Mr. HALLECK observed, in relation to the instructions as to the use of the civil fund here for the payment of officers of the civil Government, that they were instructions from the former, not the present administration.

Mr. GWIN asked if they did not apply distinctly to the country when it was in a state of war.

Mr. HALLECK was understood to say that their application was not limited to any particular period.

Mr. PRICE said that, representing as he did, the majority of the Committee that made the report, he felt bound to say a few words in relation to it. The rate of pay fixed in the report for the officers of the Convention, was a matter of a good deal of discussion in the Committee; and in coming to their conclusions, they took the standard of wages which they believed to be usual in this country at the present period, and graduated the pay of these gentlemen in accordance with that standard. They believed that the laborer was worthy of his hire. They wanted the Convention first to decide upon the rate of pay that these officers are to receive, that they might be able to make an estimate which they could send to General Riley, so as to get a direct reply from him, stating whether he would be able to pay the amount fixed by this Convention. He (Mr. Price,) did not believe that General Riley wanted any higher voucher for the payment of these officers, than the vote of this Convention. He had some little experience in the settlement of accounts with the Treasury of the United States, and he knew that the Government of the United States never could ask any higher authority-any higher approving power than the vote of this Convention. He could not believe for a moment that Gene. ral Riley would attempt to exercise any authority or control over the vote of this House. He did not believe that he would say these gentlemen shall receive more or less than the amount fixed by the Convention. He did not believe General Riley had ever thought of fixing any other rate of pay, by the term pecessary expenses. The meaning intended to be conveyed was, to the limited amount that the civil fund now in his hands might justify. As he (Mr. Price) understood it from the correspondence, he (General Riley) was willing to go to that extent. Now, the wages of a mechanic at this day in California average from $12 to $16 a day-that is an uncontrovertible fact; and it may just as well be, that we enlighten the Government at Washington upon this point-that we make known to them through this Convention, the high rate of wages here. It will be the most striking mode in which they can receive it. The Committee had had a due sense of economy in fixing these rates; they believed them to be entirely just and proper, and they hoped the House would sustain them in their estimate. We have nothing to do with the right, or the inquiring as to the right of General Riley to dispose of the civil fund in his hands. The Congress of the United States will pay, and is bound to pay the expenses of this Convention. Now, if the merchants of San Francisco, perchance the clients of the honorable gentlemen from Monterey, (Mr. Botts,) have any claim upon these funds, their rights cannot be impaired in this way, by Gene. ral Riley defraying the expenses of the Convention; for if the funds have been il legally collected, he is the Government officer, and the Government is bound by his acts; and these funds will be paid back. The course pursued by General Riley cannot change or alter the rights of these claimants. He (Mr. Price,) trusted that this estimate of the Committee might be thought, as a majority of the Com mittee thought, the proper rate of compensation, and that the House would imme. diately act upon it, and give instructions to the Committee for further action, if it was deemed necessary.

Mr. McCARVER thought gentlemen were taking grounds that should not be taken by this Convention in relation to obtaining the means of defraying its expenses. He could not see in what way it devoled upon this body to inquire how General Riley came by the funds which he has in his posssession, or to ascertain by what authority he proposes defraying the expenses of the Convention. The citizens of California sent delegates here for a special object-to form a Constitu

