Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

The following sections were-then adopted without debate, viz:

2. Electors shall, in all cases except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest on the days of elections, during their attendance at such election, going to, and returning therefrom.

3. No elector shall be obliged to perform militia duty on the day of election, except in time of war or public danger.

The question then coming up on the fourth section of the Committee's report, Mr. GILBERT moved the following:

4. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any almshouse, or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.

The amendment was rejected without debate, and the section of the Committee adopted, viz:

4. No person in the military, naval, or marine service of the United States, shall be considered a resident of this State by being stationed in any garrison, barrack, or military or naval place or station within this State.

Mr. Borts moved to amend the report of the Committee, by inserting between the 4th and 5th sections the following:

No person living in California, who has left his family elsewhere, shall be considered as a resident of California.

Mr. HALLECK wished to know if the persons, to whom the gentleman had reference, were not included under the head of "idiots and insane persons," in the 5th section.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT thought it rather unfair that a gentleman who enjoyed the blessing of having his family here, should be so hard upon those who, like himself, had left theirs at home. The gentleman (Mr. Botts) ought to be content with his good fortune, without compelling others to take a trip home to the United States for their families before they could enjoy the privilege of electors, at the risk of losing it after all by absence from the State.

Mr. BOTTs had really supposed that there would not be a dissenting voice to this very plain proposition. As to the difficulty of the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Wozencraft,) he would answer him as others had been answered-we will provide for him in the schedule. In serious earnest, the object of the amendment was to have some guarantee, that persons who are to assist in making our laws will remain in the country long enough to be subject to the operation of those laws. He did not wish any man to have a vote in the formation of a law, and then leave the country to let that law operate on others. The peculiar condition of California renders such a provision most desirable. There should be a community of interest among those who are privileged to vote. The fact that people leave their families elsewhere when they come here, is some evidence, at least, that they do not intend to remain.

Mr. SUTTER protested against this proposition. It would be very hard, if he should, after his long residence here, be deprived of his right to vote because his family was elsewhere.

Mr. ELLIS thought one more provision ought to be introduced-that all single men should be married in three months.

The question was then taken on amending the report, by inserting the additional section, as proposed, and the amendment was rejected.

The question being on the 5th section reported by the Committee, it was adopted, as follows:

5. No idiot or insane person, or persons convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.

Mr. PRICE moved to insert the following between the 5th and 6th sections : Laws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.

The question being taken, it was rejected.

The question was then taken on the last section of the report of the Committee, and it was carried, viz :

6. All elections by the people shall be by ballot.

Thereupon, on motion, the Committee rose and reported the "right of suffrage" to the House with sundry amendments.

On motion, the report was received, and ordered to lie on the table.
On motion, the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1849.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by Rev. S. H. Willey. The journal of yesterday was read, amended, and approved.

Mr. GWIN submitted certain maps of California, which were referred to the Committee on the Boundary.

Mr. SHANNON Submitted the following, which was adopted, viz :

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention return to the Governor all election papers and returns transmitted by him to this body, but that copies of the same be retained by the Secretary of the House.

The Convention then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dimmick in the chair, upon the report of the Committee on the Constitution.

The question being taken on the first section, it was adopted, as follows: The powers of government of the State of California shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any function appeartaining to either of the others, except in the cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted.

The question was then taken on the next section, and it was adopted :

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

SEC. 1. The legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and Assembly, which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of California, and the style of their laws shall commence in the following manner : "The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows."

The second section being then under consideration, as follows:

2. The session of the Legislature shall be

>

and shall commence on the first Monday in January next ensuing the election of its members, unless the Governor of the State shall, in the interim, convene the Legislature by proclamation.

Mr. GWIN moved that the blank be filled with the word "biennial.”
Mr. NORTON moved the word "annual."

Mr. SEMPLE had no idea that we should be able to make a Constitution here, which would last twenty or thirty years without alteration. The peculiar condition of the country is such as to render modification in legislation necessary, to meet the progressive changes of circumstances that must take place. He believed that the Legislature, by meeting only once in two years, would not be able to prepare such a code of laws as would be sufficient for California. For a few years, at least, it should meet annually. If a proviso was inserted, that after the first five years, the sessions should be biennial, then there might possibly be no objection. Gentlemen should remember that we have no organized code of laws. We are changing from one form of government very different from ours, to another, requiring a complete legislative reorganization. The Legislature must establish an entire code of laws. It will be impossible to keep members of the Legislature more than two or three months at the seat of Government. The rapid progress of affairs in this country, and the great value of time, would render a longer session impracticable. The first winter the Legislature will pass some of the most necessary laws, and probably the next improve and increase the code. If the people

find that annual meetings of the Legislature are oppressive, they can very easily change to biennial.

