2. And if at any time two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives shall think it necessary to revise or change this entire Constitution, they shall recommend to the electors, at the next election for members of the Legislature, to vote for or against a Convention; and if it shall appear that a majority of the electors voting at such election have voted in favor of calling a Convention, the Legislature shall, at its next session, provide by law for calling a Convention, to be holden within six months after the passage of such law, and such Convention shall consist of members not less in number than that of both branches of the Legislature.

On motion of Mr. WOZENCRAFT, the Committee then rose, reported Articles 6, 7, and 9, to the House with sundry amendments, and had leave to sit again. The House then, on motion of Mr. McDOUGAL, resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Botts in the Chair, on the report of the Committee on the Boundary.

A sufficient number of copies of the report not being prepared for the use of the members,

The Committee, on motion, rose and reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

Mr. GWIN moved to take up the bill of rights, as reported to the House, and commence its consideration.

Mr. NORTON thought it proper that the entire Constitution, as passed in Committee of the Whole, should be before the House, before any portion of it was taken up for final action.

Mr. HALLECK called attention to the fact that each article, as finally acted upon, must be given to the translator after a very careful revision, so that Spanish copies could be made for the use of the Spanish delegates at the same time with the English copies.

Mr. Borts hoped the bill of rights would not be taken up to-night. He moved that the House adjourn till 10 o'clock to-morrow.

Mr. GILBERT suggested that the bill of rights should have its first and second reading, which was merely formal.

Mr. NORTON hoped that the House would adjourn, in order to afford the Committee on the Constitution an opportunity of holding a meeting. The House then adjourned.

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1849.

In Convention. Prayer by the Rev. Padre Antonio Ramirez.
The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

The rules of the House were then amended, in pursuance of notice given by Messrs. Gwin and Jones.

Mr. DIMMICK, from the Committee on the Constitution, made a minority report on the subject of the Judiciary, which was read and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

On motion of Mr. Borrs, the Secretary was authorized to take such measures as he might deem proper to secure the papers and records of the Convention.

On motion of Mr. MCDOUGAL, the House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Lippitt in the Chair, on the report of the Committee on the Boundary.

The question being on the adoption of the report of the Committee, which proposes the following as the boundary, viz:

Commencing at the northeast corner of the State, at the intersection of the parallel of latitude forty-two degrees north with the parallel of longitude one hundred and sixteen degrees west, thence south upon and along that parallel of longitude to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, established by the treaty of peace ratified by the said Governments at Queretaro on the 30th day of May, 1848. thence west upon and along the said boundary line to the Pacific ocean; thence in a northerly direction following the course of the Pacific coast to the said parallel of fortytwo degrees of north latitude, extending one marine league into the sea from the southern to the northern boundary, and including all the bays, harbors, and islands adjacent to the said coast; and thence east from the said coast at latitude forty-two degrees north, upon and along that parallel of latitude to the place of beginning.

Mr. MCDOUGAL said: This question is so important that I would suggest some course of action, on the part of the Committee of the Whole, for the purpose of order and convenience in the despatch of business. I understand that there are a variety of opinions in relation to the proper boundary of this State. I therefore suggest that gentlemen who intend to introduce propositions on the subject present their various amendments. Let these amendments be copied by the Clerk, and copies furnished at the earliest practicable moment for the use of the members. I differ, myself, from the Committee that made this report, as to the line therein proposed. I shall therefore offer an amendment; and, as I presume others will come up, I hope the course which I have suggested will be pursued. For the present, without explaining the line which I propose as a boundary, I will simply present my amendment:

That the boundary of the State of California shall include all that tract of country from the 105th degree of longitude west from Greenwich to the Pacific coast, and from the 32d to the 42d degree of north latitude, known as the territory of California; also, the harbors, islands, and bays adjacent and along the Pacific coast; also, to extend three English miles into said Pacific ocean and along the coast thereof from the 32d to the 42d degree of latitude north; but if Congress should not grant or adopt the boundary herein set forth, then the boundary to be as follows, viz: commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d degree of north latitude, and of the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, and running south on the line of said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 38th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico as established by the treaty of May 30th, 1848, and at a point where the 116th degree of west longitude intersects said boundary line; thence running west and along said boundary line to the Pacific ocean, and extending therein three English miles; thence, running in a northeasterly direction and following the direction of the Pacific coast to the 42d degree of north latitude, to the place of beginning; also, all the islands, harbors, and bays along and adjacent to the Pacific coast.

