Slike strani
PDF
ePub

14. The doors of each House shall be open, except on such occasions as, in the opinion of the House, may require secrecy.

15. Neither House shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which they may be sitting.

16. Any bill may originate in either House of the Legislature; and all bills passed by one House may be amended by the other.

The 17th Section being under consideration, as follows:

17. Every bill which may have passed the Legislature shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor. If he approve it, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the same upon the journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, it again pass both Houses, by yeas and nays, by a majority of two-thirds of the members of each House present, it shall become a law notwithstanding the Governor's objections. If any bill shall not be returned within ten days after it shall have been presented to him (Sunday excepted) the same shall become a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature, by adjournment, prevent such return.

Mr. JONES moved to amend the section by inserting the word "three," instead of "ten."

Mr. NORTON thought it was usual to give the Governor ten days to prepare his veto. It would be almost impossible to write it out in three days.

Mr. JONES said that many of the States allow five days. In the Constitution of Iowa the limit is three days. It is well known that most of the important bills are passed within the last ten days of the session. If the Governor has a right to pass a pocket veto on bills, he has within himself an absolute and uncontrollable veto power. The Governor is always found where the Legislature sits. He knows all the reasons for the passage of the law; and is advised of all the initiatory steps which have been taken. Why then should he not be able within three days to form an opinion upon almost any measure which might be passed through the Legislature? It is the case in Congress that the most important bills are passed at the close of the session, and would be much more likely to be the case in a State Legislature, where the bills are local and much less important. He (Mr. Jones) was democratically opposed to giving the Governor any power to pass a pocket veto upon the people.

Mr. NORTON said the gentleman's arguments would be very good if he did not base it altogether upon the assumption that the Governor would be a corrupt man. No Governor would dare to veto a bill in this manner. If a bill passed during the last few days of the session of the Legislature was radically wrong, the Governor would, in virtue of his power, veto it; but no Governor would assume the responsibility to veto a bill in this manner. If it is to be assumed that the Governor will violate his oath of office, then he should be deprived of the veto power altogether. He should either have no such power at all, or sufficient time to present his views, in the exercise of that power.

Mr. SHANNON suggested five days instead of three.

Mr. JONES accepted the amendment.

The question was then taken on striking out the word "ten" and substituting "five," and decided in the negative.

The 17th Section, as reported by the Committee, was then adopted.

Mr. DENT offered the following:

No bill shall become a law unless it receive the sanction of a majority of all the members of both Houses.

There might be a quorum which would consist of little more than a quarter of all the members. He thought no bill should become a law unless it received the sanction of a majority all the members of both Houses.

Mr. GWIN said this might be a very good regulation, but it was utterly impracticable under existing circumstances. It would be impossible to tell when a ma. jority was voting. Hence the provision would be a dead letter in the Constitution. Mr. JONES remarked that, if he remembered rightly, the Constitution of New Jersey said "persons present." He did not see how it was practicable at all times

to ascertain whether there was a majority of all the members elected-especially in this country, where it was necessary to act with locomotive speed.

Mr. SEMPLE had the Constitution of Illinois before him, which provides that all bills before they become laws shall be passed on the yeas and nays, and that the yeas and nays shall show a majority vote of all the members elected to both Houses. It seemed to him that the propriety of such a rule was evident. In the brief experience of this Convention, important measures had been carried when there was a bare quorum present. Although this might be admissable in Committee of the Whole, it was objectionable when measures of importance came up for final action. Very important bills might be passed in the Legislature by some understanding among the members, which would be directly contrary to the wishes of the people. He had seen it done He had seen members invited out on some pretence, for the purpose of getting bills passed. It seemed to him the best course that could be adopted to avoid what gentlemen were so apprehensive of—too much legislation. Where the propriety of a measure is at all doubtful, it is better that this restriction should prevail.

Mr. HALLECK said that, from the peculiar character of our population in Cali fornia, it would be very difficult for the first two or three Legislatures to get together more than a majority of the members elected. If we require the vote of a majority of those elected on every bill before it becomes a law, it may readily be anticipated that the Legislature will be obliged to home, or sit and talk to the walls. He thought it wou'd be very impolitic, for this reason, to introduce the proposed section.

The question was then taken on Mr. Dent's propositiou, and it was rejected. The question being on the adoption of the 18th Section, viz:

18. The Assembly shall have the sole power of impeachment; and all impeachments shall be tried by the Senate. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be upon oath or affirmation; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.

Mr. JONES moved to amend by inserting, in place of "Assembly," the words "House of Representatives." It was the ordinary phraseology, and he thought it would be better.

Mr. NORTON stated that the word Assembly was used in the preceding sections, and could not be altered here without changing the whole so as to correspond. Mr. JONES therefore withdrew his amendment, and the section, as reported by the Select Committee, was adopted.

The 19th Section was then read, as follows:

19. The Governor, shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office; but judgment, in such cases, shall extend only to removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust or profit under the State; but the party convicted or acquitted shall, nevertheless, be liable to indictment, trial, and punishment according to law. All other civil officers shall be tried for misdemeanors in office in such manner as the Legislature shall provide.

