of the United States is to decide whether the money was legally collected or not. Do I understand the gentleman as denying that this money ought to be paid back to the merchants?

Mr. GWIN.

they will get it.

If the decision of the Supreme Court is in favor of the merchants

Mr. SHERWOOD. I ask the gentleman's opinion.

Mr. GWIN. The gentleman has no right to ask my opinion, and I shall give no opinion on the subject.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Then the gentleman flinches. I believe it was perfectly proper that this money should be collected as it was; that these goods should not have been admitted without paying duties. We are a portion of the people of the United States. I admit, as the gentleman states, that Congress should have given us a government. But Congress has neglected to give us a government, and this money has been collected, not from the merchants, but from the people. It is a false position that it has been collected from the merchants. The merchant has received back his twenty per cent; it is the people of the State who paid the tax, and to them of right it belongs. If the gentleman desires to introduce a further resolution, that these revenue laws should not have been passed by Congress unless the protection of government had been extended over us also, I perfectly agree with him. I agree, that a revenue law, taking money out of the pockets of the people and putting it into the Treasury of the United States, without establishing any territorial government for our protection, was wrong. But the resolution, so far as it goes, tells the truth. I cannot consent to the doctrine that this money should, upon any pretext, go back to the merchants. They have no right to one cent of it. The people have already paid it to them. The gentleman does not express any opinion upon that point. He leaves it to the Supreme Court. I claim that it belongs to the people, and cannot be taken out of their pockets and paid again into the pockets of the merchants.

Mr. Borrs. Mr. President: when Greek meets Greek then comes the tug of war. How glad I am, sir, to see the subtle gentleman from Sacramento floored in his own way by the old stager from the Halls of Congress. He knew how to open the debate when the gate had been shut down upon him. Gag laws will not answer for him; and he has given us all the advantage which he has taken himself. I thank him for it. I shall be in favor of the reconsideration of this question, because I want to see that vote recorded on its proper footing. I thought we had gone far enough in overstepping the proper bounds of a Convention after we had erected ourselves into a Legislature. We have passed legislative enact ments enough to make us a legislative body in addition to that of a Convention. And now this proposition amounts to this: that we shall erect ourselves into a court, and if not instruct our judges how they shall decide this question, absolutely decide it for them. Our action here reminds me of a little boy, who at the head of a company, desires to carry the colors, play the drum, and act the part of captain himself. We are a Convention, a Legislature, and now we are a Court. I shall vote against the resolution, Mr. President, because it decides a judicial question, with which we have nothing at all to do. It may be a question for the courts to decide whether this money belongs to the United States, to the mer chants who paid the duty, or to the people of California. That is purely a legal question. The gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) is anxious to obtain opinions on the subject. Does he want to know mine? If he does, I can tell him how he will get it. He can get any legal opinion from me by paying the money for it. That is all I have to say about the matter. This Convention has nothing to do with it; any decision made here would be ruled out of a court; it is totally incompetent to decide judicial questions.

Mr. TEFFT. I have a few words to say on this matter; but I do not regard it in the same light as the gentleman from Monterey. We are not deciding a ju. dicial question. It is a question of right between the people of California and the

Government of the United States, and we, on the part of the people, express our
opinion that this fund belongs to the people. There is a diversity of interests in
We have a perfect
this House as well as a diversity of opinions as to this fund.
right to say that, in our opinion, it belongs to the people. If the opinion is of no
force, and not binding upon any party, it can do no harm to express it. It may
do good; it may satisfy many who have doubts on their minds. If it can do no
harm, and can, by any possibility, do good, it is our duty to express it. I believe
this fund to be the property of the State of California.

Mr. GWIN then withdrew his motion for a reconsideration.

Mr. BOTTS offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That, as in the opinion of this House, the moneys collected on foreign goods in the ports of California, after the ratification of the treaty of peace with Mexico, belongs to the people of California, it ought to be paid over to the Treasurer of the State of California as soon as practicable after he is elected and qualified.

Mr. McCARVER. I believe that Congress has the control of this matter, and will give it to the State of California without any action on our part.

