year, and another would meet next year to repeal its acts. Legislatures meet for other purposes-to provide for the increasing wants of the community. It is not the hasty action of a preceeding Legislature that is repealed; it is the accumula tion of laws that requires a remedy. If all the laws of all the States of this Union, that have been passed and repealed, were collected together, they would fill this hall. The world is governed too much. We have too many laws. If he (Mr. Gwin) had happened to come from Virginia, the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) would not have been so indignant. There is no danger of not having laws enough. The great danger is that we shall have too many. It was probable the first Legislature would have to remain in session a long time, in order to pass such laws as would meet the demands of the community. His only desire was to have a good system of laws established. It was with this view that he proposed a commission to digest, in advance, a code of laws for the action of the Legislature, and he desired that the first Legislature that met after the adoption of the Constitution should have full and ample time to provide for the wants of the country. If this system of biennial sessions is so inexpedient, how is it that it has been adopted in most of the States? As to the system of laws referred to as growing up under the Territorial form of government, it was well known that the first session of a State Legislature is always the longest. After that, the less legislation, unless to meet pressing emergencies, the better. We are not to legislate for a wandering and changing population. The miners will have their home, and there will not be that fluctuating population which gentlemen imagine. People who come here will find it to their interest to become permanent residents of the country. He would not attempt to argue the question, however, for he had no feeling on the subject. It merely occurred to him that it would be to the interest of the people to be subjected to as little expense as possible, and to have no more legislation than was actually necessary. Mr. SHERWOOD said that this question was a matter of principle with him. Economy should be studied by wealthy people as well as poor. If he was satisfied that the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) would be more economical, and better calculated to promote the interests of the people, he would most cordially sustain it; but he did not believe such to be the case. The gentleman (Mr. Gwin) was opposed to accumulating laws. What effect would biennial sessions have in preventing the accumulation of laws? If the Legislature of California met once in two years, instead of sitting one month, it would probably remain in session two months. The amount of laws passed would be about the same; and so far as the question of economy is concerned, there would be nothing gained in that respect. For public convenience annual sessions would be preferable. We are an anomalous people. There is no State in the Union like California Rapid as has been the progress of the Western States, they are left far behind by the new Territory of the Pacific. Towns and cities spring up here in a month. The population is subject to extraordinary changes. It may number five thousand now in a certain district, and a year hence fifteen thousand. We have no pre-existing laws that can form the basis of our legislation. With all this new material in the country-without any previous territorial organization-we have to assemble together a Legislature to enact laws suitable to the condition of the country. It cannot be supposed that the wants of the people, at the outset, can be thoroughly understood by the first body that meets. The proposition to appoint a commission to prepare a code of laws should not be brought up now. Whatever may be its merits, it is entirely irrelevant to this question. Each Legislature that meets, for a few years to come, will undoubtedly have enough work to perform, allowing it annual sessions, to provide for the wants of the people. Suppose this House was transformed into a legislative body, who upon this floor is prepared to make the necessary laws for California-to lay out roads-to determine what public officers shall be appointed-to provide for all the local wants of the community. This is a matter that requires experience. It cannot be done at once. Most of the the people here are new comers, and those who will be sent to the Legislature from among them will require time to learn the wants of the districts which they represent. It is, therofore, absolutely necessary that the Legislature should meet at least once a year for a few years-leaving it to the people, when they become more settled, to establish biennial sessions if they think proper. In regard to representation, if we meet but once in two years, there will be no representative apportionment for two years to come. To prevent that, we require annual sessions. Undoubtedly they will be short, and not expensive; because, in this Constitution, it seems to be the intention of the House to make it the duty of the Legislature to pass general laws, as far as practicable, instead of special laws for particular purposes; which will greatly shorten legislation. Mr. BROWN believed he would be in the minority on this question. It was a subject upon which he was very decided. Not only did he consider the question of economy involved in this case, but a question of much higher importancepublic interest. Annual meetings of the Legislature would, in his opinion, be most injudicious as well as most expensive. If the Legislature passed laws every twelve months, those laws would have to go before the people. They would probably be in operation but six months when a new code of laws would be established. Sufficient time should be given to test all legislative enactments. He was convinced that the sudden changing of laws is a source of great public inconvenience, and is always attended by serious loss to individuals. It requires time and experience to demonstrate the necessity of legislative reform. Laws may be objectionable in the beginning, from imperfect administration, but after being fairly tested they may prove most beneficial. If, within two years, experience establishes the propriety of reform, the laws can then be repealed or amended; but six months is an insufficient time. The gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gilbert,) urged this facility of speedily repealing laws as a strong argument in favor of annual sessions. He (Mr. Brown) considered it one of the greatest objections. It is impossible to get laws fairly in operation before the people in less than six months after their enactment, and six