Mr. McCARVER preferred a small committee.

Mr. SHERWOOD hoped the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. McCarver) would not press his motion. The Select Committee on the Constitution had already laid over a number of articles for the schedule. He did not think it would be expedient to form another committee.

Mr. Gwin differed entirely from the gentleman last up. The resolution offered by Mr. McCarver had reference to the apportionment which had never come up in the Select Committee. It was no portion of the duty of that Committee to report a schedule. They might report certain provisions to be embraced in the schedule, but he did not think it was their duty to report a schedule, which is a separate and distinct portion of the labors of the Convention. It evidently did not seem proper that one committee should have the whole labor to perform, while other members were going about doing nothing.

Mr. JONES moved to amend the resolution by providing that a committee be ap. pointed to report a schedule for the Convention, without reference to any particu lar portion. His only object was to make it the duty of this committee to report all the legitimate material of a schedule for the action of the House.

Mr. SHERWOOD said, that as there seemed to be considerable doubt as to what belonged to the Constitution and what should be embraced in the schedule, he thought the schedule should be referred to the Select Committee. If another committee was appointed, the Constitution would be garbled and incomplete.

Mr. GWIN was in favor of the resolution, and opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from San Joaquin (Mr. Jones.) The original resolution referred a distinct question to a separate committee. The question of the apportionment was one of vital importance. It should have the fullest consideration

from a committee unembarrassed by other duties.

Mr. HALLECK Would merely ask one question, whether the committee proposed could do anything till the number of members was designated in the body of the Constitution.

Mr. McCARVER was not satisfied that the people of his part of the country would be willing to accept any report that the Select Committee might choose to make. It was the largest committee he had ever heard of, in a body of this character. Gentlemen who supported a measure in this committee, would be very apt to support it in the House; and having the majority, it would of course prevail. There could be no impropriety in appointing a small committee, as proposed in the resolution. When that committee made its report, there would be no member to say, you supported that measure in committee, and, therefore, must go for it now.

Mr. NORIEGO remarked, that the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. McCarver) founded his argument on the ground, that each member of this grand committee, consisting of two delegates from each district, felt himself bound to sustain in the House whatever had been acted upon in committee; that consequently, having a majority in the House, they would carry any measure they thought proper to propose. He (Mr. Noriego) ventured to assert that the members of that Committee considered themselves as free to give their votes on any subject in the House, as they did in committee. Whatever they objected to there, they would as freely object to here.

Mr. SHANNON said it appeared to him that this matter of the apportionment properly belonged within the body of the Constitution itself, and should not, therefore, be taken out of the hands of the Select Committee and consigned to another. He contended that even if the House thought proper to appoint another committee, this subject should be embodied in the Constitution, and not in the schedule. It would be impossible to know what to do, or what to place in this schedule until the Select Committee had reported. He called the attention of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) to some precedents on this subject, as he seemed so extremely anxious to follow precedents. In the Constitution of New York, the

districting of the State forms the 5th article. It is not placed in any schedule. In the Constitution of Louisiana, the boundaries of the State form the very first article. In the Constitution of South Carolina, the State is districted in the third article. He believed the rule was almost universal. It was the case in most of the constitutions throughout the States. A majority of them, or A majority of them, or if not a majority, (because in some States there is not a word said about establishing the limits,) at least in those States which he presumed would be the best authority with the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) the boundaries, as well as the districting of the State, are embraced in the body of the Constitution itself, and not left to the schedule.

