Mr. DIMMICK differed from most of the gentlemen who had spoken on this question. He admitted that the spirit of the treaty of peace, if made in accordance with the Constitution of the United States, and not in violation thereof, is the strongest law that could be adduced; that it is stronger than any Constitution we can form here, and which the people might adopt. But upon looking at this treaty be found that it says that Mexican citizens shall be received at a suitable time to all the rights of citizens of the United States. What are the rights of citizens of the United States? Are we to admit them to rights superior to those which we enjoy ourselves? Does any one pretend to assert that we are under obligations to do this? Does it necessarily follow that the right of suffrage is one of these rights? He contended not. It is not necessarily the right of a citizen. He believed that the States in their sovereign capacity have a right to make their own regulations in respect to this matter. The right of suffrage is not possessed by all citizens; it is not a general right. We admit these Mexicans subject to the same restrictions to which American citizens are subject. We are not necessarily compelled to make Indians citizens, entitled to the elective franchise, when many of our own citizens in the United States are not entitled to such privilege. He (Mr. Dimmick) would go as far as any gentleman on this floor, to admit to all the privileges of citizenship such of them as are capable of understanding our institutions, and who are responsible and orderly citizens; but he would be very unwil ling to admit the wild Indian tribes of California to the right of suffrage. He did not think such a thing was ever contemplated by the treaty. Those Indians who have become civilized, and who were entitled by the Mexican Government to hold lands and pay taxes, are not objectionable. They should be allowed the elective franchise; and as for the mixed race, descended from the Indians and Spaniards, he certainly was in favor of permitting them to enjoy the right of suffrage as liberally as any American citizen. It is no objection to them that they have Indian blood in their veins. Some of the most honorable and distinguished families in Virginia are descended from the Indian race. It was the proudest boast on the floor of Congress of one of Virginia's greatest statesmen, that he had Indian blood in his veins. At the same time, it is absolutely necessary to embody in this Constitution such a restriction as will prevent the wild tribes from voting. He be lieved that these Indian tribes were never Mexican citizens in the full sense of the word; that it was necessary, according to Mexican law, for them to receive natu ralization papers before they could enjoy that privilege. He would like to ascertain the fact, whether the Mexican laws declared these Indians free. He was under the impression that they were held in some kind of peonage or servitude. He could not vote or act understandingly until he knew more of the Constitution and laws of Mexico.

Mr. GWIN said it was very important that this matter should not be misunderstood. The question raised by gentlemen as to the Constitution of the United States, is not applicable. Louisiana was purchased precisely as the United States purchased California. The very same words, in regard to citizenship, that you find in the treaty with Mexico, are in the treaty with France. Yet when Louisiana formed a State Constitution, she put a restriction upon the right of suffrage; she declared that only such and such persons should vote; and if she violated the Constitution of the United States, she did so according to this construction. In the old Constitution of Louisiana, it is provided, that no person shall be a representative who, at the time of his election, is not a free white male citizen of the United States, &c. So much for the representative; now for the voter. Recol. lect that Louisiana was purchased from France, and that all the rights were guarantied by treaty to the citizens of Louisiana that are now guarantied to the citi zens of California. There was a great mixture of population in Louisiana as there is here. The Constitution of that State says: "In all elections held by the people, every free white male, who has been two years a citizen of the United States, who has attained the age of twenty-one years, and resided in the State two

1

consecutive years next preceeding the election, and the last year thereof in the parish in which he offers to vote, shall have the right of voting," &c.

In regard to the property qualification, it should be strictly guarded. Gentlemen had heard of the celebrated Plaquemine vote. Vast numbers of votes were created there by buying up the public domain, and transferring it to parties who paid the taxes on it. They were then voters. It was certainly within the power of this Convention to impose such limitations as it thought expedient. He (Mr. Gwin) was disposed to adopt the suggestion of the gentleman from Los Angelos (Mr. Foster,) who proposed that those Indians, and those only, who had the right of suffrage in Mexico, should be entitled to the same privilege here.

On motion of Mr. SHERWOOD, the Committee, without taking the question, rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House then adjourned to 8 o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION, 8 O'CLOCK, P. M.

On motion, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dimmick in the chair, on the report of the Committee on the Constitution relative to the right of suffrage.

The consideration of Mr. Bott's amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gilbert was taken up as follows:

To insert after the word "Mexico," and before the word "who," the words "Indians not taxed, Africans and the descendants of Africans excepted."

Mr. DENT said it appeared to him, that if the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico destroyed the right of this House to prescribe the qualifications of the voters of California, a treaty could, upon the same principle, compel us to pass such regulations as if thought proper to prescribe. It could, in other words, destroy the sovereignty of the State. California makes application for admission into the Union on the same footing, and on the same conditions, with other States. She applies, as a sovereign and independent State, exercising undoubted control over matters of this character. No law that the Government of the United States has made, can interfere with her in the exercise of this right, without depriving her of her sovereignty. He could not believe that the Government of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this treaty, contemplated establishing the qualifications of voters here; he could not believe that it contemplated the destruction of the sovereignty of California.