tion. If any individual proposes to come forward and pay the expenses, there is no necessity for entering into any inquiry as to the manner in which he obtained the means, nor is it the duty of this House to discuss questions of that kind. enough to know that General Riley is an honest, high-minded gentleman, holding It is a high position here. If he has acted improperly, or if the President of the United States has acted improperly, it is between him and the President, and between the President and the Congress of the United States to settle it. The proper place to try him for malfeasance in office is in the United States. go behind his instructions, and question the Executive authority. He (Mr. McCarWe have no right to ver) did not believe that the Governor had any right to exercise any control or authority over this House. Intimation is given to us that, if the expenses are brought within certain limits, they will be paid; if not, they will not be paid. It mattered not to him (Mr. McCarver,) whether General Riley paid a portion or the whole of the sum necessary for that purpose. The action of this House should be entirely independent of any thing General Riley has said. It should regulate the salaries of its own officers, and is fully competent to do it on its own responsibility. It is not for this Convention to inquire what amount General Riley will pay, and then graduate the salaries of the officers accordingly. Let the rates of pay be determined unconditionally and directly, so that those gentlemen may know what they are to receive.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT said that this report was laid on the table yesterday, with the understanding that that portion should be taken up which relates to the per diem allowance of the officers. If he had supposed that the minority report, or that part relating to the manner of providing for the payment of the expenses of the Convention, would have come up, he would have moved for its indefinite postponement. We have no business to take into consideration here, whether the existing civil officer of this Territory has or has not the power to pay these expenses. This question is foreign to the legitimate object of the Convention; and leads to endless debate. He now moved to divide the question as to the rate of salaries and the subject of the civil fund, and indefinitely postpone the latter.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I desire to make a few remarks on this subject, although the question has been very fully discussed. There seem to be two reports from this Committee-the majority and minority report; one assuming the ground, founded upon a correspondence with Governor Riley, that we can obtain the means of paying the expenses of the Convention, mostly, if not entirely, out of the funds now in possession of the civil Government of California. The minority report, on the contrary, assumes the 'ground that we should not ask Governor Riley for these funds, but leave the payment of the expenses entirely to a future Legislature. Almost necessarily, this minority report opens the question as to the power of Governor Riley to pay out any portion of the money in his possession. question should have been brought up here. There should have been no discussion as to his power For myself, I do not think this in this Convention; and although the minority of the Committee have seen fit to make a report founded upon th's correspondence, I entirely disagree with that report in regard to the question of power; at the same time I do not think it should have been brought before the House. In the first place, we are the representatives of the people, assembled under a call from the Civil Governor of the Territory. We came here for a specific object-to form a Constitution; and without knowing whether this Constitution will be adopted by the people or not, we cast about us to ascertain how we can pay the ordinary expenses of the Convention.

We have certain officers for whom, if no provision be made now, and the Constitution be rejected by the people, no compensation will be received by them, unless it be defrayed personally by us. The people of California, if they reject our labors here, are not bound by any law to meet the expenses of the Convention. They could make a subscription and pay the necessary sum in that way; but the question now is, as to the payment of our officers at this time, for I apprehend they would scarcely be willing to look to a future Legislature for their compensation. We have, through our Committee, applied to the Governor. That officer states that he has a civil fund under his control; and for the information of the Convention has laid before us a document in which he defends the right to collect the money in the manner that it has been collected for the purpose of a civil fund. In a state of war we have collected imposts. We did it in the last war with Mexico; California came into the possession of our troops. It is to be pre-supposed that after war shall have ceased, the Government of the mother country will provide a Government for the conquered territory. A year and a half, perhaps, have elapsed; a long session of Congress has closed, and yet no more than during and after the close of the war has Congress provided for the government

