The ninth section, as reported by the Committee then came up, viz:

No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government, or any department thereof; nor shall any divorce be granted, otherwise than by due judicial proceedings, nor shall any lottery hereafter be authorized, or any sale of lottery tickets be allowed within this State.

Mr. SHANNON moved to strike out all after the word "thereof." He did not approve of mixing up in a bill of rights, lottery tickets, divorces, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government. He objected to the theory of creating a bill of rights to legislate on the future Government of this State. California is yet a Territory. While taking the first step in the first movement to form the first fundamental law of the new State, it would be improper to insert legislative enactments for her government, five, ten, or twenty years hence. He proposed the following (being the 20th section of the bill of rights of Iowa) as a substitute for the entire section:

The people have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.

MR. BOTTS suggested, instead of petitioning for the redress of grievances, that the people have a right to demand it. The bill of rights has already declared that all power is inherent in the people. Shall the people petition their own servants and public trustees? It is high time to discard the phraseology which belongs to the old system of petitioning a superior power. The same power that enables the people to govern themselves, surely gives them a right to remedy their grievances. Mr. ORD moved to amend the amendment by inserting instead thereof, the following as a substitute therefor:

The people have a right, in an orderly and peaceable manner, to assemble and consult upon the common good, give instructions to their representatives, and to request of the legislative body, by the way of addresses, petitions, or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs done them, and of the grievances they suffer.

Mr. ORD subsequently withdrew his amendment.

Mr. JONES moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Shannon, by substituting therefor the 20th section of the bill of rights of the Constitution of the State of Iowa, in the words following:

The people shall have the right freely to assemble together to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for redress of grievances.

Mr. Jones' amendment to the amendment of Mr. Shannon was agreed to, and as thus amended, the substitute for the original section was then adopted. On motion of Mr. GWIN, the Committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

On motion, the House then adjourned.

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1849.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by Rev. Senor Antonio Ramirez.

Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

On motion, the Report of the Select Committee on "Rules and Orders for the government of the Convention," was taken up and read.

Mr. GWIN moved to strike out the 30th rule, and to substitute therefor the 127th

rule of the House of Representatives of the United States, as follows:

No standing rule or order of the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice being given of the motion therefor. Nor shall any rule be suspended, except by a vote of at least two-thirds of the members present. Nor shall the order of business, as established by the House, be postponed or changed, except by a vote of atleast two thirds of the members present.

The question being taken, the motion was decided in the affirmative.
The report of the Committee, thus amended, was then adopted.

Mr. MOORE submitted the following, which was adopted:

Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed to report to this Convention, at as early a day as practicable, a plan for taking the enumeration of the inhabitants of the State of California.

The PRESIDENT appointed, as the Committee under the foregoing resolution, Messrs. Moore, Sutter, Hill, Ord, and Reid.

Mr. GWIN submitted the following, which, on motion of the same gentleman, was ordered to lie over:

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed by the President to report a plan to defray the expenses of the State Government, to be adopted by this Convention.

On motion, the Convention then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole. Mr. Lippett in the Chair.

The tenth section of the report of the Committee being under consideration, as follows:

Any citizen of this State who may hereafter be engaged, either directly or indirectly, in a duel, either as principal or accessory before the fact, shall forever be disqualified from holding any office under the Constitution and laws of this State.

Mr. SHERWOOD spoke in favor of the section, and Messrs. PRICE, MCCARVER, HASTINGS, SHANNON, and BorTs against it, on the ground that it was properly the subject of legislative action.

The question being taken on the section, it was rejected by a vote of 12 to 18. The eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth sections of the report were then adopted, as follows:

11. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.

12. The military shall be subordinate to the civil power. No standing army shall be kept in up by the State in time of peace, and in time of war no appropriation for a standing army shall be for a longer time than two years.

13. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, except in the manner prescribed by law.

Mr.MOORE submitted, as an additional section, the following, which was adopted: 14. As all men are entitled to equal political rights, representation should be apportioned according to population.

The question was then taken on the fourteenth section of the Committee's report, and it was adopted, viz:

14. No person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil action on mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud; and no person shall be imprisoned for a militia fine in time of peace.

Mr. HASTINGS submitted the following as an additional section:

15. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed.

Which was agreed to by a vote of 21 to 8.

The 15th section of the report of the Committee being under consideration, viz : Foreigners who are, or who may hereafter become, residents of this State, shall enjoy the same rights, in respect to the possession, enjoyment, and descent of property, as native-born citizens. Mr. JONES moved to substitute the word "inheritance" for the word "descent," and to insert the word "permanent" before the word "residents."

Mr. LARKIN moved to amend the amendment, by striking out the word "resi. dents," and inserting the word "citizen." The motion was decided in the negative. Mr. HILL moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Jones, by striking out the word "permanent" before the word "resident," and substituting therefor the words "bona fide," which was agreed to.