Mr. JONES had been absent during the debate to.day, and had therefore been unable to follow the subject. According to his construction of the treaty, all those who were citizens of Mexico at the time of the adoption of that treaty, were to become citizens of the United States within one year, if they did not remain citizens of Mexico. By article 9th, it is provided that

"Mexicans now established in Territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the I mits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said Territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever. Those who shall prefer to remain in the said Territories, may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States."

They may either retain the title and rights of Mexican citizens, or acquire those of citizens of the United States. The treaty goes on to define the method by which they shall acquire the title and rights of citizens of the United States, in these words:

"But they shall be under the obligation to make their election within one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications of this treaty; and those who shall remain in the said Territories after the expiration of that year, without having declared their intention to retain the character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have elected to become citizens of the United States."

The clause might possibly be subject to two constructions. It might be said, that by choosing to become citizens of the United States they so became, or that they showed a disposition to become so. He (Mr. Jones) thought the 9th article

settled the question :

"The Mexicans who, in the Territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution; and in the meantime, shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction."

Now, the treaty provides, that they shall be incorporated into the Union, and be admitted at the proper time. They must make application for admission. You do not admit citizens into the Union, and makes them citizens of States by treaty. This is a union, not of men, but of States. It has been well said to-day, that a man might be a citizen of the United States, and still not have the right to vote. Congress that decides-it is the State. The Constitution gives to the States the It is not right to determine who shall be voters. portion of its citizens the right of voting. The State of Louisiana, until lately, The State of Virginia denies to a great did the same. The State of Massachusetts requires that a man shall pay a stated tax in order to have the right. He (Mr. Jones) held that the citizens of Mexico, as recognized by the treaty of peace and the Constitution of the United States, are fully represented on this floor, that they have, in accordance with their privilege, voted for members of this Convention, and are, therefore, as much represented as other American citizens; and that the Constitution has given to the Convention the right to declare what shall be the qualification of voters in this State.

Mr. HASTINGS asked whether the Mexican law had been obtained on this subject. Mr. JONES stated that he had the Constitutions of 1824 and 1836. The Constitution, however, of 1843, established different rights of Mexican citizens, and consequently would govern all previous laws.

Mr. MCCARVER could see nothing in the treaty to give this class of citizens the right of suffrage. This Convention was perfectly competent to allow or deny them that right whenever it thought proper. The usual mode is to require from

those who desire to become citizens the oath of allegiance.

Mr. TEFFT was in favor of Mr. Gilbert's amendment. He thought it covered the whole ground. It permitted all those persons to vote who enjoyed that privilege under the Mexican laws. Mexican law. He was quite satisfied this amendment would meet with the approVery few Indians were allowed to vote under bation of those interested in the matter.

Mr. HOPPE said that his reason for moving to strike out the words "not taxed," was, that the whole Indian race should be excluded from the elective franchise. Mr. SHERWOOD presumed the motion to insert would render a motion to strike out unnecessary. If the words were not inserted, they would be stricken out. Mr. WOZENCRAFT wished gentlemen to reflect, that there are Indians by descent, as well as full-blooded Indians. He supposed the majority of the members on this floor were not willing to deprive the descendants of Indians of the elective franchise. Many of the most distinguished officers of the Mexican Government are Indians by descent. At the same time, it would be impolitic to permit the full-blooded Indians who held property to vote. of course, be taxed. Capitalists could, for special purposes, make them purcha Those who held property, would, sers of property. He was, therefore, in favor of the amendment as first proposedto exclude all Indians.

Mr. BoTTS desired to have the sense of the House in regard to the words "not taxed." He was willing to accept that amendment, if it was the wish of the House; but not otherwise.

The CHAIR stated that the proper course would be, to take the question on the amendment as it originally stood, and then on the words "not taxed," as an additional amendment.

Mr. HOPPE remarked, that in the district of San Jose there were not less than two hundred Indians who would become taxable. Was it proper that they should vote? The consequences of such a provision would be most injurious.

Mr. GWIN said the gentleman from San Jose (Mr. Hoppe) could accomplish his object by withdrawing his amendment, until the vote was taken on the amendment of Mr. Botts.

Mr. NORIEGO desired to say a word in reply to the gentleman from San Jose, (Mr. Hoppe) who stated that there were at least two hundred Indians in that dis. trict, who would become taxable. He (Mr. Noriego) requested that gentleman to place himself in the position of one of those Indians. Suppose he had to pay an equal tax with all other persons, to sustain the expenses of the State? Would it not be most unfair to deprive him of equal privileges, when he had to bear an equal burden? The gentleman, he hoped, would readily perceive the great injustice of such a provision in the Constitution.

The question was then taken on the amendment offered by Mr. Botts, to Mr. Gilbert's amendment, and it was adopted.

The question then being on the motion to strike out the words "not taxed," Mr. DENT observed that it might be a weakness in him, but he had always entertained a peculiar deference for the Indians. They were the original proprie tors of the soil. From them we derived it, and from them we derived many of the blessings which we now enjoy. They have already been deprived of their original independence. Why should we pursue them, and drag them down to the level of slaves? It appeared to him that the Indians should enjoy the right of suf frage, and that they should not be classed with Africans. He hoped the amend ment of Mr. Gilbert, would remain without further alteration.

