ty. It is a right that appertains to all freemen. But we can say who shall and who shall not elect the officers of the government. We have a right to govern the State. Will gentlemen undertake to say that the wild Indians, who never heard of a Government or a Legislature, and who might possibly have been by the laws of Mexico, entitled to vote, should be entitled to privileges under our laws, superior to those enjoyed by the citizens of our own Union ?-that because they are admit. ted under a treaty of peace, they shall not be subject to restrictions in regard to the elective franchise which we impose upon ourselves? Or that we have not the right to impose such additional restrictions upon them as we think proper? He hoped gentlemen would see how preposterous the idea was without further discussion of the question.

He objected to the amendment: "Indians, Africans, and the descendants of Africans, excepted." What is meant by the descendant of an Indian, or the descendant of a negro? Did the gentleman who offered the proposition mean to say that a man who has the least taint of Indian or negro blood shall not vote? He had never heard such a doctrine in the States. The word descendant means a person who descends in regular line. He may be of mixed blood or full blood. There is nothing specific in the term "descendant." He (Mr. Sherwood) did not believe the Committee could adopt any better form than the words "white male citizen." If the word "descendant" is more definite than "white," he would like to know in what particular. We do not debar the Spanish, or the French, or the Italians from voting by the use of this word. They are darker than the AngloSaxon race, but they are white men. He was in favor of the distinct expression, "every white male citizen," as used in the thirty different Constitutions of the Union.

66

Mr. SEMPLE was of opinion that every Constitution in the States makes some provision of this kind. He had a very distinct recollection of the words, "negroes, mulattoes, and Indians excepted," in the Constitution of Kentucky." They had Indians there as well as here, and they were invariably considered free. They never had been made slaves of, nor had they ever been allowed the privilege of voting. He would suggest the same principle here. He was opposed to taxing them without giving them all the rights enjoyed by others. It is one of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence, that taxation and represen. tation shall go together. If, then, we levy a tax on the Indian, either a capitation tax or a tax on his property, he should by all means be represented. He (Mr. Semple) believed that, although we might exclude the native Indian, it was beyond the reach of this Convention to exclude those who might be descended from the Indian race. He saw no better way of settling the difficulty than by adopting the word "white" before male citizen, which is sufficiently explained in the courts of the United States.

Mr. GILBERT remarked that in so far as the word "descendant" was concerned, to which the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Sherwood) objected, he wished it understood that it was not a portion of his amendment; and he agreed with that gentleman that if we strike out the whole of this section as it stands, it is not necessary to insert in the proposed section the words of the gentleman from Sacramento (Mr. Shannon.) It would certainly be of no importance, if this sec tion was to stand "every white male citizen of the United States," to insert Indians, Africans, and the descendants of Africans excepted." Those words were altogether unnecessary. His (Mr. Gilbert's) intention, in proposing an amendment to the clause, was to prevent any question arising hereafter, from the wording of the treaty of peace, by which Mexican citizens might be debarred the pri vilege of voting. He objected to the words "white male citizen" on the ground that they were not sufficiently explicit. They might be very well understood in our courts, but it was necessary that every citizen should understand the provisions of this Constitution, without going into court to have them explained. It

was only by adopting his amendment that the words proposed by Mr. Shannon became important. Without it, it would be nonsense to adopt them. If his (Mr. Gilbert's) amendment was not adopted, the words of the report ought to stand.

Mr. HOPPE moved to strike out the words "not taxed" from the proposed amend. ment.

The CHAIR stated that the question having already been taken and decided on that portion of the amendment, it could not be brought up again. It was, therefore, out of order, and not before the House.

Mr. SHANNON insisted upon his right to have the question taken on the amend. ment as a whole.

The CHAIR decided that the words "not taxed" were out of order.

The question was then taken on Mr. Shannon's amendment, modified in accor. dance with the decision of the Chair, and decided in the negative.

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. Gilbert,

Mr. LARKIN proposed to insert "Indians and Africans, and the descendants of Africans to the fourth generation excepted."

Mr. BOTTS cordially approved of the proposition. It would make certain that which would probably be uncertain. Even in our courts there is some uncertainty on this subject. He thought it well that this assembly should determine the meaning of any doubtful term which it might use.

Mr. SHERWOOD was of opinion that no other construction could be placed upon the word white than this: if an Indian is more than half Indian, he is an Indian; if he is more than half white, he is white. With respect to Africans, he believed that all after the fourth generation are considered white in most of the States. Mr. MOORE asked who was to determine, on the day of election, the various grades of color?

The question recurring on Mr. Gilbert's amendment, as amended, it was adopted-ayes 20, noes 20-the Chairman giving the casting vote in the affirmative. The question then being on the filling up of the blanks, Mr. NORTON moved to insert "six" in the first blank. Mr. SEMPLE moved the word "twelve."

question first on the highest number.

