find that annual meetings of the Legislature are oppressive, they can very easily change to biennial.

Mr. GWIN said his motion had direct reference to one great question-the enor. mous expense entailed upon the public, by frequent elections and frequent legisla tures. He knew by experience that the legislative action of all new bodies is basty, and if we expected to have a correct system of laws, we would be compel. led to establish a commissioner or commissioners to prepare a system for the consideration of the Legislature. It is impossible for us to adopt a system of laws, by frequent sessions of the Legislature. In the present state of the country, the expense of frequent elections will be so extraordinary, as to give rise to great in convenience. The power of convening the Legislature, in all cases of necessity, rests with the Governor. It can be assembled when required. Experience has shown the evils of excessive legislation. Laws should be well tested before changes are made. All the new States have biennial Legislatures. We comcommence with Texas-a Territory somewhat similar in the character of its popu ulation to this. The sessions of its Legislature are biennial. So also, with Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan. All the new border States have biennial sessions. Look at the difference in the expense there and here. A member of the Legislature gets but two dollars a day in Iowa. The Legislature is not permitted to sit more than fifty days, at that rate. If its sessions are prolonged beyond that period, the mem. bers get but one dollar a day. It has been well demonstrated by experience, that in new States, the hasty passage of laws is a source of great evil. Of all the States in the confederacy, California requires most an efficient system of laws, and she is the last State that should multiply the expenses of government, by hav ing frequent meetings of the Legislature. The Government, in the most economi. cal form, will be expensive enough.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT said he had a resolution to offer which he thought would meet the difficulty of the gentleman from Sonoma (Mr. Semple.) He notified the House that at a suitable time, he would submit a resolution for the appointment of a commission of three persons to form a code of laws, to be submitted to the Legislature at its first session. He was in favor of biennial sessions. He thought they would be sufficient, and would avoid the difficulty arising from excessive legislation.

Mr. NORTON did not see that we had any power to appoint such a commission as the gentlemen proposed. What authority had members of this Convention to appoint three persons to form a code of laws for the Legislature? He thought it absolutely essential that the sessions of the Legislature should be annual. We have no laws here. It has been impossible to ascertain what the law is, or to enforce it. The Mexican system, as retained under the existing civil government, is repugnant to the feelings of American citizens. It is too late for them to learn any other system than that to which they have been accustomed. The Legisla ture of California will therefore have a great deal of work to do. It is said that in new States, there is great danger of hasty legislation. He would ask if there is as much danger in the case of a Legislature that meets once a year, as in that of one that meets once in two years? If the business of two years is crowded into one session, is there not more danger of imperfect legislation, than when there are two sessions within the same period, to perform the same work? It is very desirable that the Legislature should meet and proceed at once to form a system of laws, so that the people may know what laws they are living under. This cannot be done in a country like this, so rapidly increasing in population and wealth, at one meeting of the Legislature. Another Legislature must soon convene, to complete the work of the last, and provide new laws to meet the exigencies of events. Gentlemen say there will be great expense in meeting once a year. What of that? Our means will be proportionate to the expense. have great wealth here. If it is necessary at all to have a Legislature, we

We

have the means to pay for it. We are not the people to say, we cannot have such a government as we require, because we are too poor to pay for it.

