tion is the fact that he has the certificate in his pocket. I contend, that to make this a penal offence would not only be unjust and impolitic, but would jeopard the Constitution itself.

Mr. GWIN. I do not intend that the vote shall be taken on my amendment under a misapprehension. Every person who has any knowledge of commercial affairs knows that what the gentleman from Sonoma (Mr. Semple) refers to in the Island of Cuba is a mere matter of convenience in the absence of banks. It is the commercail way of transacting business, and as a certificate of deposit in a commercial point of view, it has no bearing upon the point at issue. It is not circulating it as money to transfer it from one portion of the country to another. It is purely a commercial transaction; it is commercial paper for commercial purposes. But if the gentleman deposits $1,000 and takes out a thousand dollars in five and ten dollar notes, expressly to circulate as money, and puts them in circulation throughout this country, then it is money, and that is what this amendment is intended to cover. As to the necessity of these associations for the benefit of the commercial community, it is notorious that they are not wanted. In San Fran. cisco there are associations now, that, instead of charging for the deposit of gold and silver, are willing to pay a premium on deposits. No commercial community requires any legislative interference with their manner of depositing. What the gentleman speaks of as to the convenience, in the case to which he alludes in Alabama, refers merely to a bank check. It is not money, and it is not circulating it as money to send it from Alabama to be paid in Philadelphia. This amendment is to prohibit the circulation of certificates of deposit as money.

Mr. HALLECK. Several gentlemen who have agreed to these sections as they were first offered by the Committee, and who are very anxious to obviate the ob jections which have been made, have proposed an amendment very slightly differing from the amendment of the gentleman from San Francisco, in order that there may be unanimity not only in the Committee, but in the House and out of the House, on this subject. I now offer it as an amendment to his amendment, putting in the restrictions which he has there, but not making it a penal offence. This amendment is to commence after the words as they now stand in the section, as follows:

But no such association shall make, issue, or put in circulation, any bill, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note, or other paper, or the paper of any bank, to circulate as money.

Mr. BOTTS. I should like to know, if that amendment is adopted, what would be the result if any individual should issue paper under these circumstances. I suppose you would say it was a violation of the Constitution: that is the only restraint or punishment so far as I can see. I submit it to gentlemen who honestly. want some restraint, if that satisfies them?

Mr. HASTINGS. The gentleman will see, upon a little further reflection, in what position that individual would place himself. He violates the Constitution, it is true; but he is subject to any law that the Legislature may enact to punish him. The Legislature may make it penal. We are forming an organic law of the State, and not passing penal enactments. The Legislature may pass such laws as it deems necessary to sustain the provisions of the Constitution. We are not legislating; nor were we legislating, as the gentleman from Monterey justly contended, when we were debating the bill of rights. Has the nature of our duties changed because we have arrived at another part of the Constitution? I think such a doctrine as that will hardly be maintained. I am prepared to vote for the amendment as it now stands.

The question being on Mr. Halleck's amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Gwin, it was adopted.

Mr. Gwin's amendment, as amended, was then adopted.

The question then recurring on the 34th section, as amended—

Mr. DIMMICK. It seems that we have now arrived at the main question before the House. I am opposed to the adoption of that article. It introduces a provi

sion which I consider dangerous and unnecessary. The business of the country has been transacted very well so far, without associations of this kind, created by legislative enactment. Private individuals have accomplished all that is intended, or can be done, by such associations as are now to be incorporated by the Legisla ure. Individuals at the present time receive money on deposite and issue certificates; which amount to nothing more, in my opinion, than evidence in the possession of the holder that he has at such a place deposited so much money. What will your incorporated associations do more than this? The individual brings his money and deposits it; he will receive a certificate, which is evidence of the deposit. Now, sir, I contend that an individual can receive money on deposit cheaper than an association. He is not compelled to devote all his time to this business. An association must have its officers; its President, Cashier, Teller, and such others as may be necessary. These officers must have large salaries for their support; for people who enter into associations of this kind do so to make money. When all these items of expense are combined, the result will be that a proportionate tax must be levied on the money deposited. Individuals in San Francisco, I am informed, now tax in proportion to the money deposited, where they receive it simply on deposit; but where they have the privilege of investing it in their bu siness transactions, they charge nothing. In the latter case, if the money is destroyed, the person who deposits it loses it in consequence of there being no consideration; but in the other case, where he pays for his deposit, the individual who receives it would be held accountable, because he undertakes it for a consideration. I conceive, sir, that individual enterprise can do more than these corporations, which it is intended shall be authorized by law. The object can be accomplished on better terms, because their expenses are less, and the community will always know where to find the most reliable places of deposit without legislative interference. Why then encumber the Constitution with grants of power which can have no beneficial effect? I consider that this clause is only an encumbrance to the Constitution, and shall therefore vote against its adoption.

The section, as amended, was then read by the Secretary and adopted, as follows: 34. The Legislature shall have no power to pass any act granting any charter for banking purposes; but associations may be formed under general laws for the deposit of gold and silver. But no such association shall make, issue, or put in circulation, any bill, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note, or other paper, or the paper of any bank, to circulate as money.

