on, and at one time the Convention had to intervene o prevent Tefft and Jones from participating in an honor, but on the whole the meeting was a har

one.

enting all sections of the Union, they had to a 1 extent laid aside sectional prejudices and given tate a thoroughly liberal constitution. The clauses 3 the property of wives, providing for the election ciary, and prohibiting slavery, at the same time o provide against the immigration of free negroes, the state to a progressive policy, and "gave the gnificent illustration of the wonderful capacity of le for self-government." The sources of such a I will be interesting.

1

st, Constitutional History of the United States, III, 463. See furThree Years in California; Bancroft, History of California, VI, unt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, 56-57; Taylor, 167-168.

On the third day of the session, Wednesday, September 5th, McCarver offered a resolution that the Convention resolve itself into a committee of the whole and take the constitution of Iowa into consideration as a basis for that of California. He was immediately followed by Gwin, who explained that he had exerted himself to have a printingpress there, but found it impracticable. After consulting with various members of the Convention, he had done the next best thing; he had provided copies of the constitution of Iowa so that each member might have one and write in the margin any amendments which should occur to him. He had selected that particular constitution because it was one of the latest and shortest.1

Sherwood thought there would be enough to do in discussing propositions consolidated by a committee without bringing the whole of any single constitution before the entire Convention. Furthermore he opposed following any single state constitution; "It was desirable to have the cream of the whole-the best material of the constitutions of the thirty states." This was also Gilbert's opinion. He opposed adopting any one constitution as a basis unless it

Browne, Debates, 24.

ugh the hands of the Committee. The best thing ld be to let the Committee "take all the constitureport what they deemed best." 1

a mere matter of convenience, Gwin explained. ted nothing better than to form a constitution thirty constitutions of the Union." He had lived of the old states and had carefully examined all constitutions. He preferred the constitution of nat of any other.2

e seems to have been taken on McCarver's resoludoubtless the Committee on the Constitution made various copies of the Iowa constitution prepared That they also used other constitutions appears ue. Certainly they did not pretend to originate document completed at Monterey was practically ion of articles and sections from other state conThe suggestions of Sherwood and Gilbert appear en adopted, but the labors of Gwin were not exerin as we shall see.

nvention was admirably suited for compiling just cument as it finally submitted. Thirty-eight of eight delegates had been citizens of twenty-one Eates in the Union. Of the total number fourteen ers who were natives of eleven of the twenty-one resented. Of the twenty members of the Comthe Constitution five were lawyers, two of whom

ebates, 25.

and 28.

3

came from New York, and one each from Missouri, Wisconsin and Vermont. Gwin had taken part in the convention that drew up the constitution of Iowa in 1846,1 and came to Monterey supplied with printed copies of that document which, it has been said, he hoped to have the Convention adopt, after introducing slight changes, as the constitution for the new state of California.2

While the Convention did not adopt the constitution of Iowa, the one completed resembled that document more than any other. There are, however, traces of half a dozen different state constitutions in the California constitution of 1849, and references made in the debates indicate that the Convention had access to many more. In fact such references show that the constitutions of the thirty states of the Union were doubtless available and that they were probably used. Both Ord and Tefft, during the first week of the Convention, while the bill of rights was under discussion, imply that they had used them. The former says distinctly that he "had looked over the whole thirty constitutions." 4

On September 8th Shannon proposed two additional sections to be placed at the beginning of the bill of rights. In connection with these, he said that he "had carefully examined the constitutions of the different states" before making his selection. And during the third week of the

1 Hunt, Genesis of California's First Constitution, 39.

2 Browne, Debates, 24; Royce, California, 263; Bancroft, History of California, VI, 289; Crosby, Events in California, ms., 38-40.

3 Browne, Debates, 36 and 40; see ibid., 25, 27.

on, September 25th, Halleck states clearly that mittee appointed to draw up the constitution was work "with the constitutions of every state in the fore it." 1

can be little doubt, therefore, that the Convention yup the constitution of California had available for their compilation the constitutions of practically ates in the Union. To determine, in a general way, these exercised influence in the debates, and which rmanent impress on the document completed in be the aim of this chapter.

Constitutions Influencing Debates

ommittee on the Constitution was appointed on ⚫ afternoon, September 6th. On the following submitted a declaration of rights consisting of ctions. The first nine of these were copied almost from the bill of rights in the New York constitution and the last seven were selected at random from itution of Iowa for the same year.2 Norton, the stated that the Committee did not intend to have en sections reported comprise a complete bill of bviously the limited time the House had given the ee in which to prepare this part of the constitution, Debates, 221. References were made frequently during the derious state constitutions. See Browne, Debates, 77, 110, 165, 5, 371, 380, 384, 292, 70, 132, 37, 56, and 69.

་

Debates, 30-31. Compare Poore, Charters and Constitutions, II,