Mr. SEMPLE. I desire to make a few remarks, which I think may be of some service to the House on this subject. I conceive that our object is not so much to define the particular line of boundary, provided it does not run west of the range of California mountains, known as the Sierra Nevada; that it is not important about the territory on the other side, but that the great object now is to secure the admission of California as a State into the Union. There may be other questions which involve great difficulty, connected with this boundary, in the Congress of the United States. It would therefore seem proper for California to define her northern and southern boundary, and leave her eastern boundary open, subject to the action of Congress, with a proviso, that Congress shall not extend the boundary west of the Sierra Nevada. It is evidently not desirable that the State of California should extend her territory further east than the Sierra Nevada. That is the great natural boundary; better than military fortifications, to secure us from any danger from the interior. Beyond that we do not desire; but if Congress think proper to include it, it would probably be our policy to abide by that decision. It seems to me that this course is the proper one. Let us establish our northern and southern lines, and our western line, including the bays along the coast, and lands lying between the crest of the Sierra Nevada and the Pacific, and leave the Eastern line to the discretion of Congress. It would be a great draw back to this country, to be left three or four years without a State Government, while Congress is debating our boundary. We must therefore, as a primary consideration, adopt such a course as will be least calculated is produce dissension in the halls of Congress. If we secure this valley lying between the Sierra Nevada and the Pacific it is all we desire. It is the limit formed by nature for this State. But if it is at all likely, after the Constitution is carried to Washington to be ratified, that a definite eastern boundary would delay our admission as a State, it is an important matter that we leave it to be settled there. Those great and exciting questions which have distracted Congress for years ought not to be brought up there by any course which we may pursue. This is the true policy of California. In almost all the other States, which have been admitted into the Union, the only material difficulty has been in regard to boundaries. It was the cause of the difficulty between Missouri and Iowa, Michigan and Ohio. In one instance, in the latter case, upon to settle the boundary line. This is the consequence of asking too much territory. If we ask for little, it seems to me that Congress would be willing to grant it; and we might insert a prothe military were called viso in our Constitution that, if Congress desires to add the territory east of the Sierra Nevada, hereafter that portion may be introduced with the consent of the Legislature of California. It is a very doubtful question what is the disposition of Congress in regard to our eastern boundary. But I think it should be left to the discretion of Congress. When settled by Congress, it will be as definitely settled as if we had fixed it in our Constitution. It is said by members of Congress that one portion of the Union refused to settle the question, in regard to California, at the last session, on principle; another portion as a point of honor. It would appear that each party is determined never to yield on this question. If we can avoid exciting these sectional prejudices, it will be greatly to our interest. It is highly desirable that we should have a regularly organized Government, and I think this is the best course to effect that cbject.

The CHAIR thought it desirable, before the House proceeded any further in this discussion, that every member should clearly understand the different eastern boundaries proposed by the report aud the amendment.

[The Chair then read the report and amendment in juxta-position.]

Mr. HALLECK. I have a proposition which I wish to offer as a substitute for the whole. I was not aware that the subject was to be brought up this morning; and I have drawn up my proposition very hastily here at my desk. It is as follows:

[Here Mr. HALLECK read a proposition with a proviso, but withdrew it to allow Mr. GWIN to submit the following, which he accepted as a portion of his amend ment, as it accomplished precisely the same object which he had in view.]

Mr. GWIN then offered the following amendment to the amendment, viz: The boundary of California shall be as follows: beginning at the point on the Pacific ocean south of San Diego, to be established by the Commissioners of the United States and Mexico, appointed under the treaty of 2d February, 1848, for running the boundary line between the territory of the. U. S. and Mexico, and thence running in an easterly direction on the line fixed by said Commissioners as the boundary to the Territory of New Mexico; thence northerly on the boundary line between New Mexico and California, as laid down on the "Map of Oregon and Upper California from the survey of J. C. Fremont, and other authorities, drawn by Charles Preuss, under the order of the Senate of the U. S., Washington city, 1848," to the 42d degree of north latitude; thence due west, on the boundary line between Oregon and California, to the Pacific ocean; thence southerly along the coast of the Pacific ocean, including the islands and bays belonging to California, to the place of beginning.