Mr. McCARVER would vote for striking out the clause allowing Indians who paid taxes the right to vote. He believed the privilege would be greatly abused. Many men who wished to carry an election, would pay the taxes of the ranche, and induce the Indians to vote as he directed. He was in favor of giving this class of people all the protection of our laws, but not the right of suffrage. As a general thing, the Indian is illiterate, and incompetent to judge of the questions presented in an election. If he pays taxes, he has an equivalent for it-the protection of the law. By giving him the right to vote, he would in nine cases out of ten, be placed in the power of crafty and designing men.

The question was then taken on the motion to strike out the words "not taxed," and decided in the affirmative-ayes, 25; noes, 15.

Mr. TEFFT said he could not in justice to his own feelings, allow the motion to pass, without expressing, with the gentleman from Monterey, (Mr. Dent) the deep sympathy which he felt for this unhappy race. It might be a prejudice that had grown with his growth, and strengthened with his strength; but from his earliest youth, he had felt something like a reverence for the Indian. He had ever admired their heroic deeds in defence of their aboriginal homes, their stoicism, their wild eloquence and uncompromising pride. He was much pleased, when a resident of Wisconsin, to see incorporated in the Constitution of that State, a provision allowing Indians the privilege of voting. He hoped this question would be considered calmly and dispassionately in all its bearings, and that gentlemen would not, by acting hastily, exclude all Indians, absolutely and entirely, from the right of suffrage. Were gentlemen aware, that, because a man is two-thirds Indian, he is not an Indian? Had they considered well the feeling that would go abroad among the native population of California, if injustice was done to this class of people? Has not injustice enough already been visited upon the Indian race? They have been driven back from the haunts of civilization into the wilderness

driven from one extremity of the land to the other; shall they now be driven into the waves of the Pacific? Shall we deprive them of the advantages of civilization? Shall we prohibit them from becoming civilized? Surely the prejudice against color does not extend so far! He did not desire that the Tulas, and other savage tribes should vote, but it is not difficult to draw a line of distinction between these wild Indians, and those who are accustomed to habits of civilization. considered that this native population was better entitled to the right of suffrage than he was, or a thousand others who came here but yesterday. He

Mr. MOORE preferred retaining the words "all free white male citizens." He could not think that any white man would object to this clause.

Mr. SHANNON moved further to amend the amendment of Mr. Gilbert, by striking out all after the word following, and inserting "Indians not taxed, Africans, and descendants of Africans excepted. His amendment was the same as that of Mr. Botts, but he proposed inserting it in a different place.

Mr. McCARVER said the gentleman was out of order. The House could not vote upon the same question twice. to incorporate these words in the section. The House by its vote has already refused

The question of order giving rise to discussion,

Mr. GILBERT said he thought that, in offering the amendment this morning, he had sufficiently explained the grounds upon which he did so. To illustrate his design more clearly, he would read again the 9th article of the treaty, [see Art. 9.] He contended that under this article, native Californians or Mexicans now established in California, have not yet been properly admitted into the United States by act of Congress. They are, no doubt, American citizens, entitled to all the rights and privileges of any other American citizens here, but he moved the amendment to prevent any difficulty that might arise at any future period under this article of the treaty. He particularly stated at the time, that he did not wish to draw any invidious distinctions as to who should be permitted to vote, whether Indians, Africans, or their descendants. But he contended that it was absolutely necessary to insert either the amendment He was quite willing to leave that to the Convention. which he proposed or something like it. He considered that "every white male citizen of the United States," was not sufficiently explicit, and did not cover the ground.

Mr. SHERWOOD disagreed with his friend from San Francisco (Mr. Gilbert) in regard to the construction which he put upon the right of citizenship. A person may be a citizen of the United States, formerly a citizen of Mexico, but not necessarily a citizen of the new State of California, so far as regards the right of voting. We are now attempting to establish the qualifications of voters, and we say that a great many good citizens of the United States shall not be voters. we not the same right to say that those who were previously citizens of Mexico, Have but who under the treaty became citizens of the United States, shall not vote? If we can debar those who have been previously citizens of the United Sates from this privilege, surely we can debar those who have been previously citizens of Mexico from the same privilege. by the States, to determine the qualifications of their voters. We do it in virtue of the right always exercised man be a resident so many months, he shall not be a voter. We say unless a property qualification. These restrictions would of course debar a great many We may make it a citizens of the United States from the elective franchise. Gentlemen will not undertake to say, that because a person was a citizen of Mexico previous to the treaty, and under the treaty comes into the United States and becomes a citizen thereof, he has a right to vote, no matter what may be the restrictions imposed upon other citizens of the State, or of the United States? In forming a new State, it is clear that we have a right to determine the qualifications of our voters; but we have no right to deprive any man of the common rights of citizenship. We cannot deprive the Indian, or even the free negro of the right to hold proper