Mr. GWIN said his motion had direct reference to one great question-the enor mous expense entailed upon the public, by frequent elections and frequent legisla tures. He knew by experience that the legislative action of all new bodies is hasty, and if we expected to have a correct system of laws, we would be compelled to establish a commissioner or commissioners to prepare a system for the consideration of the Legislature. It is impossible for us to adopt a system of laws, by frequent sessions of the Legislature. In the present state of the country, the expense of frequent elections will be so extraordinary, as to give rise to great inconvenience. The power of convening the Legislature, in all cases of necessity, rests with the Governor. It can be assembled when required. Experience has shown the evils of excessive legislation. Laws should be well tested before changes are made. All the new States have biennial Legislatures. We comcommence with Texas-a Territory somewhat similar in the character of its popu ulation to this. The sessions of its Legislature are biennial. So also, with Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. All the new border States have biennial sessions. Look at the difference in the expense there and here. A member of the Legislature gets but two dollars a day in Iowa. The Legislature is not permitted to sit more than fifty days, at that rate. If its sessions are prolonged beyond that period, the members get but one dollar a day. It has been well demonstrated by experience, that in new States, the hasty passage of laws is a source of great evil. Of all the States in the confederacy, California requires most an efficient system of laws, and she is the last State that should multiply the expenses of government, by hav ing frequent meetings of the Legislature. The Government, in the most economi cal form, will be expensive enough.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT said he had a resolution to offer which he thought would meet the difficulty of the gentleman from Sonoma (Mr. Semple.) He notified the House that at a suitable time, he would submit a resolution for the appointment of a commission of three persons to form a code of laws, to be submitted to the Legislature at its first session. He was in favor of biennial sessions. He thought they would be sufficient, and would avoid the difficulty arising from excessive legislation.

We

Mr. NORTON did not see that we had any power to appoint such a commission as the gentlemen proposed. What authority had members of this Convention to appoint three persons to form a code of laws for the Legislature? He thought it absolutely essential that the sessions of the Legislature should be annual. have no laws here. It has been impossible to ascertain what the law is, or to enforce it. The Mexican system, as retained under the existing civil government, is repugnant to the feelings of American citizens. It is too late for them to learn any other system than that to which they have been accustomed. The Legisla ture of California will therefore have a great deal of work to do. It is said that in new States, there is great danger of hasty legislation. He would ask if there is as much danger in the case of a Legislature that meets once a year, as in that of one that meets once in two years? If the business of two years is crowded into one session, is there not more danger of imperfect legislation, than when there are two sessions within the same period, to perform the same work? It is very desirable that the Legislature should meet and proceed at once to form a sys. tem of laws, so that the people may know what laws they are living under. This cannot be done in a country like this, so rapidly increasing in population and wealth, at one meeting of the Legislature. Another Legislature must soon convene, to complete the work of the last, and provide new laws to meet the exigencies of events. Gentlemen say there will be great expense in meeting once a year. What of that? Our means will be proportionate to the expense. We have great wealth here. If it is necessary at all to have a Legislature, we

have the means to pay for it. We are not the people to say, we cannot have such a government as we require, because we are too poor to pay for it.

Mr. HALLECK agreed with the gentleman last up, (Mr. Norton,) in regard to annual sessions. If there is a country in the world, at the present time, that requires the Legislature to meet at least once a year, it is California. California. Let us suppose that, by our Constitution, when it is adopted by the people, we call a session of the Legislature on the 1st day of January next. In all probability, as the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) said, we may have hasty legislation. This is a very strong reason why we should have a remedy as soon as possible. Are we to wait two years before we can correct the laws made by that body? Or shall another body be called into session the next year to correct these evils? Has not every citizen already felt the great inconvenience of the want of legisla. tive power, to make new laws, to provide for the peculiar circumstances of the country? The people should have the power of convening the Legislature at least once a year, to meet the extraordinary changes that must take place. We have been constantly told on this floor, that there is an immense emigration directing its course into California. That emigration will be for the next four or five years, floating about from one portion of the country to another. Laws made by one Legislature for the government of one portion of the Territory, may be rendered unnecessary, and new laws for the government of other portions may be required in less than two years. Let us suppose that all this emigration should be fixed in the valley of the Sacramento or San Joaquin. A Legislature passes laws for the government of that people. In six months after, the mines in the southern portion of the country draw the flood of emigration in that direction. Are we to wait two years before the Legislature can meet to provide for that portion of our population? Why throw upon the Governor the responsibility of judging what is necessary to be done? If you think proper, you may limit the duration of the session to a certain number of days or months, but they should at least be annual.