Or

Mr. HALLECK agreed with the gentleman last up, (Mr. Norton,) in regard to annual sessions. If there is a country in the world, at the present time, that requires the Legislature to meet at least once a year, it is California. Let us suppose that, by our Constitution, when it is adopted by the people, we call a session of the Legislature on the 1st day of January next. In all probability, as the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) said, we may have hasty legislation. This is a very strong reason why we should have a remedy as soon as possible. Are we to wait two years before we can correct the laws made by that body? shall another body be called into session the next year to correct these evils? Has not every citizen already felt the great inconvenience of the want of legislative power, to make new laws, to provide for the peculiar circumstances of the country? The people should have the power of convening the Legislature at least once a year, to meet the extraordinary changes that must take place. We have been constantly told on this floor, that there is an immense emigration directing its course into California. That emigration will be for the next four or five years, floating about from one portion of the country to another. Laws made by one Legislature for the government of one portion of the Territory, may dered unnecessary, and new laws for the government of other portions may be required in less than two years. Let us suppose that all this emigration should be fixed in the valley of the Sacramento or San Joaquin. A Legislature passes laws Are we to for the government of that people. In six months after, the mines in the southern portion of the country draw the flood of emigration in that direction. wait two years before the Legislature can meet to provide for that portion of our population? Why throw upon the Governor the responsibility of judging what is necessary to be done! If you think proper, you may limit the duration of the ses sion to a certain number of days or months, but they should at least be annual.

be ren

Mr. BOTTS believed that, for the first time, he was about to find himself in the majority. He would endeavor to make sure of it, by adding a few remarks to those just made. For his own part he was in favor of the annual meeting of the Legislature. He had one great test to which he submitted all these questionsthe principles of the Democratic party. When he subjected the gentleman's biennial proposition to that test, he found it wanting. He was very well aware that there would be hasty legislation. The people of California are fallible; they will make mistakes; but when they do they want the opportunity to correct them. They will not be content that any one man power should govern them in retract. ing or improving the laws which they may make. Suppose the Governor should think a very good law passed by the people in their legislative capacity, an oppressive one? He has power to convene the Legislature at any time, thereby subjecting the people to great inconvenience, and, probably, serious injury. He is to judge of the necessity. We are told that annual meetings of the Legislature are expensive. Why should we be threatened continually with this dreadful bug. bear of expense? It is true legislation is expensive in California. So is everything else. But the people are the most wealthy in the world, and the best capa. ble of defraying these expenses. The quantity of the circulating medium, which is the bullion of the country, is greater than in any other State of the Union. When this ceases to be the case, everything will come down to a proportionate of legisla. standard. The same relative proportion exists between the expense tion here and elsewhere. If prices are higher nominally, there are more abun dant means of meeting them. The people of California should not be debarred from the privilege of being constantly heard in their legislative assembly on the plea of want of pecuniary means to defray the necessary expenses. It appeared to him (Mr. Botts) a little singular, that gentlemen who were so devoted to pre cedents who were so afraid of novelties-who hugged the shore and never ventured out to sea-who always recommended some clause or provision, because it

was to be found somewhere else, should now recommend the latest and newest and most untried policy. The biennal provision is one of recent enactment. He called upon gentlemen who were opposed to novelties and untried experiments, to go with him for the old settled principle of annual legislation.

Mr. McCARVER said that the only objection he had to annual sessions of the Legislature was this: there are no lands owned and occupied as yet in California, except a few large tracts. To place an ordinary tax on these lands would make it very oppressive. A capitation tax to defray the expense of annual sessions would probably be equally objectionable. It is revolting to man to be obliged to pay for his head. For these reasons, he thought it would be better to meet biennially. The system had been adopted in the new States, and it was found to work admirably.

Mr. BOTTS wished to know if the gentleman meant to say that his constituents would rather pay two dollars and a half, if it was called a tax upon the man, than two dollars for his head.

Mr. McCARVER merely referred to the general principle as objectionable. Mr. SEMPLE rose to pledge his constituents for their share of taxation. He was sent here by them to assist in making such a Constitution as would protect them in all their rights and property. act, they would never complain of. It would be easy to make the sessions of the Whatever tax was put upon them by their own Legislature biennial, when the necessity of such a change was demanded by cir

cumstances.