of its conquered territory, afterwards acquired by treaty. It was competent for the military officer, under the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, to collect imposts during the war. From the want of action by Congress after the war closed, the same course was necessarily pursued, and it was perfectly justified by the absence of contrary instructions from the Government; and until there was some direct action of Congress authorizing a different course, it was the duty of the military officer in California to collect the revenue as it was collected during and after the war. About a million of dollars has been thus collected-a very small portion of which has been expended upon a Government for the people of California, for they have been without courts, without proper legal tribunals, almost without a form of government. The civil Governor now says to this Convention that he has a fund collected in this way by imposts, and that he has expended it to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and will continue to do so while he holds the office, until he has contrary instructions from the Departments in Washington. I think in this he has acted wisely and properly, and will be justified not only by the people of California, but by the Congress and people of the United States. Congress neglected, after a protracted discussion on a question with which they had nothing to do, to provide a Government for this Territory. Foreign ships with foreign cargoes have come into our ports here, and the civil Government has received the duties which, under the revenue laws of the United States, must be received on foreign goods. What would have been the result had he decided otherwise, during the interegnum between the termination of the war and the present time, or up to the period when the revenue laws for this Territory were passed by Congress. Your English ships, your Chinese ships, your Chilian and Sandwich Island ships would have cast anchor in the harbor of San Francisco, and their cargoes would have rotted there; or otherwise those cargoes would have been admitted into this Territory, carried across into other States, and no revenue whatever would have been derived from them. The people of this Territory needed those goods. The merchants paid these duties as they would have done under a law of Congress; as they do now under the revenue law passed during the last session. They were bound to pay duties by the general laws of the United States, which prohibit the introduction of foreign goods into any part of our territory without the payment of imposts. The people of California, however, paid the duty in the end. The miners, and the people who live throughout the country, who own land and have families-in short the whole population of California eventually paid those duties, not the merchants. The merchant, if he paid 20 per cent. upon his goods, charged the 20 per cent, and his profits besides. It was the people of California that paid this whole fund; and yet, at the same time, they have been furnished by Congress with no laws to govern them. As a necessary inference these duties belong to them. If Congress had furnished a Territorial Government, with officers and courts for the Territory of California, then the duties received here on foreign imports would have gone into the Treasury of the United States, and Congress, by law, would have appropriated them to defray the expenses of a Territorial Government. But, in the absence of law, these revenues belong to the people of California-to the people of the future State-to enable them to carry on their government, to erect their public buildings, and pay all the expenses incident to the organization of a State Government. General Riley has loaned out to the General Government a portion of these revenues If we are admitted as a State; if this Constitution is adopted by the people; if the proper men are sent to the Congress of the United States, they will insist upon this half million loaned by General Riley being returned to the people of California. The people paid the duties, and it belongs to them. The General Government neglected to provide them with the protection of laws-with any of the advantages afforded by a Territorial Government. In the absence of this action on the part of the home Government, it justly and properly belongs to them as a fund for the accomplishment of that which the General Government neglected to do. But, after all the discussion on this question, it comes down to the point which I conceive to be that upon which the House is now to decide. I do think that the report of the Committee in regard to the pay of the officers is a little too high. I admit the justice of the remarks made by the different gentlemen, that the cost of living is much higher here than in the United States; that the cost of labor is higher; and consequently I would pay them the wages that are paid throughout the country. We must not be governed by the wages paid throughout the United States-that is evident. The people of this Territory would say we had done injustice to these gentlemen if we were guided by that standard. The cost of living, the price of board, rent, lodging, &c., is much higher here than in the old States. I think that the people of California who will adopt this Constitution, as I trust they will, are willing to pay them good fair wages; but we must not, as has been said, set the example of extravagance here. Though we pay well, we should not squander the public funds. We should not lay ourselves liable to the imputation of having acted from motives which will create distrust with our constituents when we go home, by paying to ourselves and to the officers a higher amount than public opinion will justify; an imputation that would taint even the Constitution that may go from our hands to them. Although I would be liberal and pay them fair prices, yet, I think, with all deference to the opinions of the Committee, we shall be compelled to reduce the estimate. When we come to strike out and fill up the blanks, the Convention can fix upon the amount which they think best. I am in favor of fixing the highest salary at one ounce. It is the value of daily labor in the mines. It is all that can be got here. It is all that can be got ordinarily any where in the country. I trust the other officers will be paid very nearly the same. There is, as I understand,

but little difference in the duties performed; at any rate not such as to require any great difference in the salaries. It is usual in paying the officers of the older States to pay from the highest to the Lowest-those elected by the House as well as those appointed by its authority-about the same price. I think we should not vary from that rule.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT had a word to say to gentlemen who were in the habit of preaching economy. This House was spending day after day at an enormous expense in discussing questions which had no reference to its duties. He was an economist himself, and he thought the best economy would be for the Convention to confine itself to its legitimate business. He believed the estimate of salaries was reasonable enough, and he was prepared to vote for it.

Mr. GWIN said he would give his reasons why the motion of the gentleman from San Joaquin (Mr. Wozencraft,) should be adopted. In the first place, he did not think that this question as to General Riley's power, ever should have come up before this Convention. It was no part of the duty of members of this House to discuss it. Every word that had been said on the subject was out of order. It was to form a Constitution that this Convention was assembled-not to determine whether the present civil Governor of California had acted in accordance with instructions, or whether these instructions were in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. If General Riley has a fund out of which he is willing to pay the expenses of this Convention, the fact that he has that money, and is willing to advance it, is sufficient for this Convention. It is not necessary to go beyond that fact. Before the Convention adjourns, it should be stated by resolution that, if any amount he may advance out of that fund should involve him in difficulty, that the faith and honor of the people of California are pledged to protect him. What the delegates of this Convention say as to the legality of the manner in which that fund may have been collected or may be disposed of, can have no effect on the subject. He could assure gentlemen that if they were to vote here that General Riley had exceeded his powers or had not exceeded them, it would not make the slightest difference. It would be looked upon as absolutely nothing by those before whom this question will eventually come. The gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts,) was altogether mistaken in saying that the President of the United States had ever committed himself on the subject of these duties. He called upon him (Mr. Botts,) for his authority. It could not be found; it did not exist. For no President of the United States ever would have done, or sanctioned the doing of what General Riley has been forced by necessity to do. Look to the public documents and to this communication from the Governor, (which is one of the most important documents that has appeared for a long time in this country,) and if you will find a single word where the President of the United States has authorized the collection of these duties, you will find a question in the Congress of the United States infinitely more exciting than the removal of the deposites from the Bank of the United States, which convulsed this country some years ago; for the President has sworn strictly to execute the laws under the Constitution. There is not a man who lives, can pretend that any law of the United States has ever authorized the collection of these duties. But it was no sinecure upon those who collected them. He did not wish to be misunderstood on this question. There was no doubt but that the people of California claimed this fund, and had a right to it; and if justice was done them, they should have it.