He believed the rule was to put the

Mr. CROSBY suggested that the next election ought to be embraced in this section.

Mr. ELLIS remarked that there would be very few to vote if twelve months was the time fixed upon.

Mr. SEMPLE said it was well known to almost every member of this Convention that there are a vast number of persons who come to California for no other object than to remain one working season and dig gold. They are in the mines, and expect to remain but a single season. nual election comes on. These persons, who have only been in the country three About the 1st of November your anor four months previous to that date, who are on the very eve of leaving California, are qualified voters. Is this just towards the permanent population of California? Is it politic to permit persons to vote who come here with the avowed inten. tion of digging gold to carry it away and spend their wealth elsewhere? interest have they in the welfare of the State? All persons who are residents of What California, no matter when they arrived, at the time of the reception of the Con stitution, are, of course, and should be, entitled to vote. The provision, therefore, making twelve months residence necessary, would not affect a single person who was here previous to the adoption of the Constitution. It would only operate upon those who come into the country after the adoption of the Constitution, and become a permanent portion of the population. It seemed to him that twelve months was short enough a period to entitle them to the privilege of voting. If his own brother was to come here, he would be unwilling to see him participate in the elections any sooner. shall vote unless he is willing to remain in the country twelve months. It is a necessary protection to the ballot-box that no man

Mr. HALLECK would merely call attention to a single point. This section of the Constitution, as reported, does not affect the first election. It has reference only to the second and those that follow. The time of residence necessary for the first election must be defined in the schedule, not in the body of the Constitution.

Mr. GWIN was astonished that the gentleman from Sonoma, (Mr. Semple,) should insist upon twelve months. There was not a State in the Union that re. quired so long a time. The gentleman is in favor of every man who is now a citizen of California voting on the Constitution, but he excludes hereafter all persons who may become citizens, because they are not citizens for twelve months. He (Mr. Gwin) had heard much said about persons after acquiring wealth, returning to spend it elsewhere; but he believed it was seldom the case. People gene. rally invest their money where they earn it. Every inducement should be held out to emigrants to remain here, and one of the strongest inducements would be the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Where thousands come, it is common to see but very few leaving. He would vote for three, four, five, or six months. He thought six months ought to be the limit, but he would prefer three.

Mr. HASTINGS said that two considerations were involved in the proposition of the gentleman from Sonoma (Mr. Semple.) The first seemed to be, that in forming this Constitution, we return it to the same people who elected us as delegates. Are we to declare in the Constitution, that they shall not vote upon its adoption? Most members on this floor occupy their seats in virtue of votes given by constituents, who have resided here less than three months. When this Constitution comes before them for their ratification, they are not entitled to vote. relived from this difficulty, because there is to be inserted in some other portion But we are of the Constitution a clause saying, that the people are entitled to vote at the first election. Will it not be argued, as it was when the proposition to appoint a committee for the purpose of reporting a schedule was made, that the schedule in which this provision is to be made, is a portion of the Constitution? We cannot say twelve months here and two months there. itself, the words, "after the first election." He therefore submitted a motion to We should insert in this article that effect. Such limitation of time could then be made as the House thought proper.

Mr. DENT said it appeared to him, that Gen Riley had settled this matter in his proclamation. All who are privileged to vote at the first election are made known in the words of that proclamation. This Constitution will not be a law until it first receives the sanction of a majority of the people, and is ratified by Congress.

The question was then taken on filling the first blank with the words, "twelve months," and decided in the negative, 15 to 22.

Mr. BOTTS proposed "nine months." Rejected, 13 to 24.

Mr. NORTON moved "six months." Adopted, yeas 30, noes not counted.

Mr. NORTON moved to fill the second blank (in relation to a residence in the county) with the words "thirty days."

Mr. HILL moved "ninety days." Rejected.

The question was then taken on Mr. Norton's motion and it was decided in the affirmative.

On motion of Mr. HOPPE the first section was further amended by inserting after the word " county," 66 or district."

The first section, as amended, was then adoped, by yeas 26, noes 10, as follows: SEC. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, and every male citizen of Mexico, (Indians, Africans, and descendants of Africans 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, of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the State six months next preceding the election, and the county or district in which he claims his vote, thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now, or hereafter may be, authorized by law.

The following sections were then adopted without debate, viz:

2. Electors shall, in all cases except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest on the days of elections, during their attendance at such election, going to, and returning therefrom.

3. No elector shall be obliged to perform militia duty on the day of election, except in time of war or public danger.

The question then coming up on the fourth section of the Committee's report, Mr. GILBERT moved the following:

4. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or absence while employed in the service of the United States; nor while engaged in the navigation of the waters of this State, or of the United States, or of the high seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor while kept at any almshouse, or other asylum, at public expense; nor while confined in any public prison.