Mr. JONES. The gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Shannon) has made one unfortunate quotation at least, for the Constitution of Louisiana contains a sche. dule in which the first representation is a portion. It is in the 8th article of the the schedule. The gentleman has most strangely hit upon, perhaps, the only two Constitutions which do not apportion the first representation in the schedule, where there is any apportionment made. He refers to the different constitutions of the States, and asks if a majority of them do not contain the clause districting the States and apportioning the representation, in the body of the Constitution. I have myself looked over the constitutions slightly within the past few minutes, and I find that Maine, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Kentucky, Tennessee, Indiana, Louisiana, Illinois, Alabama, Missouri, Michigan, and Arkansas, all have formed these schedules, and all have temporarily apportioned the representation of the State in the schedules. I admit that this is a mere temporary thing-that the schedule has nothing to do with the organic law of the State. Its object is well expressed by the schedule of Louisiana, that "no inconvenience may arise from the change from a Territorial to a State Government." These sudden changes are always apt to produce confusion and inconvenience, and it is deemed necessary to make some provision for them, in the form of a schedule. The organic law of the State is the Constitution, properly so called. In the meaning of terms, then, the schedule is not the Constitution, or a part of the Constitution, and does not fall within the province of the Select Committee. By the resolution appointing that committee, they were instructed to report upon a plan, or any portion of a plan, of a State Constitution. The schedule is not a part of a State Constitution; it is not the organic law. If the gentleman will examine one or two of these Constitutions, he will find that the first portion of the schedule is under the head of ordinance. No man will say an ordinance is a part of the Constitution. It falls peculiarly within the schedule. The districting of the State, perhaps, would fall within the limits of the Constitution; but the first apportionment should be within the schedule. Certainly, I do not wish to deprive this Committee of any of the powers which have been delegated to it by this Convention. I am not disposed to find fault even with my friend from Sacramento, (Mr. Shannon,) who clamed fifteen votes for his district. Yet, though I am willing to listen to the suggestions of this Committee on the general provisions of the Constitution, when it comes to the apportionment of the State, I want the eight votes of Sacramento on this floor; I want the six votes of San Joaquin, and the eight votes of San Francisco. It is for that reason that I support the proposition to make a small committee, which will not consider itself bound to support its own propositions, to the exclusion of all others; but which will come before the Convention with any suggestions it may think proper to make, as a very small portion of this body. I have heard members of this Committe call upon members on this floor to support every measure reported by the Committee, and I have heard them denounced because they did not think proper to do so. I have one great reason to give for the position which I shall take here. That reason is contained in a statement which I hold in my hand. Without pressing it upon the attention of the House, I would merely state, that by it I am prepared to prove that 740 votes will rule this House, against 4,429 votes, which are entitled to be represented here. I am prepared to

adopt no such principle-a principle which, in the words used the other day on this floor, would emasculate my district.

Mr. TEFFT. Gentlemen seem to mistake entirely the ground upon which this resolution is based. It is the duty of the Select Committee to apportion the number of representatives. This special committee is to apportion the districts, and say how many representatives each district is to be entitled to. This certainly will clash with the duties of the Committee already existing, because it is the business of that Committee to state the number of members that shall be sent to the Legislature; to fix the size and general organization of the legislative department of the Government. That seems to me a sufficient reason why this resolu tion should not be acted upon now. Until the report of the general Committee on that subject is made, it would be folly to appoint a special Committee to work entirely in the dark. As to the fling made at the committee by the gentleman who last spoke, I consider his remarks entirely unwarranted, and unworthy of notice. I would call his attention to the following quotation from Junius: "There are men who never aspire to hatred-who never rise above contempt.

Mr. JONES. I call npon the gentleman to put that down in writing. I think, Mr. President, that any gentleman who is the subject of offensive remarks in a parliamentary body, has a right, with or without the permission of the House, to claim that those remarks shall be put down in writing, that the House may take such notice of them as they think proper. Such, I believe, is the rule of all parliamentary bodies. I wish them placed upon the journal.

The CHAIR. There certainly is a rule prohibiting personal remarks from being made by any of the members. It was hoped by the Chair that all such remarks would have been avoided; but where offensive remarks are made, they may, at the request of the gentleman, be placed upon the journal, by permission of the House. The Chair is unwilling, himself, to have these remarks entered upon the journal of the House.