Mr. MCDOUGAL. When I offered the resolution which has been adopted, it was simply to get an expression of opinion of this body as to the real owners of this money collected in our ports since the treaty of peace, and before the revenue laws went into effect. There was a great deal of doubt on the subject, and it was simply to get the expression of this House that I offered the resolution. The previous question was passed without my knowledge. The gentleman (Mr. Gwin) complains of the gag law. After the vote was taken, my worthy friend (Mr. Gwin) jumps up and moves a reconsideration; makes his stump speech, and then withdraws it without allowing the House to say any thing more. I wonder if that is not a gag law with a vengeance!

Mr. President, I believe this money belongs of right to the people of California; and it was to get the opinion of this House as to that right, that I offered the reso. lution. After establishing that right, I consider that we can make such a dispo I shall therefore vote in favor of the resolu sition of it as we may deem proper.

tion of the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Botts.)

Mr. HALLECK. I was very sorry when I first heard that this subject was introduced into this House. I believe with many members who have spoken on the subject, that it is beyond our province; but when the House had determined to act upon it, and it was brought to me to say whether I thought in justice this money belongs to the people of California or not, I could but say that it does belong to them. But I think this latter resolution is an injudicious one. The first merely expresses an opinion on this question of right; this makes an actual disposition of the fund. I believe that that course, if not forbidden by orders from Washington, will be pursued; if forbidden, this resolution can have no effect, for no one will talk of taking the money by force. It might place the existing civil authority here in a very embarrassing position, either of disobeying the orders from Washington, or the wishes of this House. A communication has been laid before the House, explaining the position in which this fund is. Of what avail can it be to throw embarrassments in the way of the authorities which have this matter in hand?

Mr. GWIN. Do I understand the gentleman to say that he speaks here ex ca thedra, that if the present acting Executive of California does not receive instruc tions from the President of the United States or the Secretary of War, forbidding the payment of this money into the treasury of California, that he will pay it into the treasury of California under the order of the new Government?

Mr. HALLECK. I merely give it as my individual opinion. I am not autho rized to state what will be done, or what will not be done. I stated that I believed from what had already occurred on this matter, that that course would be pursued. I do not know that it will be done the moment this Government goes into operation; nor do I know what instructions will be received from Washington. I know

that instructions have been asked for. What will be done, I have no authority to say, I give my opinion based upon the facts which are before the whole House. I move that the original resolution and amendment be laid on the table.

Mr. BOTTS. I do not doubt at all that the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Halleck) speaks the opinions of the Executive; and it is also my opinion. I believe that the gentleman at the head of this government now, if he had a seat upon this floor, would vote for this resolution. I believe he thinks so; I believe he will do as a soldier ought to do. He will obey his orders from Washington, be they what they may. I believe he would do what the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Halleck) would not do. What are we told? We are told that, in the opinion of the gentleman from Monterey, this resolution is unnecessary, because the powers here will do this thing if the authorities of the United States do not order otherwise. We were told a little while ago, about the other resolution: Express your opinion, it may have some influence upon the authorities at Washington. I say then, express your opinion here that this money ought to be turned over to the treasury; it may have some influence upon the authorities at Washington. Mr. President, I thought the feathers would fly when this resolution came up. I am going to in sist upon it. I am going to do more. I call for the yeas and nays upon it. I want to see who it is that votes that this money belongs to the people of California, and are not willing to say that if it does it ought to be paid over to the Treasurer. I want to see who will say that this money, belonging to California, ought to be kept in the coffers of the United States.