Mr. HALLECK then submitted his proviso, which he stated was taken nearly verbatim from the Constitution of Florida :

But the Legislature shall have power by the votes of two-thirds of both Houses to accede to such propositions as may be made by the Congress of the United States, upon the admission of the State of California into the national confederacy and Union, (if they shall be deemed just and reasonable,) to limit the eastern boundaries of the State to the Sierra Nevada, and a line drawn from some point in that range to some point of the Colorado or Gila rivers, and to organize, by Congress, a Territorial Government for that portion of California east of these boundaries, or to admit it into the Union as a distinct and separate State. And the Legislature shall make declaration of such assent by law.

Mr. GWIN accepted the proviso as an amendment to his amendment. He regarded this question of boundary as the most important that had to be settled in this Convention. He thought that more important results proceeded from it than from any other. He had devoted much attention to the subject of the boundary, knowing the difficulties which would arise in connexion with it. He had maps which he had laid before citizens of California who are well versed in this matter, and they informed him that the boundary which he proposed was that recognised by the Government of Mexico, and he believed it would be recognised by the Government of the United States, and in fact had been recognised by the official documents and maps published by order of Congress. He believed that we should in the first place fix the boundary definitely in this Constitution, so as not to leave open the question which had heretofore prevented California from having a government; but as this was a fair subject of negotiation between the two high contracting parties, and as Congress had a right to determine what our boundary should be, and might refuse to sanction the proposed boundary, then it was competent for Congress and the Legislature, under this proviso, to change it by their joint action. Any other course he thought would give rise to a great deal of difficulty in Congress.

If we include territory enough for several States, it is competent for the people and the State of California to divide it hereafter. This a privilege guarantied by the Constitution of the United States. He looked upon it as a matter of great importance that the boundary should include the entire territory, so that there could be no question hereafter. It was true this proposition embraced an immense unexplored region; that it brings in the Mormon settlement on the Salt Lake. But the Mormons have already applied for a government, and if they do not desire to remain in the State of California, it is very easy for them to form a separate government. He was informed that they were already breaking up, and would in a short time dissolve their association. At all events, we should not jeopard our admission into the Union by omitting them. If they desire it, they can have a government of their own.

The CHAIR stated that the question would be on the amendment of Mr. McDougal.

Mr. McCARVER. I am decidedly of opinion that it is the duty of this House to fix some permanent line as the boundary of California. It is the duty of the State of California and the United States, as the two high contracting parties, to fix the boundary; and I believe it is the duty of this Convention to designate some particular limits, so that the people may know where the boundary is. There has been much collision between the Government and the new Territories that have recently been admitted into the Union; not so much because they were claiming too great an extent of territory, but because the Government wished to shape it in a particular manner. We may find the same difficulty here. We may find an attempt on the part of the Government, if we leave this an open question, to make two States bordering on the Pacific. It is our duty to refuse to come into the Union as Iowa did, unless Congress accedes to the boundary which we deem pro

per to adopt. A similar difficulty may take place in California. The amendment just read Mr. Gwin's) fixes an indefinite boundary. I am of opinion that it is greatly too large, and that it leaves the boundary in an indefinite form, and in a condition that will hereafter produce agitation in Congress. It is not at all probable that the Government at home will demand such a boundary. It is true that the proviso which the gentleman accepts as a part of his proposition may have a tendency to quiet that difficulty, but it leaves the question open, to be settled hereafter by the Congress of the United States and the people of California in their legislative capacity. Is it not calculated to bring up the slavery question again? Here are two States possibly to be hereafter made out of California. There is certainly too much territory for one. The whole question as to slavery in one of these States is therefore to be brought up again. If we leave it for Congress to settle, they may divide the territory east and west instead of north and . south. I contend that we should clearly and definitely settle the question of slavery for that portion of California that we expect shall remain permanently the State of California, and should not extend our boundary beyond that part over which we intend to extend our laws.