Mr. JONES. I am merely referring, Mr. President, to that general rule which protects members of a parliamentary body from gross and insulting remarks from any member. I rise to claim the protection of the House from such remarks, and, I believe, the first thing to be done is to require the Secretary to put those remarks down. I call upon the Secretary to put them down.

Mr. GWIN. I believe the general practice is to declare the remarks out of order. The gentleman using the offensive remarks is called to order, and the House decides whether he has exceeded the parliamentary limits.

Mr. LIPPETT. With the permission of the House, I will read, from Cushing's Manual, a passage applicable to this case. (Mr. Lippett then read the usage as laid down by Cushing) The above is the course of proceeding established by writers of the greatest authority, and ought uniformly to be pursued. It might, however, be improved by the member objecting to the remarks, requiring that the words shall be written down at once, and have them entered upon the minutes. The PRESIDENT. The Chair will adopt the latter suggestion.

Mr. TEFFT. I do not intend to retract or apologise for anything I said. I had no idea a simple quotation would have raised such commotion in the House. The gentleman had taken occasion to do what he had no right to do, to question the motives of every member of the Committee. I have been laboring under sickness for some days, and did not wish to enter into any long argument on the matter. Mr. HASTINGS. Is the House to pause until this matter is disposed of, or are we to proceed?

The CHAIR is of opinion that this difficulty must be disposed of before the House can proceed to business.

Mr. JONES. I will read the remarks, as I have written them down. I read them for correction: "The gentleman from San Luis Obispo says that the remarks of the gentleman from San Joaquin do not deserve to be noticed, and that he would call his attention to the following passage from Junius- there are men who never rise to hatred, or reach beyond contempt.''

Mr. TEFFT. If the gentleman was better acquainted with the works of Junius, he would not make that as a quotation.

Mr. JONES. I am better acquainted with the duties of a gentleman than with the language of Junius. Let the gentleman state the words himself.

Mr. JONES. I will state the words if the House desire it, but not at the instance of the gentleman.

Mr. NORIEGO desired that those who did not understand the English language might be excused from giving any vote on this subject. The question appeared to be respecting certain English words, which they did not understand, and they desired to be excused from voting.

On motion, the Spanish delegation were accordingly excused from voting.

Mr. TEFFT. I want the words written precisely as I said them. I referred to the gentleman's reflections on the course taken, and which probably would be taken, by the Select Committee on the Constitution, and I stated that his remarks were worthy of the following passage from Junius: "There are men who never aspire to hatred-who never rise above contempt.

Mr. BOTTS offered a resolution prohibiting members from indulging in personalities, and requiring them in such cases to apologize to the House. He thought gentlemen had gone entirely too far in impugning the motives of members. In the present case, both the gentleman who made the imputation, and the gentleman who threw it back, ought to apologize to the House. He had been opposed to this Committee himself from the beginning; he had fought it tooth and nail; he had called it the great Committee and the mammoth Committee; but if he had cast any personal reflection upon the motives of members who composed it, he hoped the House would pardon him. He was not aware of having done so. He was ready to set the good example, if he had expressed himself improperly, of asking pardon of the House, which he now did in advance.

Mr. SHANNON Suggested that the resolution be offered as an addition to the rules of the House.

The CHAIR was of opinion, that the rules of the House already existing were sufficient to sustain the object of the resolution. Where two members are out of order, an apology from both is due to the House. If in the opinion of the House, the gentleman who impugned the motives of the Committee, and the gentleman who threw back the imputation, were both out of order, it was their duty upon being called upon, to make an appropriate apology to the House.