months would surely be too short a time to test these laws. In regard to the question of expense, it is the worst policy a State can adopt to establish an expensive system of government. No matter what may be the wealth of California, if her mountains were of pure gold, it would be inexpedient in her to lavish money in the commencement of her career as a State. It is impossible to say with certainty how long the mineral resources of California may hold out. We believe them to be inexhaustible, but it is only a matter of belief. Heavy taxation is always oppressive and unpopular. The question of taxation is one that involves the best interests of the community. It should be touched with a careful hand. Gentlemen boast of the wealth of their constituents in particular districts. It is not a matter to be considered here, whether this distriet or that is the richest. In forming this Constitution it is necessary to consider that it is not made for the benefit of particular localities, but for the whole people. He had no doubt there would be a general willingness on the part of the citizens of California to defray the necessary expenses of a good government; but it was for this Convention to adopt such a course of policy as would promote the permanent interests of the State. He believed, upon full consideration of the question, that on the score of economy and public convenience, biennial sessions of the Legislature would be most expedient, and he would therefore vote for the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin.) Mr. McCARVER desired to offer a resolution providing that the Legislature shall meet annually for the first three years, and after that biennially. It seemed to him that would cover the objections of gentlemen who apprehended inconvenience from the want of laws at the present time. Mr. HALLECK suggested that the motion should be put on the longest time, which was the biennial sessions. Mr. WOZENCRAFT objected to the proposition of the gentleman from Sacramento, (Mr. McCarver.) He thought it would only increase the difficulty. The facil ities for getting to the seat of government after a few years would be much greater than they are at present. The question was then taken on filling the blank with the word "biennial," and decided in the negative. Mr. NORTON's motion to insert "annual" was then adopted; and the question being on the second section, it was adopted, as follows: SEC. 2. The sessions of the Legislature shall be annual, 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. The third section was then read, as follows: SEC. 3. The members of the Assembly shall be chosen by the qualified electors of their respective districts on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, whose term of office shall continue years. Mr. TEFFT moved to fill the first blank with the word "annually;" the second blank with the word "one," and to strike out the letter "s" in the word "years" at the close of the section. Mr. PRICE desired to see as few elections in this country as possible. He considered every two years often enough to elect members of the Legislature. There is always excitement in elections. When too frequent, they are prejudicial to the industrial habits of the community. He moved that the blank be filled so as to provide that elections shall be held every two years. Mr. SHERWOOD said it occurred to him that the day fixed for the election of President of the United States was the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November. All our elections should be held on that day. He wished to be sure of this before the passage of the section. Mr. SEMPLE informed the gentleman that it was on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday in November. He moved further to amend the section by adding after the word "November," "unless otherwise directed by the Legislature." The amendment was adopted, and the question then being on the adoption of the section as amended, it was adopted, as follows: 3. The members of the Assembly shall be chosen annually by the qualified electors of their respective districts, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, unless otherwise directed by the Legislature, whose term of office shall continue one year. The question then coming up on the fourth section of the report, as follows: 4. Senators and members of Assembly shall be citizens of the United States, and be duly qualified electors in the respective counties and districts which they represent. Mr. Borrs thought some provision was necessary to make this section perfect, inasmuch as there seemed to be a good deal of doubt whether a certain portion of the population here were entitled to the rights of citizenship without a special act of Congress. He desired to see all participate in the first election. This requires that, in addition to the qualification of elector, a man must be a citizen of the United States. If, however, those who were most interested in the matter had no objection to the section, he would not press any amendment. It is an Mr. GWIN thought the difficulty could easily be remedied. The qualification of an elector is that "every white male citizen of the United States," &c. essential qualification. It would be easy to strike out citizen of the United States, and say, Senators and members, of the Assembly shall be qualified electors. Mr. Borts moved to strike out the words "citizens of the United States and be.” Mr. PRICE moved to amend by striking out the words "United States," and inserting "of the State of California," so as to read;" Senators and members of the Assembly shall be citizens of the State of California," &c. Mr. McCARVER did not see the necessity of inserting "California" here. It seemed to him that they would be citizens of California as a matter of course. Mr. PRICE would modify his amendment so as to read: "Senators and members of the Assembly shall have been citizens of the State two years" in order to be qualified electors. His object was to give electors a higher qualification than members of the Assembly. The question was then taken on Mr. Price's amendment, as modified, and decided in the negative. Mr. PRICE moved "one year" a resident of the State. Rejected. Mr. SHANNON could see no occasion for the introduction of any thing of this kind here. There could be no substantial reason for striking out the words "citizen of the United States." They were usual, he believed, in all the Constitutions of the States. There could be no objection on the score that it would leave out any of the original inhabitants of California. A previous article has fixed the qualifications of voters. No person can be a citizen of California, without first being a citizen of the United States. Mr. DENT supposed