Mr. SHANNON. The proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) including the entire boundary of the territory known as California, has been read. I have prepared here, sir, an amendment, which I shall offer at the proper time, after the present amendment and substitute have been disposed of. The amendment which I propose to offer leaves out a great portion of the territory of California as included within the proposition of the gentleman (Mr. Gwin ;) and as he has already claimed and received the favor of the House to read his amendment, I shall claim the same privilege. My amendment is in these words:

Resolved, That the boundary of the State of California, be the following: Commencing at the point where the one hundred and twentieth (120) parallel of longitude west from Greenwich intersects the forty-second degree of north latitude (forming the southern boundary of the Territory of Oregon;) thence following said one hundred and twentieth parallel, southerly, to its intersection with the thirty-eighth degree of north latitude; thence in a southeasterly direction to the point where the thirty-fifth degree of north latitude crosses the river Colorado; thence southerly, following high water mark on the east bank of said river, to the boundary line established by the late treaty between the United States and Mexico, dated at Queretaro, May 30th, 1848; thence westerly along and upon said line to Pacific ocean; thence following the course of said Pacific coast to the parallel of forty-two degrees north latitude, extending one marine league into the sea from said coast, and including all the bays, harbors, and islands adjacent to said coast, to said forty-second degree, and thence easterly along and upon said parallel of latitude to the place of beginning. The advantages of this line I deem very great; for the reason that it will include every prominent and valuable point in the territory; every point which is of any real value to the State, including also the river Colorado. and that point which will be so important at our southern extremity as a port of entry and depot for the trade carried on between the interior provinces of Mexico and the lower portion of the State of California. Including these points, and all the rest included in the boundary reported by the Committee, it possesses another advantage; it brings the State within reasonable limits-very nearly the same limits proposed by my colleague from Sacramento (Mr. McDougal;) that is-following the crest of the Sierra Nevada. But it makes a more distinct and perfect boundary line, and possesses the further advantage of giving regularity to the width of the State. If you observe, it follows nearly in a parallel line along the coast. It makes the territory nearly of an equal width at the northern and southern points. It follows the coast in its southeast bend, nearly in a parallel direction. As to the proposition now before the House, (Mr. Gwin's,) I cannot but regard it as one of the most objectionable that could possibly be adopted by this Convention. I consider that it is indispensably necessary that we should have more fixed limits to the new State of California. I believe, if we do not, it will occasion in the Congress of the United States a tremendous struggle. Leaving an immense extent of territory at the east, to be included or not at the discretion of Congress, it will certainly leave open a subject for contest. The slaveholding States of the South will undoubtedly strive their utmost to exclude as much of that territory as they can, and contract the limits of the new free State within the smallest possible bounds. They will naturally desire to leave open as large a tract of country as they can for the introduction of slavery hereafter. The Northern States will oppose it because that question is left open-the very difficulty which it is our policy to avoid. This is an immense territory which the gentleman proposes to include. It is very unwieldy and could never be subjected to the operation of our laws. A great portion of it can be of no advantage to us. A vast deal of it is an immense unexplored region-a barren waste. The northeastern portion of it is, as the gentleman states, settled now by a large population of people, whose religious tenets certainly form a great barrier to their introduction among the people of California. I know not upon what authority the gentleman states that these settlements are now breaking up-that therefore no difficulty can occur hereafter on that ground. Mr. Chairman, these settlements are only forming. They are day by day acquiring strength, and becoming more permanently fixed as a great community; they are rapidly increasing in wealth, population, and stability. They may, after some time, become an immense and unwiedly body, with numbers of elders striving for the control and influence of the sect; and when all these different influences become struggling against each other, they may break up. But now it is not the case, nor is it likely that it will ever be so; for they are not contracted within narrow bounds as they were in the United States. They have an immense extent of territory, which as

