themselves, will gentlemen of the North attach the Wilmot proviso? The clause of the Constitution which guarantees to every State a republican form of government does not authorize Congress to interfere with the formation of a State government. To say that Congress has the power to pre, scribe, is to declare that the people shall not enact for themselves. The very proposition which they would prescribe, subverts the free principles of the Constitution. The idea that there is a right to control the creation of a State at all, is a power which assumes to alter, amend, or change. But this idea that this guarantee subjects the constitution of a State to the action of Congress, is in precise opposition to the principles on which the Constitution was formed. That was a guarantee to each State against all interference. It was a guarantee that each State that had a republican form of government should not be subject to the control of the other States."

For the reasons I have given, I conclude then, sir, that there is no existing government in California; that the right to institute one is inherent in the people; that, by the exercise of this right, they can alone prepare themselves for admission into the Confederacy of the United States; that until they become a member of the Union, Congress have no authority whatever to legislate for the people of California, and that, from the moment of its ratification, this Constitution be. comes the supreme law of the land, and the government it creates the only one that ought to be recognized in California. I shall therefore vote for the resolution Mr. HALLECK. I have no disposition to prolong this discussion, or reply in any way to the remarks of the gentleman from Monterey. I think we have enough else to do, without attempting to reconcile conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court, or to reconcile any conflicts of opinion between the present and the past Cabinets. If the instructions from the Secretary of State, Mr. Buchanan, conflict with the instruction of the Secretary of War., Mr. Marcy, let them reconcile the matter themselves; if there was a division of opinion in that Cabinet on this subject, let them settle it. If the instructions from Mr. Clayton and Mr. Crawford, officers of the present Cabinet, conflict with the opinions of Mr. Preston, as known in Congress, and there be a division in the present Cabinet, let them settle it. If General Riley, in his course here, has acted contrary to his instructions, let the powers that sent him here, and the powers that instructed him, hold him responsible for it. I have no desire at all to go into any discussion on that subject. If we attempt to discuss the question as to the correctness of the decisions of the Supreme Court, I think it will take us a long time to get at the bottom of it. In my mind, the question before the House narrows itself down to this point, and it is the point presented in the resolution of the Committee. Is it politic for us to set the wheels of the new Government in motion as speedily as possible after the ratification of the Constitution by the people, or is it politic for us to wait until it is ratified by Congress? I, for one, shall vote to put the new Government in operation as soon as may be convenient-the question of convenience to be decided hereafter. I am very certain (I give it only as my opinion) that no opposition will be made, either from Washington, or any party here, to that course.

Mr. JONES had certain doubts in his mind as to the unqualified right of any territory belonging to the government of the United States to establish a State Government and put it in operation without the sanction of the General Government. With regard to the municipal laws of the State, he thought that right could not be disputed, but he was not prepared to assert the absolute sovereignty, independent of any control or action on the part of the General Government, of a State claiming admission into the Union. This was a very important question, and one which he had not studied with that care which its importance demanded. He would like to bring out the views entertained on the subject by gentlemen better acquainted with it than himself, and for that purpose would propose a series of questions.

Mr. McCARVER quoted Mr. Calhoun's opinion, as follows:

Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political creed, that a people, in forming a Constitution, have the unconditional right to form and adopt the Government which they may think best calculated to secure their liberty, prosperity, and happiness; and in conformity thereto no other condition is imposed by the Federal Constitution on a State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that its Constitution shall be 'republican,' and that the imposition of any other

by Congress would not only be in violation of the Constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which our political sostem rests."

Mr. SNYDER. I will not say a great deal on this subject. I am no lawyer ; neither have I ever studied such questions. But there is one thing that I want to impress upon the minds of this Convention. What right had our forefathers to say that they were free and independent? What right had they to establish a repub lican government? If they, as a body of people, declared that they had certain rights and privileges, and founded a government upon those principles, have not the people of California the same right to make a State as a body of free people, and to enact such laws as they think will benefit them? You have been all talking here for a long time, and what does it amount to? You have not arrived at the point yet; nor will you arrive at it while you do nothing but talk from day to day, at the public expense. It would be much better for you to come to some conclusion in regard to this matter. In regard to State rights and the rights of the people, I would refer you to what our forefathers did. The question is, whether we have a right to go immediately into operation as a State government or not; and the conclusion I have come to is this: that if our forefathers had a right to declare themselves independent and establish thirteen States, I think we have a right to establish one.

Mr. LIPPITT. I believe in what my friend from Sacramento (Mr. Snyder) has said. But this very principle has been denied by our most eminent jurists for thirty or forty years. It has been denied in a decision, which has been quoted to us, by the Supreme Court of the United States. They have undertaken to say, that American citizens, when they leave the confines of their own State lose all the rights of American citizens; that they lose not only those rights, but the rights of freemen, because it is the right of freemen to make their own government, and they no longer possess that right. For the very reason that this principle has been denied, I call upon gentlemen not to come to a hasty decision upon this sub. ject. Time should be left for reflection, and we should if possible come to the right conclusion; for our action upon this subject will go forth to the people and to the Congress of the United States. I would also observe that the mover of the resolution is not in his seat; I believe he wishes to make some remarks upon it. I desire to make a few as to the legal question myself. Therefore, I move to lay it on the table for the present.