Mr. BOTTS threw himself on the indulgence of the House to reply to some of the remarks which had been made. Treasury of the United States; that without an act of Congress, it could not be He contended that this money was in the paid out; that Congress had never appropriated it to pay the expenses of this civil Government. He had called upon his fellow-members to show him any law for it. When he asked for bread, they gave him stones. this subject was not properly before the House. He (Mr. Botts,) contended that Gentlemen asserted that General Riley himself, by this correspondence, in which he states that his instructions authorize him to make this use of the civil fund, had put the question directly before him, and compelled him to vote upon it. It was said we were not here to

discuss General Riley's action. Such was not the case. If a breach of the Constitution is involved in the payment of this money, it properly comes before the House in receiving it. He did not wish to convey any thing disrespectful by the comparison; but if an individual was to come to him and offer him the use of a hundred dollars which he had stolen, or frauduently obtained, and which fact was known to the receiver, would it be proper to take it? It became this Convention, on the same principle, to consider whether this fund was constitutionally obtained, as in the other case it became him to consider whether the money proffered was honestly gotten. He had taken an oath to abide by the Constitution of the United States, and to defend and adhere to it as a member of this Convention. A direct case of a violation of the Constitution was brought before him in this correspondence. Was he not bound by his solemn oath to protest against this fraud upon the people? He would take this money with the greatest pleasure, and say nothing about it, if gentlemen would only show him that it was not a violation of the Constitution. But what were the facts? The Congress of the United States was directly requested by the President of the United States in July last to take this matter into consideration, and form a government for California. The Congress of the United States solemnly deliberated on this subject, refused to form a government, and solemnly declared that they would make no appropriation for the sup port of this Territory. The gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) went into a long discussion to show what would have been the fatal consequences if this money had not been collected as it was, by imposing duties on the foreign cargoes that arrived in the ports of California. He (Mr. Botts) would take General Riley's own word for that. It was in the hands of a collecting officer of the Government, and therefore in the Treasury of the United States. It was obtained either legally or illegally; but it is in the Treasury of the United States, and cannot be paid out without special act of Congress. He was told by the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) to quiet his conscience about this matter-to submit to it; that the money was not collected by the authority of the President, or by any authority except that of necessity, and hence it was not in the Treasury of the United States. It was done altogether by the law of necessity. Now he (Mr. Botts) had sworn to support the laws of the United States, not the law of necessity. He had heard enough of that law. It is the tyrant's policy. Take that and the responsibility doctrine, put the two together, and the Constitution of the United States is not worth a cent. He trusted, in conclusion, that it would be the pleasure of gentlemen either to assist him in rejecting the use of this fund, or enlighten him so that he could receive it without violating the oath which he had taken to support the Constitution.

On motion, the House adjourned.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1849.

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Willey.

Journal of Saturday read and approved.

On motion, the report of the Finance Committee was taken up; the following resolution, submitted by Mr. WOZENCRAFT, being first in order:

Resolved, That the subjects placed before the Committee be so divided that the report be received, and the communication from the Governor be indefinitely postponed.

On motion of Mr. WOZENCRAFT, it was ordered that the vote be taken sepa. rately on the two clauses of the resolution.

The question being taken on the first clause of the resolution, it was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT moved that so much of the report as was included by the clause of his resolution just agreed to, be adopted, with the exception of the per diem allowance to the interpreter, and that that be increased to $28.