ollowing Monday proposing the exclusion of free mulatto servants, and slaves.1 It was brought on the appointed day, but was immediately rea motion from Randolph, a native of Virginia and ntative from San Francisco. The vote was a close teen to twelve, the speaker voting in favor of rejecOf the thirteen votes favoring rejection, seven were nen from northern states, three by men from southby a foreigner, and two by men whose nativity the as been unable to learn. Five northerners, six ers, and one, nativity unknown, voted against reSan Francisco cast its three votes in favor of rejeccramento cast three in favor and four against the ; San Joaquin, one in favor and five against; San e for and one against; Sonoma and Monterey, the Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo st its single vote in favor of rejection. In other an Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and San ispo were unanimous in their opposition to a bill would exclude free negroes; San José, Monterey, and were equally divided on the subject, each castvote in favor of and one against rejecting the bill; acramento and San Joaquin each furnished three respectively in favor of rejection, and four and five vely against rejecting the same. The mining disus contributed nine of the twelve who voted against g a bill to exclude free negroes. It will thus be seen

als of California Legislature, 1850, 723.

that the feeling in the first Legislature at this time indicates the same division between the mining districts and the other parts of the state that existed in the constitutional Convention. Of the eleven northern votes cast, six were for and five against the rejection of the bill; while the eight southerners whose nativities are known voted two for and six against it,1 thus showing a lack of sectional feeling on the subject so far as the Old North and the Old South were concerned.

On April 15th, Ogier, a South-Carolinian and a representative from San Joaquin, brought forward another bill "to prevent the immigration of free negroes and persons of color into this state." It was read a first and second time and referred back to the committee on the judiciary. The next day it passed the Assembly by a vote of eighteen to seven.3

The vote analyzed above was on the rejection of the bill, while this vote was on the passage of a similar bill. In favor of enacting a law against the immigration of free negroes or persons of color were seven northerners, six southerners, one foreigner, and four whose nativities are unknown; while five northerners, one southerner, and one of unknown nativity voted against the bill. San Francisco voted one in favor of the bill and four against it; San José, three in favor and none against; Santa Barbara one in favor of passage; Monterey, one against; Sonoma, one for and one against; Sacramento, one for and one against; San Joaquin, seven

one against the bill. Stowell of San Francisco had n favor of rejecting the first bill, but declared himavor of passing the second. Aram of San José, who merly voted in favor of rejection, now came out in of the second bill. Covarrubias of Santa Barbara similar change. The delegates of Monterey and assumed the same attitude in regard to the second t they had taken toward the first. Tefft of San Luis did not vote in the second instance. San Joaquin ht votes on the second bill against six on the first, y one of her delegates on each occasion indicated an e favoring the admission of free negroes. Only five Sacramento delegates voted on the second bill against n the first, but the same number (four) in both cases ed themselves against admitting free negroes. vords, the representatives from the mining districts -m and won over to their side one delegate from San sco, two from San José (there had been only two es present in the first instance but the whole number, vere present in the second), and one from Santa BarThe same lack of sectionalism in so far as the Old and the Old South were concerned was apparent in ond instance as it was in the first.

In

bill was sent to the Senate on the same day it passed sembly, April 16th.1 On the following day, Wednesday gislature adjourned the following Monday), Broderick Francisco moved to postpone the free negro bill inely. The motion was carried by a vote of eight to

1 Tourmale of CaliforniȚ aislature TREO 227

five. Of the eight votes cast in favor of indefinite postponement, five were by men from northern states, two were by natives, and one was by a southerner. All five of the delegates voting against postponement were from southern states. Among these was Thomas Jefferson Green of Texas fame. San Francisco voted one in favor and one against postponement, San José cast its single vote against; Sonoma, Santa Barbara, and San Diego each voted on the affirmative; Sacramento gave one vote to the affirmative and one to the negative; and San Joaquin, two to the affirmative and one to the negative. In other words the six votes cast by the mining districts were equally divided on the subject. Broderick and Hydenfeldt from San Francisco had also voted, the former for postponement, the latter against. San José took the same attitude in the Senate that it had taken on the second bill in the Assembly-i. e., it voted against postponement.

Briefly, three of the five votes cast against indefinite postponement were by men from the mining districts; five of the eight votes favoring such action were from regions outside of the mining districts. Two members from the mining districts-Vermeule from San Joaquin and Bidwell from Sacramento-were not present when the votes were cast. It must also be remembered that the total representation in the Senate from the mining districts just equalled that from the other districts in California. Despite the absence of two members from the mining region, the majority of the votes cast against indefinite postponement were cast by men 1 Journals of California Legislature then

247

at section; while the majority of the votes on the side were cast by delegates outside of the mining That there was a distinct rivalry between the and other districts on the free negro question, therems to be indisputable. There can also be little doubt s was due to the fact that the miners objected to side by side with the negroes.

II-The Failure of Old Line Sectionalism

time before the adjournment of the Legislature, dress by the people of California to the citizens of ted States on the application of California for adinto the Union" was drawn up by a committee of om each House. In view of the content of the adanalysis of the committee will be interesting. hree Senate members were Douglass and Fair from quin district and Hydenfeldt of San Francisco, napectively of Tennessee, Virginia, and South Carolina. sembly representatives were Baldwin and Shepherd Joaquin (Baldwin was from Alabama, and the naShepherd I have not found); and Walthall of Sacraa native of Virginia. Five of the six were thus from à states and the nativity of one is unknown. Five e from the mining districts and one from San Fran

ommittee spoke in the name of the people of Cali

andienen bouch as Americans may