Mr. SHANNON Would not say a word but for the allusion of the gentleman from Sonoma, (Mr. Semple,) to the people of that district. His (Mr. Shannon's) constituents, the people of Sacramento, were as willing and as able as any in California to pay taxes. They wanted a good government, no matter what the expense might be, and he believed they would require annual sessions of the Legislature. Mr. SNYDER stated that he had before him a map of California, and that he understood an effort would be made in this House to establish, as the boundary line of the State, the entire territory known as California. Now if the boundary line should take in the whole of California, there would be certain members from the Salt Lake region, who never would be able to get home if the Legislature met annually. At the close of the session they might start homeward, but they would be compelled to turn back before they got beyond the Sierra Nevada, in order to be at the seat of government in time for the next session.

Mr. GILBERT said it seemed to him that this question of annual and biennial sessions was one that admitted of very little doubt in favor of annual sessions. One of the essential reasons why this Convention was assembled here, was to provide the means of proper legislation. His colleague from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin,) cited the examples of the new States in favor of biennial sessions. From a speech made by that gentleman a day or two since, it would seem that these new States enjoyed from seven to thirty years experience under Territorial forms of government. There was comparatively but little change to make in their laws. That very fact would go to show the absolute necessity of annual Legislatures here. It is notorious that the laws now in force, are repugnant to the feelings, education, and habits of the great majority of the people. These laws cannot be discontinued, and such laws enacted in their place as the wants of the people may require, by biennial sessions of the Legislature. It appeared to him that nothing but annual sessions would answer the demands of the community. It might not be necessary to continue the annual meetings more than four or five years, but it should be left to the people to determine upon the expediency of a change, at the expiration of that time.

Mr. GWIN did not wish to trespass upon the patience of the House, but as he was contending for an important principle he desired to reply to some remarks which had been made during the debate. When he spoke of hasty legislation he did not intend to be understood as stating that one Legislature would meet this

It is not year, and another would meet next year to repeal its acts. Legislatures meet for other purposes-to provide for the increasing wants of the community. the hasty action of a preceeding Legislature that is repealed; it is the accumulation of laws that requires a remedy. If all the laws of all the States of this Union, that have been passed and repealed, were collected together, they would fill this laws. If he (Mr. hall. The world is governed too much. We have too many Gwin) had happened to come from Virginia, the gentleman from Monterey (Mr. Botts) would not have been so indignant. There is no danger of not having laws enough. The great danger is that we shall have too many. It was probable the first Legislature would have to remain in session a long time, in order to pass such His only desire was to have laws as would meet the demands of the community. a good system of laws established. It was with this view that he proposed a com. mission to digest, in advance, a code of laws for the action of the Legislature, and If this he desired that the first Legislature that met after the adoption of the Constitution should have full and ample time to provide for the wants of the country. system of biennial sessions is so inexpedient, how is it that it has been adopted in most of the States? As to the system of laws referred to as growing up under the Territorial form of government, it was well known that the first session of a State Legislature is always the longest. After that, the less legislation, unless to meet pressing emergencies, the better. We are not to legislate for a wandering and changing population. The miners will have their home, and there will not be that fluctuating population which gentlemen imagine. People who come here will find it to their interest to become permanent residents of the country. He would not attempt to argue the question, however, for he had no feeling on the subject. It merely occurred to him that it would be to the interest of the people to be subjected to as little expense as possible, and to have no more legislation. than was actually necessary.