a person could. Mr. SHANNON remarked that supposition would not answer. cessary. Facts were ne Mr. DENT said that, according to the clause of the Constitution which was debated last night, he believed persons were sometimes entitled to the elective franchise in States, who could not be considered as citizens of the United States. Mr. SEMPLE was of a similar opinion, and referred to the case of Illinois, which, for many years, made citizens of the State who were not previously citizens of the United States. Mr. SHANNON was not altogether convinced that this was the case. It was certain, however, that a great majority of the Constitutions of the United States contained these words. The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the words "citizens of the United States and be," and decided in the affirmative. The question then recurring on the 4th section, as amended, it was adopted, as follows: 4. Senators and members of Assembly shall be duly qualified electors in the respective counties which they represent. The fifth section being under consideration, as follows: 5. Senators shall be chosen for the term of four years, at the same time and place as members of Assembly. No person shall be eligible to the office of member of Assembly except he shall have attained the age of twenty-one years, nor to that of Senator except he shall have attained the age of twenty-five years. Mr. GWIN moved to strike out the word "four," and insert the word two, which was adopted. Mr. PRICE moved to strike out all after the word "Assembly." His reason for this motion was, that in the previous section the qualifications of a representative were fixed, and therefore he considered the latter clause of the present section useless. The age of a representative is fixed at twenty-one years, and that of a Senator at twenty-five. He considered the people as the best judges of these matters, and preferred leaving the age of their representatives unrestricted. It would be just as well to say Senators and Representatives shall not be over a certain age as to say they shall not be under a certain age. In fact it would be much better sense, for a young man may correct his errors, but in the case of an old man, there is no remedy. Mr. BOTTS not only seconded this motion, but would endeavor to support it. There had been much discussion in the world as to what that period of life is at which a man arrives at the age of discretion. The common law has fixed it at twenty-one years, and the civil at twenty-five. It must be either one or the other. In the case of the legislator, it seems that the more general rule of twenty-one years is to prevail. Could any gentleman explain what there is in the Senate to make a member an immature man who was a mature man in the House below? He is competent to be a legislator in the lower House, but if you carry him up a day older in the Senate, he is unfit to legislate. He (Mr. Botts) was aware that this provision was to be found in perhaps all the Constitutions; but he was opposed to retaining an absurdity because it was to be found elsewhere. This lower House is to have the right of originating bills. It is, therefore, the more important branch. But, in this provision, he who is fit to exercise the greater powers is unfit to exercise the lesser. This is an old aristocratic principle. He (Mr. Botts) had caused some pleasantry in the House on account of his reverence for gray hairs; but he hoped he would not be misunderstood now. It may be that a gen. tleman at twenty-one is not a proper representative, but if the people desire to have a gentleman at twenty-two, they can best judge as to his qualifications for the position, and should be entitled to elect him to the Senate. Mr. McCARVER was not satisfied as to the propriety of striking out this clause, and allowing the people to elect persons to the Senate without reference to their age. He was in favor of leaving everything to the people, as a general rule, but as Constitutions are restrictions imposed upon the people by their own consent, and as this seemed to be a reasonable and proper restriction, he preferred letting it remain in the Constitution. He thought those gray hairs to which gentlemen so often alluded, were peculiarly appropriate in a body of so grave a character as the upper House of the State Legislature. When the young and inexperienced members of the lower House passed laws, he desired that those laws should be reconsidered and amended by older and wiser heads. It is but reasonable to sup. pose that maturity of judgment is acquired by the experience that age affords, and for this reason, as well as because it was a principle well tested, he would vote against the motion before the House. effect their He was de Mr. SHANNON did not know what right this Convention had to put restrictions on the people. It was a body elected by their votes to carry into wishes, not to prevent them from exercising their rights as freemen. cidedly in favor of the amendment. He wished the question of age left to the free judgment of the people. Let them send whom they please, either to the House or the Senate. They are best qualified to judge as to the capability of members. He had the pleasure, shortly before he left the United States, of listening to a debate in the Convention of New York on this subject. The result of it was, that in the new Constitution of that State, all restrictions of this kind were left out. He trusted the same republican policy would be adopted here. The question was then taken on Mr. Price's motion to strike out all after the word Assembly, and decided in the affirmative, 15 to 10. Mr. PRICE moved to amend by inserting in place of the words stricken out, the following: And no person shall be a member of the Senate or Assembly who has not been a citizen and inhabitant of the State one year, and of the county for which he shall be chosen six months next before his election. Mr. GILBERT rose to a question of order. A proposition had already been voted upon which covered the same ground. Mr. BOTTS thought nothing would facilitate the business of the Convention more than a strict observance of the rules. He would therefore suggest to the Chair that any amendment substantially the same as one already voted upon, was excluded under the rules. The CHAIR was of opinion that this became an original proposition when offered as an amendment to a distinct and separate section. The question was then taken, and the amendment was adopted-15 to 11. His object was to move a call of the House, in order to have a full vote and reconsider the motion last adopted. It was absurd to attempt to do business where so few members were present. The Committee then rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. |