Mr. HALLECK. I renew my motion to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. HASTINGS. If I am called upon to say whether I believe this money ought to be paid into the treasury of California, I must say that it ought to be. I have said it is ours; but, sir, if the motion is before the House to lay on the table, I shall sustain that motion. If this question is forced upon us, I am constrained to vote for the resolution; but I think it injudicious to compel the House to vote directly upon that question, and if I can avoid it I will do so. It appears to me that there is no indisposition to turn the money over to us; therefore I prefer not voting upon that subject. It would be liable to the inference that the authorities are unwilling to take that course. I voted for the resolution declaring that the money is ours. I believe there is every disposition to give it to us; and where the authorities are willing to pay the money into the treasury of the State, I am not willing to vote upon a resolution, the principle of which I agree with, but the passage of which by this House would convey the idea that there was not such willingness on the part of the authorities here.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT. For the very same reasons just adduced by the gentleman from Sacramento, (Mr. Hastings,) I shall vote against laying on the table, and for the adoption of the resolution. The concurrence of this House with the presumed future action of the existing civil government, would be as little as we could give. I am willing to vote in concurrence with that presumed action. It will be a further justification, if any is necessary, why this should be done.

Mr. McCARVER. I am in favor of laying this matter on the table. I come to my conclusions on somewhat different premises from my colleague. Those who hold this money in custody at present are governed by instructions. I do not wish to place the present Executive of the Territory, or those who have this money in charge, in the embarrassing attitude, either of disobeying their instructions from Washington, or disobeying the will of this Convention. I am decidedly of opinion that the money belongs to the people, as my colleague from Sacramento has expressed himself; and I believe that when the present authorities of California are satisfied that they can obey the wishes of the people without disobeying their instructions, that they will do so. Under these circumstances, I shall sustain the motion to lay on the table.

Mr. DIMMICK. I am at a loss to determine in what attitude we are now. I had supposed our legitimate purpose here was to form a Constitution for adoption

by the people; but, sir, I find that at one time we are upon a point of legislation; at another, we erect ourselves into a court; and now, from the proceedings before the House, it seems we are but a popular assemblage of the people, passing resolutions appropriate for such an assembly, but not appropriate for a deliberative body like this. What effect can the action of this body have in regard to resolu. tions of this kind? It is merely the opinions of men who have come here, on sub. jects upon which they are retained as lawyers in the defence of certain cases. It is drawing out an opinion here which they are giving as lawyers.

Mr. LIPPITT. In the absence of my friend from Monterey, (Mr. Botts,) I beg leave to make an explanation. The gentleman from Montery expresses no legal opinion whatever. He distinctly declines expressing any.

Mr. DIMMICK. I allude to no particular person. My remarks have reference to more than one. I was speaking of the uselessness of our spending the time of the people here upon questions which do not legitimately belong to us. Our de. cision can have no legal bearing upon this matter. We have already spent a great deal of time unnecessarily in debating questions of order. Most of the members are anxious to finish the business of the Convention and return to their homes. I trust that this resolution, and all other subjects foreign to our business, will be laid upon the table.

Mr. MOORE. I have merely to say that there has been a great deal of debate here for nothing. No man in the House doubts that the Government of the United States have collected money that they had no right to collect, and that the money is the hands of its officers. I can see no harm in claiming what belongs to the people of California.

The question being on Mr. Halleck's motion to lay the resolution on the tableMr. Borrs called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ELLIS. In voting for the original resolution, I merely understood it as expressing the opinion of this House that the moneys collected in the ports of Cali fornia after the treaty of peace, and before the revenue laws were extended here, belongs to the people of California. I do not consider that we have any right to instruct the Executive of this Territory as to what he shall do with that money. I shall therefore vote in favor of laying the resolution on the table.

The question was then taken, and decided in the affirmative, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Aram, Brown, Carrillo, Dimmick, Dominguez, Ellis, Hanks, Hill, Hoppe, Halleck, Hastings, Hollingsworth, Lippincott, Pedrorena, Pico, Rodriguez, Reid, Sutter, Snyder, Sherwood, Shannon, Stearns, Walker, Wozencraft-24.

NAYS.-Messrs. Botts, Gilbert, Gwin, Larkin, Lippitt, Moore, Price, President-8.

