go back to his constituents after recording his vote in favor of such a monstrous doctrine.

Mr. SEMPLE claimed to make a few additional remarks. Although he had as high a regard for the will of his constituents as any gentleman on this floor, he wished it distinctly understood that he contended for the doctrine that the people have a right to do anything which is not a violation of the Constitution; and so long as he could record his vote against any declaration to the contrary, he would do so. Whenever he was refused that liberty, he would resign his seat and tell the people he could serve them no longer. He held that whenever the State of California is admitted as a State, her right to legislate for herself is beyond the reach of any other power; that it is beyond the reach of Congress; that Congress is inferior to the State Legislature, because the Legislature is the direct emanation of the people; that Congress is limited in its powers, while the Legislature is no further limited than by the desire of the people. He would glory in recording his vote upon the principle that the Legislature of California, when formed, is the superior power, and not to be dictated to by any other power than that of the people who constituted it. The difference between the Constitution of the United States and that of a State is exemplified in the very article under discussion. The Fede ral Constitution is a limited Government, granted by certain sovereignties-that is to say by the sovereign people in their sovereign capacity. The State Legis

lature, under the specified restrictions imposed upon it by the people themselves, is a direct emanation from the people, and is annually or biennially responsible to them at the ballot-box. Here is where the powers of the State Government are limited. This Convention is not called upon to tell the people what they shall do, but what they shall not do. By the adoption of the Constitution, formed by their delegates, imposing certain restrictions upon them, they make it their act. We are sent here to tell them that because they are a majority they are not to infringe upon great general rights and great general principles. What says your bill of rights? It says, in the first place, that the people are the sovereigns. It then goes on to specify certain inalienable rights, and to provide that those rights shall not be infringed upon. The people agree, by adopting the Constitution, that so long as they are members of the community they will not infringe on those special rights; but they reserve the control over all others not restricted by the Constitution. He (Mr. Semple) was always opposed to the exercise of any power by Congress which is not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution of the United States. No member of this body went further than he did for a strict construction of the Constitution. He went for a strict construction of all Constitutions. He was willing, in forming this Constitution, that the powers not herein expressly delegated should be withheld. But by whom? By the State, or by the people in their individual capacity. It must be by the people in some capacity— either individual or legislative. He would be proud to record his vote against any restriction upon the people of California, except where they chose to impose restrictions upon themselves. In every respect, where restrictions are not made, they possess and have a right to exercise all the power. This is the doctrine of State rights. It is the pure doctrine of the right of a sovereign State to enjoy all power which she has not, by her own action, restricted. The will of the sovereign is the law. The people of the Stale say they will not make certain laws. How do they say it? By this Constitution. Wherever they have not thus restricted their own power, they have a right to enact such laws as they please. He (Mr. Semple) was ever ready to maintain this doctrine on this floor or before his constituents.

Mr. GWIN remarked that all the amendment declares is, that the powers not delegated are reserved. If it went beyond that he would be unwilling to vote for it. This is merely to protect the people from the violation of their rights. The Constitution of the United States has no reference to the question under consideration. There is nothing in this clause but a great declaration-that all power not specially delegated to the legislature is reserved to the people. It has nothing to do with Congress-no reference either directly or indirectly to it. It is a declaration embraced in every Constitution in the United States, and he (Mr. GWIN) would be unwilling to vote for a Constitution that did not contain it.

Mr. SEMPLE asked what Constitution contained it?

Mr. GWIN said that he believed that it was in all.

Mr. HALLECK, in behalf of the Committee, (the chairman of which was absent,) stated that the article from the Constitution of Iowa was selected on account of its brevity. It was to be found in four other Constitutions of the States, nearly in the same words. He thought it could not be improved, and hoped that it would be adopted.

Mr. HASTINGS said it occurred to him that there was no necessity for further discussion on this subject, inasmuch as there appeared to be no necessity for the article at all. Why declare that all rights not herein enumerated are reserved to the people? Would it not be true without such a declaration? Does the mere assertion make it any more true? Gentlemen seem to be afraid that if they omit one right the people will loose it altogether. He would not attempt to explain his conclusions, lest they might be misunderstood; and would therefore vote for any amendment to leave the article out.

The question was then taken on Mr. Botts' amendment, and it was rejected.

Mr. SEMPLE said he was perfectly satisfied to vote for the amendment offered by Mr. Gwin.

Mr. GWIN hoped the gentleman would pardon him. He really thought he was opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BOTTS had just that objection to it-that two gentlemen having precisely opposite opinions could consistently vote for the same amendment.

Mr. SEMPLE did not perceive, upon a more careful examination of the amend ment, that there was any difference of opinion after all between himself and the gentleman from San Francisco.

Mr. SHERWOOD thought the report of the Committee covered the whole ground. The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Gwin, and it was rejected.

The question recurring on the original section, being the 16th, as reported by the Committee, it was adopted.

On motion of Mr. GWIN, the Committee then rose and reported the bill of rights to the House.

The CHAIR stated that the question would be on the adoption of the report.

Mr. GWIN said it was not intended that the bill of rights should be adopted now. He proposed that it should be recommitted to the Select Committee for the purpose of having it made complete and perfect for the future vote of the House, section by section, when the votes would be taken by yeas and nays.

Mr. McCARVER thought it necessary to make some disposition of it; and he presumed the proper course would be to let it remain in the House, to be called up at any future time.

On motion of Mr. McCARVER, the report was received and laid upon the table, subject to call.

Mr. Borts offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted : Resolved, That the officiating clergy of this House be admitted to the privileged seats of the House.

On motion, the Convention then adjourned to 12 o'clock to-morrow.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1849.

In Convention, prayer by Rev. Senor Antonio Ramirez.
The journal of yesterday was read and approved.

On motion of Mr. GILBERT, it was

Resolved, That an Engrossing Committee, to consist of three members, be appointed by the Chair. The President appointed as the Committee, Messrs. Gilbert, Dent, and Tefft. On motion of Mr. HASTINGS, it was

Resolved, That a Committee of five be appointed by the President, to report to this Convention, what, in their opinion, should constitute the boundary of the State of California.

The President appointed, as the Committee, Messrs. Hastings, Sutter, Reid, La Guerra, and Rodriguez.

Mr. McCARVER submitted the following resolution :

Resolved, That a Committee of

be appointed, to report on that portion of the schedule to be appended to the Constitution, which relates to districting, fixing the number of members for both branches of the Legislature, and for the apportionment of the same.

Mr. McCARVER said it was true the schedule was to be appended to the Constitution, yet it seemed to him there was no reasonable ground for not allowing it to go before a separate committee. It would not conflict with the duties of any other committee, and some of the members of the House not engaged upon the business of the Select Committee already existing, could prepare a schedule for the House.

Mr. DIMMICK desired that the proposed committee should consist of one member from each district. He thought the districts should be all represented.