tention to the fact that McCarver had been absent on account of sickness and had thus been prevented from proposing his clause prohibiting the immigration of free negroes. It was a matter, Gwin said, in which McCarver was deeply interested and he hoped the Convention would not proceed to further business until the latter had had an opportunity to bring the subject before the assembly for consideration. Following this suggestion the Convention adjourned.1 Two days later, September 20th, McCarver proposed the following as the thirty-ninth section of article four:

"The Legislature shall, at its first session, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free." 2

To McCarver the last clause in this proposition was more important than the first. He had been informed that certain individuals, whom he knew personally, were preparing to bring their slaves to California "upon indentures, and set them free." The state, he thought, had a "right to protect itself against an evil so enormous as this." There was no population on the globe that would be "more repugnant to the feelings of the people or injurious to the perity of the community" than negroes thus freed and

pros

1 Browne, Debates, 137. Bancroft's statement concerning this is misleading. He says that McCarver's proposition "was adroitly laid to rest by Green (meaning Gwin) who persuaded McCarver that his proposed section properly belonged in the legislative chapter of the constitution, where, however, it never appeared." History of California, VI, 291.

2 Browne, Debates, 137.

the state. They were "idle in their habits, e governed by laws, thriftless and uneducated." made the duty of the Legislature to pass such is might be necessary to keep them out of Calim satisfied that every gentleman in this House," ›ncluded, “will see the propriety of such a measve it to be equally as essential to the prosperity try as the prohibition of slavery. The evil eater than that of slavery itself. I therefore proposition to the kind consideration of the -pe that it may become a part of the constitu

ght the subject before the Convention. Semple , Wozencraft from San Joaquin, Steuart from o, Tefft from San Luis Obispo, and Hoppe from th one exception men from the southern states ngly in favor of a constitutional enactment of prevent the negro race from coming to Caliwas not sure that he favored the clause offered 5 but he thought something similar to it should the constitution. The gold mines were already we-owners from various parts of the Union. e true, Kentucky was at that very instant holdion in which its citizens were considering the E freeing their slaves,2 and the owners of negroes tes, 137-38; Tuthill, History of California, 269; Thorpe, story of the American People, II, 316-17. assembled at Frankfort, Kentucky October 1, 1849, and

Constitutional History

in that state were corresponding with certain delegates at Monterey to obtain information concerning the attitude of the people of California toward slavery. Similar inquiries were coming from other states. Steuart asserted that he had received letters by the last steamer from friends in Maryland who made similar inquiries. "Sir," Steuart said, "it is our duty to declare the intention of the people of California in the constitution; and let us do it at once. Let us declare to those gentlemen who are about to engage in this enterprise that they cannot bring their negroes here on any condition or under any pretence whatever." 1

Shannon of Sacramento objected to the whole section proposed by McCarver-the last clause especially, because it was entirely meaningless. Why say "to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into the state for the purpose of setting them free"? A clause had been inserted in the Bill of Rights which forbade slavery except as a punishment for crime. The owners of slaves, then, had no option in the matter. By the fundamental law of the land slaves became free as soon as they entered the state.2

negro any of

who ar tude.”

It was probably this and other objections made to McCarver's proposal, some of them coming from men who were in sympathy with the idea, which led to the following proposal as a substitute for the one already before the House. It was offered by McDougal.

"The Legislature of this state shall at its first session create enactment's against the introduction into the state of any

groes who has or have been slaves previously in states of the Union, or any other country, and ught here under bonds or indentures of servi

I's aim was obvious. He wanted to guard Calist owners who might, under contracts for limited vice, free their slaves at home and then bring he mining regions to work out their contracts. shown that the last clause in McCarver's proot sufficiently clear on this point. From what id, McDougal believed that many men in the would be glad to free their negroes, providing ould agree to serve six months or a year in the lently he had no fear of the negroes who had generations. He probably thought they would e the long and difficult trip to California; at sufficient numbers to warrant making constituons against them.

were others who did not share McDougal's is point. They wanted to keep the negro race, out of California. Would McDougal's proposal ey did not think so. Steuart had a proposition ught would more nearly accomplish the purher of those under consideration. He offered

> the duty of the Legislature, as soon as may be, laws as may be necessary to prevent negroes s from coming to and settling in the state of

California, and shall declare null and void every indenture conditioned for the manumission or freedom of such negro or mulatto, or in consideration of any service to be rendered in California." 1

Botts suggested that the wording should be somewhat like the following: "These objectionable individuals shall not be allowed to enter the state of California under such penalties as the Legislature may hereafter impose." His object was to prevent negroes, either slave or free, from getting into the state. To provide a penalty in the constitution might not be wise; that could be left to the Legislature.2

Opposition to the Resolution

3

privileg

Chilian

If a cla

the imp

ency, if

In the meantime the opposition had not been silent. Why insert anything in the constitution, said Shannon, which would affect the immigration of freemen to California, whether white or black? And Dimmick of San José declared that a clause had been inserted in the Bill of Rights permitting foreigners to exercise all the rights in reference to holding lands and enjoying political privileges which were granted to citizens of the territory. Why not live up to that declaration instead of inserting a clause in the constitution which practically nullified so liberal a policy? It would be unjust to attempt to prevent a "certain class of Americans, born in the United States" from entering the territory and enjoying the

1 Browne, Debates, 147.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., 139.