The question being on the adoption of the 35th section, viz:

35. The Legislature shall have no power to pass any law sanctioning, in any manner, directly or indirectly, the issuing of bank notes of any description.

Mr. HASTINGS said it contained, substantially, the same prohibition as that. which had just been adopted. He therefore moved to strike it out.

Mr. HALLECK was also of opinion that the two sections covered the same ob. ject, and therefore concurred in the propriety of striking out the latter.

Mr. HASTINGS compared them; and, the question being taken, the 35th section I was stricken out.

Mr. WOZENCRAFT offered the following in lieu of the section stricken out :

35. The Legislature of this State shall prohibit, by law, any person or persons, association, company, or corporation, from exercising the privileges of banking, or creating paper to circulate as

money..

Mr. JONES. I voted in favor of striking out the 35th section for the express purpose of proposing that which my colleague has anticipated me in. The Com. mittee has at length gct itself into the predicament of having prohibited the Legislature from granting any charter for banking purposes; and, at the same time, tacitly allowing any person or persons, associations or companies, except those particular associations named in the article just passed, to exercise any of the pri vileges of banking. I claim to understand English when it is read to me plainly; and I think if gentlemen will closely examine this section they will find that interpretation to be a just one. There is no prohibition against banking, in so far as

it refers to associations for other purposes. I ask for the reading of the whole section, as amended and passed.

The Secretary thereupon read the 34th section.

The question then being on the 35th section, as proposed by Mr. Wozencraft, it was adopted.

The 36th section of the report of the Committee being under consideration, as follows:

36. The stockholders of every corporation or joint stock association shall be individually responsible to the amount of their respective share or shares of stock in any such corporation or association for all its debts and liabilities of every kind.

Mr. JONES moved to strike out the section and insert the following; which was adopted, viz:

36. Each stockholder of a corporation or joint stock association shall be individually and personally liable for his proportion of all its debts and liabilities.

The 37th and 38th sections were then passed, without debate, as follows:

37. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide for the organization of cities and incorporated villages, and to restrict their powers of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit, so as to prevent abuses in their assessments and in contracting debts by such municipal corporations.

3

38. In all elections by the Legislature the members thereof shall vote viva voce, and the votes shall be entered upon the journal.

Mr. ORD then offered the following:

No person, while he continues to exercise the functions of a clergyman, priest, or teacher of any religious persuasion, society, or sect, shall be eligible to the Legislature.

Mr. NORTON. You might as well say a lawyer should not have a seat in the Legislature.

Mr. JONES. If this question is to be debated, I move the Committee rise and report progress.

The motion was decided in the negative.

Mr. SHANNON. I voted the other day against introducing restrictions of this character in the Constitution. We have no right to dictate to the people what shall be the professional character of their representatives. I am in favor of leaving it to themselves to determine from among what classes or professions they shall select persons to represent them in the Legislature. If they think fit to select a priest, let them do so if they choose. Why, sir, you are assuming despotic powers when you attempt, through your Constitution, to tell the people they shall not select their own candidates. This was one of the restrictions contained in the old Constitution of New York; but which, with all other restrictions of that character, was stricken out by the Convention of 1846. It was regarded there as an anti-republican principle and totally inconsistent with the spirit of our institutions. Upon this broad principle, that the people of the State have a right to select their representatives from whatever profession or class of society they choose, I shall oppose the introduction of the proposed section.

Mr. HASTINGS. I move to amend it by inserting the words "Lawyers, physi cians, or merchants." If ministers of the gospel are to be excluded, we must act impartially and exclude other classes of men.

Mr. SHANNON. Will the gentleman be so good as to introduce "miners his list?

in

Mr. HASTINGS. I think, sir, that a minister of the gospel would make a better legislator than a lawyer-far less troublesome, at all events; and probably quite as good as a merchant. I am opposed to the principle of allowing ministers of the gospel to legislate for me-unless the people elect them. They must be the judges of these things. If there is any prohibition against ministers, or priests, it should extend to all other professions. A good honest preacher, who has the morals of the community at heart, would make one of the best legislators in the world. To prevent further discussion, however, I withdraw my amendment.

The question was then taken on the proposed section, and it was rejected. Mr. GWIN. I have one word to say in regard to an absent member of this House. General McCarver, who is now absent on account of sickness, has been two or three days watching for the 37th section to come up, so that he could offer his free negro amendment. It is a subject in which he takes a deep interest, and I hope the Committee, without proceeding any further, will now rise.

The motion was adopted, and the House then adjourned till 12 o'clock to-mor

row.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1849.

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. Prayer by the Rev. T. D. Hunt. The journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Mr. STEUART, a member from San Francisco, elect, appeared, was sworn, and took his seat.

Some conversation here occurred on a motion of Mr. Shannon, relative to the absence of two members without leave; but the motion was finally withdrawn.

Mr. NORTON, from the Committee on the Constitution, made a report in writing, being Article VI, on "the militia," Article VII, on "State debts," Article IX, on the "mode of amending and revising the Constitution ;" which, on motion of Mr. GILBERT, was received, and referred to the Committee of the Whole.