Mr. HALLECK proposed that the blank should be passed over for the present, as it would be necessary, before filling it, to determine what officers should be created. Mr. McCARVER saw no impropriety in creating those officers now, and filling the blank.

Mr. NORTON said the blank could not filled until the Constitution was formed. Mr. DIMMICK moved to insert the word "honor" before trust or profit; which was adopted.

The filling of the blank was then postponed, and the question recurring on the section as amended, it was adopted.

The 20th and 21st Sections were adopted without debate, as follows:

20. So Senator or member of Assembly shall, during the time he shall have been elected, be appointed to any civil office of profit under this State, which shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have been increased during such term, except such offices as may be filled by elections by the people.

21. No person holding any lucrative office under the United States or this State, or any other Power, shall be eligible to the Legislature. Provided, that officers in the militia, to which there.

is attached no annual salary, or local officers and postmasters, whose compensation does not exceed five hundred dollars per annum, shall not be demed lucrative.

The 22d Section being under consideration, as follows:

22. No person who may hereafter be a collector or holder of public moneys, shall have a seat in either House of the Legislature, or be eligible to any office of trust or profit under this State, until he shall have accounted for and paid into the treasury all sums for which he may be liable.

Mr. PRICE moved that the section be stricken out. He could see no good that could arise from it, and it might be the means of depriving an honest and worthy man of a seat in the Legislature. Many an honest man may be owing the State. It may be from no dishonesty on his part, but from various calamities beyond his control. He (Mr. Price) did not see that this section afforded any protection to the Government that there was any principle or restriction in it worthy of a place in the Constitution.

Mr. NORTON thought it a matter of very serious importance that persons holding office should be made accountable for the money placed in their hands. It is no small matter that the Government should be protected against dishonest men. Many public officers hold large amounts of money. The people should know where that money goes. If it has been fraudulently disposed of, the officer who commits the fraud should be ineligible to office. The gentleman says that a person holding public funds may be unfortunate in business, and unable to settle his accounts at the proper time. If so, he has no business in the Legislature. He should stay at home, and endeavor, by strict attention to business, to meet his liabilites. He has no business engaging in political contests.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT wished to know what object a defaulting officer would have in running for the Legislature, unless to propose and probably carry such measures as would free him from his indebtedness. He considered it a very important provision; that the door should be closed against persons of this character. Every member had seen the effects of the immense defalcations in the States, and should profit by past experience.

Mr. PRICE did not wish to be misunderstood in his remarks on this question. There was no member who would go further than he would in relation to accountability; but he saw nothing in this section to afford protection to the people of California. If any man is a defaulter in this country, the people know it. He is a marked man. If he has their money in his pocket, they know it, and they can act accordingly. He never can be supported by the people for any public office. But he (Mr. Price) contended that a man, by a series of calamities, may be indebted to the State, and at the same time bear as good a character, and be as well entitled to the respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens, as any person in the State. Yet, by this provision, a man who has not lost the respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens, is to be deprived of a seat in the Legislature, and rendered ineligible to any office of trust or profit. The people are competent to judge who shall represent them.

Mr. MCCARVER was decidedly in favor of the section. It is impossible for the people always to know whether public officers have settled their accounts. It should be made a constitutional requirement, so that they may be well advised of it at the time of election. No man should be allowed to be returned as an officer of the Government, if he be a defaulter. He (Mr. McCarver) was satisfied the community would be in favor of this measure.

The question was then taken on the 22d Section as reported, and it was adopted. Mr. MCDOUGAL thought there was some misunderstanding about this vote. The motion was to strike out the section, and the question was taken on its adoption. If the Chair decided that the section was adopted, he appealed from the decision. Mr. SHANNON asked whether it was the decision of the Chair that, when a mo. tion to strike out a section is made, that motion cannot be received, but that, in its place, the original question on the passage of the section must be put. If so, it would give rise to a great deal of misunderstanding.

THE CHAIR stated that the first question after the reading of the section, was, "Shall this section pass?" The motion to strike out was unnecessary, because if the House refused to adopt the section, it would of course be rejected or stricken out.

Mr. MCDOUGAL appealed from this decision. Whereupon, the question on the appeal was put, and the decision of the Chair sustained.

Mr. PRICE moved a reconsideration of the vote on the passage of the section, in order to allow the gentleman rrom Sacramento (Mr. Shannon,) an opportunity of submitting an amendment.

The question was taken, and the House refused to reconsider the vote on the adoption of the section.

The 23d Section was then read, and adopted without debate, as follows:

23. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

The 24th Section being under consideration, as follows:

24. The members of the Legislature shall receive for their services a compensation to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the public treasury; but no increase of the compensation shail take effect during the term for which the members of either House shall have been elected.

Mr. SEMPLE had always held the opinion that where time is concerned, it should not reach back beyond the adoption of the Constitution; but in this instance there is an obvious necessity for adding a proviso. The section itself is very good and should be adopted; but by amending it a little, it would obviate a difficulty upon his mind, and he had no doubt, upon the minds of other members. He referred to the necessity of this Convention making provision for the compensation of the first Legislature.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT suggested the propriety of saying "fixed," instead of "ascertained" by law.