Mr. SEMPLE moved to strike out the entire section. The motion was decided in the negative, yeas 11, nays 25.

Mr. Jones' amendment, as amended, was then agreed to; and the section, as amended adopted.

moved to insert, as an additional section, the following:

involuntary servitude, unless for the punishment of crimes, shall ever be

Mr. CARVER moved to amend the amendment, by adding thereto the following:
Nor shall the introduction of free negroes, under indentures or otherwise, be allowed.

After debate as to the propriety of a division of the two questions, Mr. CARVER withdrew his amendment.

Mr. Shannon's amendment then being first in order, Mr. HALLECK, after debate in reference to the particular portion of the Constitution which the provision should appear in, moved that "a declaration against the introduction of slavery into California shall be inserted in the bill of rights," Mr. Shannon temporarily withdrawing his amendments to enable Mr. Halleck to make the motion.

The motion of Mr. Halleck was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. SHANNON then again submitted his amendment, and after further debate as to the expediency of submitting the question to the people in a separate article, the proposed section was unanimously adopted.

On motion, the Committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.

Mr WOZENCRAFT submitted the following, which was considered and adopted :

Resolved, That a Committee of three be appointed to receive proposals for the printing of the proceedings of this Convention in Spanish and English, with instructions to receive all bids, and report to the House.

The President appointed, as the Committee under this resolution, Messrs. Wozencraft, Price, and Hastings.

Mr. NORTON, from the Committee appointed to report "a plan or a portion of a plan for a State Constitution," made a further report in writing, being Article II of the proposed Constitution; which was read, and on motion referred to the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. BOTTS submitted a resolution, that when Spanish copies are ordered of any papers before the Convention, the Secretary shall be authorized to contract for the same, as in the case of English copies ordered under a previous resolution.

The President decided that the previous resolution referred to, embraced all necessary authority, and that the Secretary was already fully empowered by that resolution to contract for Spanish as well as English copies.

On motion, the Convention then adjourned.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1849.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Willey' Journal read and approved.

Mr. GWIN called for the consideration of his resolution offered yesterday, providing for the appointment of a committee to report the ways and means of defraying the expenses of the State Government which might be adopted by this Convention. A question as to the order of business arose, and it being decided that the resolution was in order,

Mr. GWIN said that his sole object in offering the resolution, was to collect necessary and important information. It was absolutely essential that the House should ascertain how the means of supporting this government after its adoption, are to be obtained. Other means must be provided to pay the expenses, than by taxing the people of California. The Government of the United States should bear the expenses of the State government for a number of years after its adoption. Fourteen of the thirty States of the Union-all the new States, except Texas-have had the benefit of territorial government. public money in sustaining territorial governments has been immense. The expenditure of never was a Territory, except California, that had not large appropriations to susThere tain it. When Louisiana was purchased from France, the first thing after the ratification of the treaty was a territorial government. The same was the case with Florida, a Territory purchased from Spain under very similar circumstances to this country. Florida had the benefit of twenty-four years territorial govern

ment, during which period she received forty millions of dollars. Mississippi had the benefit of seventeen years; Alabama nineteen; Louisiana (which was infinitely more capable of paying the expenses of a government) nine years; Tennessee six; Kentucky ten; Ohio three; Indiana sixteen; Illinois, nine with Indiana, and nine as a separate Territory, making eighteen; Michigan thirty-one; Missouri eighteen; Arkansas thirty-five, seventeen years alone, and eighteen in connexion with Louisiana and Missouri; Iowa eight, and Wisconsin twelve. The object of the resolution is, to report upon these facts, and if the statistics can be obtained here to ascertain how much has been paid out of the public treasury, to sustain these Territories, and to show that the Congress of the United States is bound to appropriate, out of the tax collected here, sufficient to support this State government, until other means can be obtained, without imposing onerous burdens upon the people. It is not intended that the resolution should, in any way, direct or control the future action of the House. The means of sustaining this government must be procured; and it is desirable, that all the information necessary to be had on the subject, should be obtained at the earliest practicable period.

Mr. HALLECK moved to amend the resolution, by striking out after the word "report," the words "a plan to defray the expenses," and to substitute therefor the words "on the ways and means of defraying the expenses."

The amendment was accepted by Mr. GwIN, and the resolution adopted.

The President appointed as said Committee, Messrs. Gwin, Hobson, and Stearns.

On motion of Mr. GwIN, the Convention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Lippitt in the Chair.

Mr. HASTINGS moved the following as an additional section :

As the true design of all punishment is to reform and not to exterminate mankind, death shall never be inflicted as a punishment for crime in this State.