Mr. GWIN concurred in the remarks of the gentlemen from Monterey (Mr. Botts) on this subject. He (Mr. Gwin) had seen the bitterest hatred and most ferocious controversy spring from a smaller matter than this. Every gentleman here should bear in mind that this body is assembled for a great national object; and should be cautious not to wound the feelings of a fellow-member. He hoped it would be a settled principle that no matter how much excitement-how much difference of opinion might exist, (for it was impossible to form a Constitution without severe collisions, in the heat of debate,) all personalities would be avoided. If there are collisions, let them be mental and not personal collisions. He was sure the gentleman who had made use of the words deemed offensive, would not hesitate to say, that if he had misconstrued the remarks of the member from San Joaquin (Mr. Jones,) he would withdraw them. It is usual in cases of this kind, when one member takes exceptions to the remarks of another, for that member to demand an explanation from the gentleman who makes those remarks. If the gentleman from San Luis Obispo had applied to the gentleman from San Joaquin to know whether he intended a personal reflection upon this Committee, and that gentleman had replied that he did, then the offensive words might probably be applicable. That gentleman, however, took it for granted, without demanding any explanation, that the gentleman from San Joaquin was impugning the motives of the Committee.

Mr. TEFFT doubted very much whether there was any gentleman on this floor more anxious than he was to maintain good order and friendly relations between the members. He insisted upon it that he had not now transgressed that principle. He had borne many reflections upon his native State; but he had always kept his seat, in deference to those who were older and more experienced, and whose views he desired to hear in preference to giving his own. In calling the attention of the House to the remarks of the member from San Joaquin, he did not conceive that he had gone beyond the legitimate bounds of debate. If it was the opinion of the House that he had done so, he would cheerfully apologize to the House, but not to the gentleman, who, he conceived had impugned the motives of the Committee. If it was not the intention of that gentleman to impugn the motives of the Committee, then, of course, the offensive quotation was not applicable to him.

Mr. JONES asked if it was possible that he, as a member from San Joaquin, in opposing the principle of allowing smaller districts an equal vote with his own in the formation of this Constitution, should be considered as impugning the motives of any person, or insulting any committee? Was it possible that the right of speech was so far prohibited on this floor, that he could not advocate the principle incorporated in the bill of rights without having it said that he was impugning the motives of the members of this House who did not happen to represent so large a population as he did? It was upon the broad principle that the representation here should be according to population, that he had based his remarks; and he had said what he believed to be true, and what he must believe to be true until convinced to the contrary. It had been said upon the floor of this House, and out of the House, that members of this Committee had been called upon to sustain by their votes the reports of the Committee. If such was the case, and he believed it to be true, were the people of San Joaquin to be told that they had no right to protest against such a principle as this? He considered it to be one of their first rights, that they should not be cheated out of their representation in the Convention. He would not say that it was intended by the appointment of this Committee to do this, but he maintained that no course should be adopted in the House which would have that effect. He conceived that he had not done injustice to the Committee, because, if fault there was, the whole tenor of his remarks was to attribute the fault to the Convention. He did not consider that he had injured the feelings of any gentleman on that Committee. If there was any member who, perhaps, had a right to feel himself aggrieved, it was the gentleman from Sacramento, (Mr. Shannon,) but he (Mr. S.) was too much of a gentleman to rise in his place and

.

Mr. Borrs here called the gentleman from San Joaquin to order.

The PRESIDENT stated that he had seen with deep regret the effect of some very trivial disorders. He had heard the Committee on the Constitution spoken of in various ways. Sometimes it had been called the mammoth committee, which was by no means a respectful term; sometimes, the almighty committee, an equally disrespectful term; and various other epithets of opprobrium had been applied to it. Under the impression that the members of this body had too a high a respect for themselves to cast such reflections upon the Committee as would give offence, the Chair was disposed to allow the fullest liberty of speech, not incompatible with the dignity of the House. He regarded these remarks as made in a spirit of pleasantry, and with no intention of giving offence. But it was now evident that too much liberty had been taken with the Committee, and he hoped that both the gentlemen (Messrs. Jones and Tefft) would follow the example of the gentleman from Monterey, and apologize to the House.

Mr. BorTs objected to this view of the matter. He had never apologized to the House for having called this a mammoth committee; but if the House said that there was anything personal in calling it a mammoth committee, he would amply apologize now.

The CHAIR did not think it was personal.