Mr. SHERWOOD submitted the following resolution, but objection being made to its consideration at this time, it was laid over:

Resolved, That a commission, consisting of John B. Weller and Peter H. Burnett, be appointed by this Convention, whose duty it shall be to prepare a Code of Laws for the government of California, to be submitted to the Legislature for its adoption, at the first session thereof: provided, that the whole expenses of said commission, including compensation of commissioners, clerk hire, office rent, stationery, &c., shall not exceed four thousand dollars, and the amount thereof to be fixed at the first session of the Legislature.

On motion of Mr. PRICE, the report of the Select Committee, appointed to receive designs for a "Seal for the State of California," was taken up.

Mr. PRICE submitted the following resolution :

Resolved, That the design for a Seal for the State of California, reported by the Committee, be accepted, and that the explanation be entered upon the journal of this House.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT submitted the following as an amendment to Mr. Price's resolution, and the question being taken thereon, it was rejected:

Resolved, That the Seal be amended by striking out the figures of the gold digger and the bear, and introducing instead bags of gold and bales of merchandise.

Mr. VALLEJO Submitted the following, as an amendment to Mr. Price's resolution :

Resolved, That the bear be taken out of the design for the Seal of California; or, if it do remain, that it be represented as made fast by a lazo in the hands of a Vaquero.

On motion, the Convention took a recess until 3, P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The consideration of the Report of the Select Committee, appointed to receive designs for a Seal for the State of California, was resumed; and, after debate, the question being taken on the resolution of Mr. Vallejo, it was rejected, ayes 16, noes 21.

The question recurring on Mr. Price's resolution. it was adopted. The expla nation of the design was ordered to be entered on the journal.

Mr. SHERWOOD moved that the "Seal" just adopted be the "Coat of Arms" of the State of California, and the motion was decided in the affirmative, 21 to 16. Mr. PRICE submitted the following, which was ordered to lie on the table :

Resolved, That Mr. Caleb Lyon be, and is hereby authorized, to superintend the engraving of the Seal for the State, and to furnish the same in the shortest possible time to the Secretary of this Convention, with the press and all necessary appendages; and that the sum of $1,000 be advanced to Mr. Lyon, in full compensation and payment for the design and seal.

Mr. LA GUERRA submitted a resolution, agreeably to previous notice, to reconsider the vote by which the Convention adopted the first section of Article II, on the Right of Suffrage," with a view to offer the following, as a substitute :

"Every white male citizen of the United States, and every male citizen of Mexico, (Indians, negroes, and descendants of negroes excepted,) who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at Queretaro, on the 30th day of May, 1848, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now, or may hereafter be authorized by law; but this section shall not be construed to prevent the Legislature from admitting such Indians to the elective franchise as they may in future deem capable thereof."

The resolution was laid over.

On motion, the consideration of the report of the Committee of the Whole on the Legislative Department, was resumed, the question being on Mr. Vermeule's motion to strike out section 22, and insert a substitute therefore.

The motion was decided in the affirmative, yeas 20, nays 12.

Mr. PRICE moved to amend section 23, by inserting at the close thereof, the following:

An accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of the public money shall be attached to and published with the laws, at every regular session of the Legislature.

The amendment was agreed to, and the section, as amended, adopted.

The amendments of the Committee of the Whole to section 24, were concurred

in, and the section, as amended, adopted.

Sections 25, 26, and 27, were adopted as reported by the Committee on the Constitution.

The amendments of the Committee of the Whole to section 28, were concurred in, and the section, as amended, was adopted.

Sections 29 and 30, were adopted as reported by the Committee on the Constitution.

On the question of concurring in the amendment of the Committee of the Whole to section 31, the yeas and nays were ordered, and resulted as follows:

YEAS.—Messrs. Aram, Botts, Brown, Carillo, Covarrubias, Crosby, Dent, De la Guerra, Dominguez, Ellis, Foster, Gilbert, Gwin, Hanks, Hoppe, Hobson, Halleck, Hastings, Jones, Larkin, Lippitt, Pedrorena, Price, Pico, Rodriguez, Reid, Shannon, Stearns, Sansevaine, Wozencraft, President-32.

NAYS.-Messrs. McDougal, Norton, Snyder, Sherwood, Vallejo-5.