Mr. BOTTs believed that, for the first time, he was about to find himself in the majority. He would endeavor to make sure of it, by adding a few remarks to those just made. For his own part he was in favor of the annual meeting of the Legislature. He had one great test to which he submitted all these questionsthe principles of the Democratic party. When he subjected the gentleman's biennial proposition to that test, he found it wanting. He was very well aware that there would be hasty legislation. The people of California are fallible; they will make mistakes; but when they do they want the opportunity to correct them. They will not be content that any one man power should govern them in retracting or improving the laws which they may make. Suppose the Governor should think a very good law passed by the people in their legislative capacity, an oppressive one? He has power to convene the Legislature at any time, thereby subjecting the people to great inconvenience, and, probably, serious injury. He is to judge of the necessity. We are told that annual meetings of the Legislature are expensive. Why should we be threatened continually with this dreadful bugbear of expense? It is true legislation is expensive in California. So is everything else. But the people are the most wealthy in the world, and the best capa. ble of defraying these expenses. The quantity of the circulating medium, which is the bullion of the country, is greater than in any other State of the Union. When this ceases to be the case, everything will come down to a proportionate standard. The same relative proportion exists between the expense of legisla tion here and elsewhere. If prices are higher nominally, there are more abundant means of meeting them. The people of California should not be debarred from the privilege of being constantly heard in their legislative assembly on the plea of want of pecuniary means to defray the necessary expenses. It appeared to him (Mr. Botts) a little singular, that gentlemen who were so devoted to precedents—who were so afraid of novelties-who hugged the shore and never ventured out to sea-who always recommended some clause or provision, because it

was to be found somewhere else, should now recommend the latest and newest and most untried policy. The biennal provision is one of recent enactment. He called upon gentlemen who were opposed to novelties and untried experiments, to go with him for the old settled principle of annual legislation.

Mr. McCARVER said that the only objection he had to annual sessions of the Legislature was this: there are no lands owned and occupied as yet in California, except a few large tracts. To place an ordinary tax on these lands would make it very oppressive. A capitation tax to defray the expense of annual sessions. would probably be equally objectionable. It is revolting to man to be obliged to pay for his head. For these reasons, he thought it would be better to meet biennially. The system had been adopted in the new States, and it was found to work admirably.

Mr. BOTTS wished to know if the gentleman meant to say that his constituents would rather pay two dollars and a half, if it was called a tax upon the man, than two dollars for his head.

Mr. McCARVER merely referred to the general principle as objectionable.

Mr. SEMPLE rose to pledge his constituents for their share of taxation. He was sent here by them to assist in making such a Constitution as would protect them in all their rights and property. Whatever tax was put upon them by their own act, they would never complain of. It would be easy to make the sessions of the Legislature biennial, when the necessity of such a change was demanded by cir

cumstances.

Mr. SHANNON Would not say a word but for the allusion of the gentleman from Sonoma, (Mr. Semple,) to the people of that district. His (Mr. Shannon's) constituents, the people of Sacramento, were as willing and as able as any in California to pay taxes. They wanted a good government, no matter what the expense might be, and he believed they would require annual sessions of the Legislature. Mr. SNYDER stated that he had before him a map of California, and that he understood an effort would be made in this House to establish, as the boundary line of the State, the entire territory known as California. Now if the boundary line should take in the whole of California, there would be certain members from the Salt Lake region, who never would be able to get home if the Legislature met annually. At the close of the session they might start homeward, but they would be compelled to turn back before they got beyond the Sierra Nevada, in order to be at the seat of government in time for the next session.

From

Mr. GILBERT said it seemed to him that this question of annual and biennial sessions was one that admitted of very little doubt in favor of annual sessions. One of the essential reasons why this Convention was assembled here, was to provide the means of proper legislation. His colleague from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) cited the examples of the new States in favor of biennial sessions. a speech made by that gentleman a day or two since, it would seem that these new States enjoyed from seven to thirty years experience under Territorial forms of government. There was comparatively but little change to make in their laws. That very fact would go to show the absolute necessity of annual Legislatures here. It is notorious that the laws now in force, are repugnant to the feelings, education, and habits of the great majority of the people. These laws cannot be discontinued, and such laws enacted in their place as the wants of the people may require, by biennial sessions of the Legislature. It appeared to him that nothing but annual sessions would answer the demands of the community. It might not be necessary to continue the annual meetings more than four or five years, but it should be left to the people to determine upon the expediency of a change, at the expiration of

that time.

Mr. GWIN did not wish to trespass upon the patience of the House, but as he was contending for an important principle he desired to reply to some remarks which had been made during the debate. When he spoke of hasty legislation he did not intend to be understood as stating that one Legislature would meet this

« AnteriorContinuar »