The gen

Mr. SHERWOOD said that this question was a matter of principle with him. Econo. If he was satisfied that my should be studied by wealthy people as well as poor. the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco (Mr. Gwin) would be more economical, and better calculated to promote the interests of the people, he would most cordially sustain it; but he did not believe such to be the case. tleman (Mr. Gwin) was opposed to accumulating laws. What effect would biennial sessions have in preventing the accumulation of laws? If the Legislature of California met once in two years, instead of sitting one month, it would probably remain in session two months. The amount of laws passed would be about the same; and so far as the question of economy is concerned, there would be nothing For public convenience annual sessions would be prefer gained in that respect. There is no State in the Union like Caliable. We are an anomalous people. fornia Rapid as has been the progress of the Western States, they are left far behind by the new Territory of the Pacific. Towns and cities spring up here in a month. The population is subject to extraordinary changes. It may number five thousand now in a certain district, and a year hence fifteen thousand. We have no pre-existing laws that can form the basis of our legislation. With all this new material in the country-without any previous territorial organization-we have to assemble together a Legislature to enact laws suitable to the condition of the country. It cannot be supposed that the wants of the people, at the outset, can Whatever be thoroughly understood by the first body that meets. The proposition to appoint a commission to prepare a code of laws should not be brought up now. may be its merits, it is entirely irrelevant to this question. Each Legislature that meets, for a few years to come, will undoubtedly have enough work to perform, allowing it annual sessions, to provide for the wants of the people. Suppose this House was transformed into a legislative body, who upon this floor is prepared to make the necessary laws for California-to lay out roads-to determine what pub lic officers shall be appointed-to provide for all the local wants of the community. This is a matter that requires experience. It cannot be done at once. Most of the

the people here are new comers, and those who will be sent to the Legislature from among them will require time to learn the wants of the districts which they represent. It is, therofore, absolutely necessary that the Legislature should meet. at least once a year for a few years-leaving it to the people, when they become more settled, to establish biennial sessions if they think proper. In regard to representation, if we meet but once in two years, there will be no representative apportionment for two years to come. To prevent that, we require annual sessions. Undoubtedly they will be short, and not expensive; because, in this Constitution, it seems to be the intention of the House to make it the duty of the Legislature to pass general laws, as far as practicable, instead of special laws. for particular purposes; which will greatly shorten legislation.

Mr. BROWN believed he would be in the minority on this question. It was a subject upon which he was very decided. Not only did he consider the question of economy involved in this case, but a question of much higher importancepublic interest. Annual meetings of the Legislature would, in his opinion, be most injudicious as well as most expensive. If the Legislature passed laws every twelve months, those laws would have to go before the people. They would probably be in operation but six months when a new code of laws would be established. Sufficient time should be given to test all legislative enactments. He was convinced that the sudden changing of laws is a source of great public inconvenience, and is always attended by serious loss to individuals. It requires time and experience to demonstrate the necessity of legislative reform. Laws may be ob jectionable in the beginning, from imperfect administration, but after being fairly tested they may prove most beneficial. If, within two years, experience establishes the propriety of reform, the laws can then be repealed or amended; but six months is an insufficient time. The gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gilbert,) urged this facility of speedily repealing laws as a strong argument in favor of annual sessions. He (Mr. Brown) considered it one of the greatest objections. It is impossible to get laws fairly in operation before the people in less than six months after their enactment, and six months would surely be too short a time to test these laws. In regard to the question of expense, it is the worst policy a State can adopt to establish an expensive system of government. No matter what may be the wealth of California, if her mountains were of pure gold, it would be inexpedient in her to lavish money in the commencement of her career as a State. It is impossible to say with certainty how long the mineral resources of California may hold out. We believe them to be inexhaustible, but it is only a matter of belief. Heavy taxation is always oppressive and unpopular. The question of taxation is one that involves the best interests of the community. It should be touched with a careful hand. Gentlemen boast of the wealth of their constituents in particular districts. It is not a matter to be considered here, whether this distriet or that is the richest. In forming this Constitution it is necessary to consider that it is not made for the benefit of particular localities, but for the whole people. He had no doubt there would be a general willingness on the part of the citizens of California to defray the necessary expenses of a good government; but it was for this Convention to adopt such a course of policy as would promote the permanent interests of the State. He believed, upon full consideration of the question, that on the score of economy and public convenience, biennial sessions of the Legislature would be most expedient, and he would therefore vote for the proposition of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Gwin.)

Mr. McCARVER desired to offer a resolution providing that the Legislature shall meet annually for the first three years, and after that biennially. It seemed to him that would cover the objections of gentlemen who apprehended inconvenience from the want of laws at the present time.

Mr. HALLECK suggested that the motion should be put on the longest time, which was the biennial sessions.