Mr. HASTINGS. I do not know, sir, what favor this question may meet with here-whether it will have a single supporter but myself. It has, however, found many supporters at home, in the United States; I believe, in every State of the Union. And, sir, the time is fast approaching when this great principle will be engrafted into the laws of all the different States. My opinion is, that this new State should adopt it, and that it should be incorporated in the bill of rights. It is evident to my mind that we have not the right to take human life. I arrive at this conclusion from these premises: First, we have no rights, as a Government, other than those derived from the people themselves. If it be true, then, that the people have not that right, they cannot transfer it. What, as individuals of the community, they do not possess, they cannot transfer to the Government. No individual, sir, has the right to take human life, unless in self-defence. We acknowledge this as a starting point. It is conceded as a general principle. If an indi vidual is assailed by an enemy, and his life endangered, he slays his assailant. He is acquitted by the laws; he is justified by the community. But if he take the life of a fellow-man without such provocation, he cannot be pursued by his fellow-man, and, in cold blood, slain. No individual possesses this right, and hence no individual can transfer the right to a Government. Life is taken; the party is arraigned long after the act is committed. The Government, in cold blood, pursues, arrests, and murders the criminal. Why can the Government, the representative of individuals, do this, when the individuals themselves cannot do it ?when it is admitted that no right can be delegated by individuals which they do not possess?

But, sir, I will not detain the House. I merely wish an expression of opinion on the subject, and I hope the article will be adopted. Perhaps I am hoping against hope; yet I must say, that in practice, as well as in theory, the principle of taking human life, as a punishment for crime, is wrong. Our books are full of instances of innocent persons being executed, who are charged with the crime of murder, and, eventually, it is ascertained, entirely to the satisfaction of the law,

that the party executed was innocent. What remedy has the Government? What This occurs to me as a very forcible argument remedy has he? He is dead. why this system of punishment should never be introduced into any civilized community. Numerous instances might be given, but I take these general grounds as sufficient for my present purpose, which is to show that the principle is wrong. What are we to do with our crimiIt will be asked, what substitute I propose? nals? What are we to do with murderers, the highest grade of criminals? Sir, imprison them for life. Let them reform. Do not exterminate your fellow-men; reform them. It is asked, where are your prisons? I maintain that the absence of prisons does not make the principle right. It is our business to make these prisons. We shall soon have facilities for accomplishing this object. Then we can carry into practice that which I propose. Until then, we may be subject to some inconvenience. But is it not better that we should be subject to a temporary inconvenience, than to a permanent evil?

Let

Some would argue, undoubtedly, that the great object of punishment is to deter to prevent the commission of crime. That is true; it is one great object; but a greater one, or at least as great, is to reform. These are the two great objects to prevent the commission of crime, and to reform the criminal. The latter object is defeated if death be inflicted as a punishment. It may be argued that the infliction of death would deter to a greater extent, from the commission of crime, than imprisonment during life. Sir, I do not conceive this to be the case. every man put it to his own heart, and view the subject for himself, and should he ever be so unfortunate as to be convicted of murder, whether innocent or guilty, (for he may be convicted, although innocent,) I venture to say he would greatly prefer the punishment of death to imprisonment during life. I hope this article may be incorporated in the bill of rights. With these remarks, I submit it to the House.

Mr. McCARVER seconded the resolution, not because he believed the House would adopt it, or that it could be adopted here, but because he considered the question entitled to a fair consideration. If the gentleman (Mr. Hastings) would devise a plan by which criminals could be properly punished in this country, he would go with him; but as California is situated at present, it is impracticable. The construction of penitentiaries would be enormously burdensome. In Iowa prisons were built, but the State could not defray the expense, and was obliged to set the prisoners at liberty. As to the right to take human life, it is very questionable whether we have that right; but as it has been a practice ever since the world was created, perhaps it would be as well to let it rest awhile longer. It may be that it is a good old principle established by the experience of He would vote against the resolution, not because he was opposed to it, but because he considered it impracticable to accomplish the object under existing circumstances.

ages.

The question was then taken on the proposed section, and it was rejected.
Mr. ORD submitted the following as an additional section:

SEC. 16. That perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a republic, and shall not be allowed; nor shall any hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors, ever be conferred in this State.

Mr. SEMPLE could not permit the proposed section to pass without a few re marks. It involves a question of great importance-the equal rights of mankind It should be in the Constitution. Monopolies should be prohibited. No class of men should continue from generation to generation, to enjoy privileges given to them by the Legislature, which are not conferred under general law. The prin ciple of monopolies includes banking privileges. The Legislature should have no power to grant charters or privileges to certain men to the exclusion of others. He was opposed to the banking system, as not only contrary to republican principles, but injurious to the people.

Mr. HALLECK thought the subject properly came in another part of the Consti tution.