Mr. JONES. I think my friend from Sacramento (Mr. Snyder) entirely mistakes the object and intention of this resolution.

Mr. SNYDER. If I misunderstand the object and intention, I do not misunderstand the language of the resolution.

Mr. JONES submitted a series of written questions on the subject, and said: The object of these questions is to draw forth debate. I believe myself that the people of the territory have an undoubted right to exercise certain acts of authority in relation to their municipal Government; that in the absence of any action on the part of the General Government, they have a right to establish a munici pal Government, and pass such laws for their own protection as the Congress of the United States have neglected to pass. But as to the entire right of sovereignty, the absolute independence of the State, I consider that a very doubtful question. I do not wish to go at present into any discussion of abstract principles, but this may become a very important question. If Congress should refuse to give us the protection of government, I would be perhaps as willing as any man to establish a municipal Government here; but to declare ourselves independent of the Government of the United States-I would not go to such a length. I do not believe we have the right to declare ourselves wholly and totally independent of the Government of the United States. So far as regards our municipal laws, I think we have a right to decide for ourselves. This is the right which I wish to investigate. I am no ared to discuss the question myself. These are nice and delicate demand the attention which the gentleman from Monterey (Mr.

que

Botts) has devoted to them. They are questions which do not perhaps necessa rily demand our action, but which may become of immense importance hereafter. Above all things I must beg not to be understood as denying the right of the people of this territory to establish a State Government properly. I do not deny it; but I consider their entire and absolute independence at least question

able.

Mr. LIPPITT. I move to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. HASTINGS. I hope this resolution will not be laid on the table. If the object is to obtain further discussion on this subject, I do not see the necessity of that course. I think the minds of members are fully made up. I do not believe there are three members in this House who are opposed to the adoption of the resolution. Why not take the question now? Is it supposed that Congress will deny our right to establish a State Government here, if we make no unreasonable demands? We have made none as yet. Let us vote down the motion to lay on the table, and adopt the resolution at once.

Mr. LIPPITT. I do not wish to lose time, and therefore I propose to take up something else for the present.

Mr. McCARVER. I am in favor of disposing of this resolution now. That we can do it I have no doubt. My own mind is satisfied on the subject, and I believe there will be no opposition to the resolution. The arguments have been very good, as to our right to establish a State Government. I believe there is not a member here who is not willing to settle this question at once, and decide that the government shall go into immediate effect upon the ratification of this Constitution by the people. I believe we are all sent here to form a government, not to be indefinitely postponed, but to go into immediate effect.

Mr. LIPPITT. I do not see what we can gain by refusing to lay it on the table. It can be taken up at any time. I only ask an hour or two for consideration. It may become a matter of vital importance, that not only this resolution should appear on the records of the Convention, but that the reasons for it should also appear; that it may be known upon what grounds we, the representatives of the people, decided this question. The chairman of the Committee gives as a reason for desiring this action on the part of the House, that the Committee are at a loss to decide without advice; that there is a division of opinion among them as to whether this Constitution should go into effect when the people choose, or whether they should wait until Congress chooses. The question of the sovereignty of the people is raised by this report of the Committee. It is precisely on that point that the Committee come into the House and ask for instructions. I say now, sir, that it is not only absolutely essential that we should give them these instructions, but that we should put it in the proper ground, and let the Government of the United States and General Riley, or any other general or military commandant, or corporal, know that the representatives of the people in this Convention have solemnly declared not only that this Constitution shall go into effect immediately on its adoption, but that they consider they have the right to say so; to fix themselves the time when this Constitution shall become the law of the land, in virtue of the sovereignty that resides in them. That, Mr. President, is the reason why I consider that it is extremely desirable that this motion to lay on the table should prevail. Who can say what course General Riley is instructed to take? Who can say what course his successor in office may take? Suppose, at the time fixed by us for the going into operation of this Constitution, that there should be an opinion prevailing here that the people of California have not the right, and, suppose the officer in authority should take the ground taken by the Supreme Court and by the proclamation of General Riley himself; (and certainly the supposition is not unreasonable ;) I say we are bound to suppose the military government here will take the view already given to the world in that proclamation, and given by the Supreme Court of the United States, and laid down by our eminent jurists. Sup. pose, then, when the question comes up, it is thought inexpedient, or for some

reason or other, they do not wish to have this Constitution go into effect, and they deny the power of this Convention to pass such a resolution, what will they do? They may tell you, gentlemen excuse us; we are the Government of California until Congress, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court and according to the decisions of the most eminent jurists, admits you as a State into the Union. We cannot allow you, under these decisions, to govern yourselves without the sanction of Congress; you cannot put your Constitution into effect. But, sir, unless this Convention sends to the people of California and of the world, not only the resolution and decision that her Constitution shall go into effect at such a time, but also gives the reasons for it, all of which will be published, I doubt very much whether any American military commandant, be he general or corporal, will dare to take the responsibility, without throwing himself upon the Government at Washington. It will be entirely another matter if we, the representatives of the people, solemnly take it upon ourselves, as freeinen, to decide this question for ourselves, in spite of the decisions of the Supreme Court, in spite of the proclamation of General Riley and of the President of the United States and the opinions of certain jurists. It is an extremely delicate question, and requires the greatest caution. I therefore hope the motion to lay it on the table will prevail. In the meantime the House may take up something else.