Mr. CROSBY enquired of the gentleman (Mr. Wozencraft,) whether the compensation of the next Legislature was to be fixed in the schedule.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT said it was.

Mr. DENT supposed it would be much to the interest of the first Legislature that this matter should be settled by this Convention. He wished to know if the schedule was to be a portion of the Constitution, and whether it was to have the force of law. If the schedule had not that force, the compensation of members of the first Legislature would not be provided for.

Mr. GWIN read the 18th Section of the Constitution of Michigan, from which this section was copied, as follows, omitting the last clause :

The members of the Legislature shall receive for their services a compensation to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the public treasury; but no increase of the compensation shall take effect during the term for which the members of either House shall have been elected; and such compensation shall not exeeed

dollars a day.

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Wozencraft to insert "fixed" instead of "ascertained," it was carried, and the section as amended was adopted. The 25th and 26th Sections were then adopted without debate, viz:

25. Every law enacted by the Legislature, shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title; and no law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title, but in such case the act revised, or section amended, shall be re-enacted and published at length. 26. No divorce shall be granted by the Legislature.

The 27th Section being under consideration, as follows:

27. No lottery shall be authorised by this State, nor shall the sale of lottery tickets be allowed. Mr. PRICE moved to strike out this section. He believed it to be exceedingly impolitic to prohibit the drawing of lotteries in this country. It might be made a source of great revenue to this State, and however objectionable the principle was, yet he believed it was better in some cases to legalize immoral acts than to have them done in secret. He was opposed to restricting future Legislatures in relation to this matter. He thought it should be left to the people to prohibit lotteries

or not, as they deemed expedient. He regarded the propriety of this policy as too palpable to require an elaborate argument. He wished gentlemen to reflect before they forever prohibited lotteries in California. He was opposed to the system himself, and would be sorry to see it legalized; but he believed it was a necessary evil in California at this time. Three hundred thousand dollars could be raised annually by the State for the privilege of lotteries. This would be a great relief under the embarrassing position that the State will be placed in when the new. government goes into operation, owing to the difficulty of organizing a perfect system of taxation. It would be a very essential relief to the people, and would defray the expenses of their Legislature until better means of obtaining the full amount of taxes necessary to defray the expenses of the government are established.

Mr. McCARVER thought it very strange if the people of this golden region could not defray the expenses of a State government without entering into a legalized system of gambling. If the government that authorizes the sale of lottery tickets, and the purchasers of those tickets were not direct gamblers, they certainly were on the road to professional gambling.

Mr. HOPPE looked upon this as a very important question. He admitted the fact stated by his friend from San Francisco, (Mr. Price,) that the State of California would probably receive from the privilege of lottery-drawing, three hundred thousand dollars annually; and he admitted that it was a very desirable acquisition of revenue. But there is another question involved in the adoption of this section-a question of far greater importance than money. It concerns the wellbeing of society, and the permanent industrial interests of the State. The system is not only objectionable in itself, but it is peculiarly objectionable in this country, where the temptation to gamble is so great. The effects are most deeply felt by those who are least able to sustain them. It penetrates to the domestic circle; it destroys the happiness of families, and falls with a peculiar weight upon the widow and the orphan. He appealed to this House not to sanction a principle so fatal to the best interests of society, by striking out the section.

Mr. SHANNON said he would sustain the motion of the gentleman from San Francisco, (Mr. Price,) in accordance with the principle which he had advocated when the subject of lotteries was brought up in the bill of rights. He thought it should be left to the Legislature. He did not conceive that there was a greater amount of wisdom, including the gray hairs, in this Convention, than there would be in the future Legislatures of the State; nor was it proper to prevent those bodies from adopting such measures of general policy as they might deem expedient. He desired to leave the Legislature untrammelled. It was sufficient to lay down the broad fundamental principles of a republican form of Government, without assuming to deprive the people of the right to pass such laws, not inconsistent with those principles, as they thought proper.

Mr. DENT was opposed to the amendment. He believed the State should be prohibited from indulging in a practice which was condemned in individuals. The State should not be permitted to derive its nourishment from the destruction of its members. If the practice is objectionable in individuals, it is still more so in a Government, which professes to be the guardian of individuals, and the protector of their interests. He thought other means of obtaining revenue for the support of the Government could be resorted to, more honorable than a legalized system of gambling.

Mr. PRICE admitted that he was entirely floored by the remarks of his friend from San Jose, (Mr. Hoppe,) who had posted him up on morals. He (Mr. Price) contended that the people of California are essentially a gambling people at this period, and it was no use to back out of that position. Every public house in California has its monte and faro tables, licensed by law, wherever there is law. Hundreds are to be seen at these houses casting their money on the chance of the game. He wished to know if lotteries were more immoral than establishments of this kind. Had the gentleman (Mr. Hoppe) denounced these gambling houses

« PrejšnjaNaprej »