they divide they can extend themselves over, and form new settlements; and that, sir, I take it, will be the natural course of events with them. But the great difficulty with them is, that they have no representation in this Convention. How can you force them to come within the State of California? Will not the objection be a valid one, that they have no representation here. They will say we had no hand in forming this Constitution which you endeavor to force upon us, and we will not submit to it. It seems to me that such an objection would be most just and proper. And the gentleman sees it too, from the fact that he endeavors to get over the difficulty by suggesting the probability of their breaking up hereafter, and abandoning their settlements. But we are told that they are already leaving there in great numbers. Very well, sir. They are and have been for the last eighteen months; they have been coming to the gold mines and working hard; but when they do so, you almost invariably find that they return back to their homes, carrying with them a great portion of the wealth of Californla, to enrich them there and render their stability more certain. But even suppose they would quietly submit to the government which we are establishing here. Just imagine a member of the Assembly or of the Senate, starting from the Salt Lake settlement and traveling three or four months to reach the Legislature of California, and traveling three or four months back to reach his constituents. The only way in which I can see that we could get over that difficulty, would be to provide for a perpetual legislature here; otherwise it would be impossible for them ever to keep up their proper representation. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly oppose the introduction of any territory as a part of the State of California that would render the State so unwiedly as this; while, at the same time, I shall oppose any proposition that leaves out any important point which may be valuable to the State hereafter. Mr. HOPPE. I have not made up my mind fully, Mr. Chairman, whether it will be best to include the whole of California as laid down upon this map, (Fremont's,) or to have a fixed boundary defined; but from what knowledge I have of the country, and what I have seen, I think if there is any definite boundary to be made, that that proposed by the Committee is decidedly preferable to any other yet proposed-taking the longitude of 116. Any person who has been over the tract of country northeast knows that it is nothing but an isolated desert, until you get to the region of the Salt Lake. The land on this side of the desert is naturally separated from that on the other side, and should be kept so. On the western side of this boundary line, 116° W. longitude, there is a great deal of desirable land before you reach the base of the Sierra Nevada. It is supposed by many that it embraces a good deal of valuable mineral land; but if we make the Sierra Nevada the dividing ridge we have no protection from the territory beyond. Depredations will be committed within our limits. How will you reach the offenders by process, when all they have to do is to withdraw a short distance on the other side. They are then out of reach. We want some line beyond this range of mountains. My friend from Sacramento (Mr. Shannon) stated that he desired to include the Colorado, because there might be valuable seaports there. I think we should leave out the Colorado altogether. The Mormons have settled there, and if they can make a good seaport of it, it will be valuable to the interior, and be of decided advantage to us also in our southern trade. If the question comes up, unless my mind should be made up to include the whole of the territory of California, I shall vote in favor of 1160 west longitude as our eastern boundary line. I believe there is no other that would suit us so well; and I hope gentlemen will take its advantages into consideration.

Mr. Borrs. I entertain very different views on this subject from most of the gentlemen who have addressed the House. I think it is true, with my friend from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) that this is an exceedingly important question, and one that we should exercise due deliberation in considering. There is but one question, in my mind, in forming this Constitution, that I would condescend to consider with any reference to the views of Congress. It is the only one that they have a right to exercise any control over in this Constitution; and that question is contained in the clause now under consideration. All other provisions in our Constitution affect ourselves, and ourselves only, and we have a right to shape them as we think proper; but the question of boundary affects the interests of others whom Congress holds in charge. It is for this reason that I like so much the character of the amendment proposed a little while ago by the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Halleck,) leaving it to Congress to reduce the boundary to certain limits, if such course be deemed advisable. This is the only proper subject of negotiation between the people of California and the Congress of the United States. I say, then, with respect to this eastern line, I am willing after the Spanish fashion, to leave it to those buenos humbres in Congress and our Legislature to decide. Let us define the line; let us, upon our part, claim a line, but let us provide also that that line may be altered by those two high contracting parties. I would not insist upon two-thirds of the Assembly; I would desire that it should be decided by a majority of the Assembly of the State of California, together with a majority of the Congress of the United States-our Assembly against their Assembly. When these two agree, the line determined upon by them should be our eastern boundary. There is one point upon which I entertain very different views from most of the gentlemen on this floor; and that is, that we can be accommodated or benefited in the slightest degree by having a very extensive territory in California. This thing is better understood at home than here, and the difficulty will be in obtaining what we ought to desire-small and contracted limits. We claim a representation in the Senate of the United States equal to that of any other State in the Union. The question will be there, for how small a territory do you claim this power? Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, that the little State of Delaware, because of her size, is the m powerful State in the Union? Do you remember that her ratio of representation in the Sen