On motion of Mr. McCARVER, the House then resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Jones in the Chair, on the report of the Committee on the Constitution.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

Mr. McCARVER then moved the following section :

39. The Legislature shall, at its first session, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this State for the purpose of setting them free.

Mr. MCCARVER. This is the article which I offered to the House some time ago. I withdrew it at the suggestion of several gentlemen who thought it would be more appropriate in another part of the Constitution.

I have no doubt, sir, that every member of this House is aware of the dangerous position in which this country is placed, owing to the inducements existing here for slaveholders to bring their slaves to California and set them free. I am myself acquainted with a number of individuals who, I am informed, are now preparing to bring their slaves here upon indentures and set them free. I hold it to be a correct doctrine, sir, that every State has a right to protect itself against an evil so enormous as this. No population that could be brought within the limits of our Territory could be more repugnant to the feelings of the people, or injurious to the prosperity of the community, than free negroes. They are idle in their habits, difficult to be governed by the laws, thriftless, and uneducated. It is a species of population that this country should particularly guard against. I believe large numbers will be brought here and thrown upon the community in a short time, unless we take urgent measures to prohibit their introduction. No measure would be more effectual, in my opinion, than this provision in our fundamental law. If it does not produce the desired effect, the Legislature can pass such penal enactments as will enforce it. In Illinois an effort of this kind was made, and finding they were unable to carry the measure in the Convention, they left it to the vote of the people of the State whether it was to be appended to the Constitution or not. What was the result? A majority of twenty thousand of the voters of the State were in favor of it. And, sir, I am of opinion that a greater number of votes would be given in favor of it here, because the dangers to which this country is exposed, from the superior inducements presented, would be so much greater. They have not gold mines such as we have here, in Illinois. Even the slaveholding States have made provisions to prevent the immigration of free negroes within their bor.

ders. If they have that privilege, it surely will not be denied to us. I have been informed by gentlemen that they have received letters from the States, stating that in a short time from this hundreds of negroes would be brought here for the purpose of being liberated after they have worked a short time in the gold mines. What will be the result? Do you suppose the white population of this country will permit these negroes to compete with them in working the mines? Sir, you will see the most fearful collisions that have ever been presented in any country. You will see the same feeling, only to a much greater extent, that has already been manifested against the foreigners of Chili. It is the duty of the Legislature to provide against these collisions. The opportunity is now presented. I am sat. isfied that every gentleman in this House will see the propriety of such a measure. I believe it to be equally as essential to the prosperity of this country as the prohibition of slavery. The evil would be greater than that of slavery itself. I therefore submit the proposition to the kind consideration of the House, in the hope that it may become a part of the Constitution.

Mr. SEMPLE. This is a subject upon which I had reflected very seriously be. fore coming to Monterey. During the month between the election and the assembling of this Convention, I took a great deal of pains to enquire among my constituents whether such a measure would meet with their approbation. found no man in my district who did not approve of it; and I have been informed, since my arrival here, that it is altogether likely, if this measure is not adopted in the Constitution, we will have free negroes brought in very soon by thousands. The few who are now here cannot be regarded as an evil of any great extent. They are not sufficient in number to be a disadvantage to the community. But that portion of our population will be immensely large if emancipated slaves-not free negroes-not freemen-but emancipated slaves, directly from the slave States, are permitted to be introduced. Sir, it would be one of the greatest curses that could be entailed upon California. Let us look at the inducements and see whether these fears are without foundation; let us see what is the probable value per annum of an able bodied negro man in the Southern States. They hire there at from sixty to a hundred dollars a year. I have known them to hire there for as much as two hundred; but never more. I was raised in a slave State; and I believe they more frequently hire at a less sum than sixty dollars, than over that amount. Let gentlemen reflect for a moment, and see how many of these negroes are producing their absolute value-paying interest on cost. The life estate is from four to six hundred dollars. Physicians fees and occasionally other expenses have to be deducted out of their hire-so that the income from this sort of property at the present period is very small. Suppose you pay seven hundred dollars to get a slave here, and set him free, on condition that he shall serve you for one year. He produces, according to the ordinary rates in the mines, from two to six thousand dollars. There are many of our Southern friends who would be glad to set their negroes free and bring them here, if they produced only half of that amount. When the terms of the contract have expired what would these slaves do? They would become a burthen on the community. And I can assure you, sir, thousands will be introduced into this country before long, if you do not insert a positive prohibition against them in your Constitution—an immense and overwhelming population of negroes, who have never been freemen; who have never been accustomed to provide for themselves. What would be the state of things in a few years? The whole country would be filled with emancipated slavesthe worst species of population-prepared to do nothing but steal, or live upon our means as paupers. I do not see any objection to passing this resolution. There is no opposition to it throughout the country. It will be a strong recommendation to the Constitution, and give it many votes in the community which may not otherwise be cast for it.

Mr. SHANNON. I presume, Mr. Chairman, that I shall stand nearly alone in a minority on this subject, but I cannot let it pass without at least expressing some