Mr. HILL. I hope if any gentleman desires to speak, that this question will not be forced.

Mr. JONES. I would like to make one remark as a suggestion before the question is taken. This I think is more a question of expediency with us than of ab stract right. We all know the opinions of members of Congress on this subject; and we all know that, while sectional questions dividing the North and the South were discussed, and while the power of Congress over the territories was imputed by the one to the Constitution, and by the other to the treaty-making power, that there was scarcely a single member upon the floor of Congress who did not absolutely assert that Congress had the right of sovereignty over the territories to some extent. It was a matter upon which there was no doubt. Now, I say, that while we have carefully avoided in this Constitution the introduction of a single article which would give Congress a pretext for delaying its sanction to the Constitution, we should not now, by the broad assertion of some right of independence and of sovereignty, which will not be admitted on the floor of Congress, delay the admission of our State for years to come. I am most anxious to see our government go into operation immediately. But can we not, by some more cautious wording of this resolution, avoid the assertion of independent sovereignty? It is not probable that Congress will acknowledge this right to that extent. This is a great question of expediency. I did not come here to argue abstract principles of right; but having so far most carefully avoided any course which would give a pretext to Congress to delay our admission, I think we should not now jeopard our own interests by the assertion of an important principle, which is at least a matter of doubt. I am sorry to see the extent to which sectional feeling has been carried in Congress on the subject of slavery; but that will be the great source of all difficulty. A government will have to be established in New Mexico. One of the two great parties on this question will take advantage of this fact to delay our admission, in case of any pretext given in this Constitution, until that territorial government is established. It is therefore expedient that we look at this question in every point of view before we come to a decision.

Mr. McCARVER. If I understand this question, we go with a Constitution that does not claim this absolute and independent sovereignty. We only ask to exercise the functions of a State. If the Government refuse to admit us into the Union as one of the Confederacy, we may then exercise the sovereignty of an independent State. We do not now claim the right to collect the revenue of the Union, nor to regulate post-offices, nor to exercise any of the functions which

have been ceded by the thirteen States to the General Government; we only claim to exercise the rights and powers of a State.

Mr. LIPPITT. I do not rise to discuss this question. I wish merely to call for the yeas and nays, and to state the reasons why I rise for that purpose. I have already said that I only ask that the resolution be laid on the table, in order to express more fully the views of the representatives of the people of California; to have these principles more fully illustrated; that the reasons why we adopted the resolution should be more clearly laid down. If the Convention refuse to lay on the table, the effect I conceive will be, that it will naturally be presumed by the people that we wish to shirk this question which has been decided against us.

Mr. MCDOUGAL. I would simply make one remark; that in voting to lay this matter on the table, I do not wish to shirk any responsibility which the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Lippitt) has charged upon those who think proper to op. pose his motion.

Mr. LIPPITT. The gentleman misunderstands my meaning. I meant to say that if we refused to give this subject a full and deliberate consideration, it would seem to the people as if the Convention had endeavored to shirk the question. I do not charge such a motive upon any gentleman here.

Mr. MCDOUGAL. I understand, then, that an inference would be drawn; that it would seem to the people as if we desired to shirk the responsibility. This is a question which I have not taken into consideration, and I do not intend to speak upon it; but I desire to state, that so far as I am concerned, I am ready, in recording my vote, to stand any responsibility which it may bring upon me.

Mr. HALLECK. We are all perfectly willing to vote without any further speeches.

The question was then taken on Mr. Lippitt's motion to lay the resolution on the table, and decided in the negative, by ayes 18, noes 20.

Mr. LIPPITT then moved a recess until three o'clock, which was agreed to.

AFTERNOON SESSION, 3 O'CLOCK, p. M.

Mr. SHERWOOD asked if the resolution which was last up, was now the order of proceeding.

The CHAIR stated that it was.

Mr. SHERWOOD was informed by several gentlemen who intended addressing the House on this subject, that they were willing to reserve their arguments until the subject came up in the schedule.

Mr. LIPPITT gave notice that if the question was taken now without debate, he would offer a resolution on the subject when it should come up again for conside. ration.

The question was then taken, and the resolution was adopted unanimously. Mr. WOZENCRAFT, from the Committee on Printing, asked for instructions in regard to printing the Constitution.

Mr. GWIN moved that the Committee be instructed to make the necessary arrangements to have the Constitution and accompanying documents printed, so as to have them laid before the people.

Mr. SHERWOOD Suggested that the bidders should specify the time when the printed copies would be ready.

Mr. GILBERT moved that the Committee be instructed to report on Monday morning; which motion was agreed to.

On motion of Mr. HALLECK, the Bill of Rights, as reported by the Committee of the Whole, was then taken up for consideration.

The first section, as reported, was adopted.

The question being on concurring with the Committee in striking out the second section

Mr. LIPPITT asked why that section