The amendment was rejected without debate, and the section of the Committee adopted, viz:

4. No person in the military, naval, or marine service of the United States, shall be considered a resident of this State by being stationed in any garrison, barrack, or military or naval place or station within this State.

Mr. Borrs moved to amend the report of the Committee, by inserting between the 4th and 5th sections the following:

No person living in California, who has left his family elsewhere, shall be considered as a resident of California.

Mr. HALLECK wished to know if the persons, to whom the gentleman had reference, were not included under the head of "idiots and insane persons," in the 5th section.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT thought it rather unfair that a gentleman who enjoyed the blessing of having his family here, should be so hard upon those who, like him. self, had left theirs at home. The gentleman (Mr. Botts) ought to be content with his good fortune, without compelling others to take a trip home to the United States for their families before they could enjoy the privilege of electors, at the risk of losing it after all by absence from the State.

Mr. Borrs had really supposed that there would not be a dissenting voice to this very plain proposition. As to the difficulty of the gentleman from San Joaquin, (Mr. Wozencraft,) he would answer him as others had been answered-we will provide for him in the schedule. In serious earnest, the object of the amend ment was to have some guarantee, that persons who are to assist in making our laws will remain in the country long enough to be subject to the operation of those laws. He did not wish any man to have a vote in the formation of a law, and then leave the country to let that law operate on others. The peculiar condition of California renders such a provision most desirable. There should be a community of interest among those who are privileged to vote. The fact that people leave their families elsewhere when they come here, is some evidence, at least, that they do not intend to remain.

Mr. SUTTER protested against this proposition. It would be very hard, if he should, after his long residence here, be deprived of his right to vote because his family was elsewhere.

Mr. ELLIS thought one more provision ought to be introduced-that all single men should be married in three months.

The question was then taken on amending the report, by inserting the additional section, as proposed, and the amendment was rejected.

The question being on the 5th section reported by the Committee, it was adopted, as follows:

5. No idiot or insane person, or persons convicted of any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privilege of an elector.

Mr. PRICE moved to insert the following between the 5th and 6th sections: Laws shall be made for ascertaining, by proper proofs, the citizens who shall be entitled to the right of suffrage hereby established.

The question being taken, it was rejected.

The question was then taken on the last section of the report of the Committee, and it was carried, viz :

6. All elections by the people shall be by ballot.

Thereupon, on motion, the Committee rose and reported the "right of suf frage" to the House with sundry amendments.

On motion, the report was received, and ordered to lie on the table.
On motion, the House adjourned.

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1849.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by Rev. S. H. Willey. The journal of yesterday was read, amended, and approved.

Mr. GWIN submitted certain maps of California, which were referred to the Committee on the Boundary..

Mr. SHANNON Submitted the following, which was adopted, viz :

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Convention return to the Governor all election papers and returns transmitted by him to this body, but that copies of the same be retained by the Secretary of the House.

The Convention then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Dimmick in the chair, upon the report of the Committee on the Constitution.

The question being taken on the first section, it was adopted, as follows:

The powers of government of the State of California shall be divided into three separate departments, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial; and no person charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments, shall exercise any function appeartaining to either of the others, except in the cases hereinafter expressly directed or permitted. The question was then taken on the next section, and it was adopted:

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.

SEC. 1. The legislative power of this State shall be vested in a Senate and Assembly, which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of California, and the style of their laws shall commence in the following manner: "The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows."

The second section being then under consideration, as follows:

2. The session of the Legislature shall be, and shall commence on the first Monday in January next ensuing the election of its members, unless the Governor of the State shall, in the interim, convene the Legislature by proclamation.

Mr. GWIN moved that the blank be filled with the word "biennial."

Mr. NORTON moved the word "annual."

Mr. SEMPLE had no idea that we should be able to make a Constitution here, which would last twenty or thirty years without alteration. The peculiar condition of the country is such as to render modification in legislation necessary, to meet the progressive changes of circumstances that must take place. He believed that the Legislature, by meeting only once in two years, would not be able to prepare such a code of laws as would be sufficient for California. For a few years, at least, it should meet annually. If a proviso was inserted, that after the first five years, the sessions should be biennial, then there might possibly be no objection. Gentlemen should remember that we have no organized code of laws. We are changing from one form of government very different from ours, to another, requiring a complete legislative reorganization. The Legislature must establish an entire code of laws. It will be impossible to keep members of the Legislature more than two or three months at the seat of Government. The rapid progress of affairs in this country, and the great value of time, would render a longer session impracticable. The first winter the Legislature will pass some of the most necessary laws, and probably the next improve and increase the code. If the people